South Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.1148th
  Defense+0.1340th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense40.7%35th
  Defense43.7%31st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3380th
  Defense+1.1782nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0311th
  Defense+0.0945th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2656th
  Defense+0.2728th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.0%47th
  Defense50.1%21st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.1%47th
  Defense28.7%67th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8014th
  Defense3.1636th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.5%46th
  Defense12.3%8th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.9%9th
  Defense15.9%45th

Percentiles among the 133 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2023

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what South Carolina allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. L
   UNC
2. W
   FUR
3. L
   UGA
4. W
   MSST
5. L
   TENN
6. L
   FLA
7. L
   MIZ
8. L
   TA&M
9. W
   JXST
10. W
    VAN
11. W
    UK
12. L
    CLEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for South Carolina.

Players, 2023

1. Spencer RattlerQB400 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 65th of 250 QBs
   1.34WAR0.50 to 2.24
2. Mario AndersonRB156 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 50th of 383 RBs
   0.36WAR0.24 to 0.49
3. Xavier LegetteWR87 plays · +0.157 pts/play · 35th of 457 WRs
   0.25WAR0.06 to 0.48
4. Trey KnoxTE32 plays · +0.246 pts/play · 28th of 212 TEs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.22
5. Mitch JeterPK13 plays · +0.400 pts/play · 39th of 113 kickers
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.12
6. Joshua SimonTE24 plays · +0.196 pts/play · 65th of 212 TEs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.16
7. Dakereon JoynerRB58 plays · +0.080 pts/play · 250th of 383 RBs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.14
8. Juju McDowellRB31 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 288th of 383 RBs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.09

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares South Carolina's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  76376322nd of 130Roster talent: 763, 22nd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  22122122nd of 130Recruiting: 221, 22nd of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  64%64%43rd of 128Returning production: 64%, 43rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +4.3+4.350th of 130SP+ rating: +4.3, 50th of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2023

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than South Carolina's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 of the 0.26 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at UNCQ3 9:54 4th & 17 at UNC 18, up 10Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−7.6 pts
2. vs JXSTQ3 2:50 4th & 1 at SC 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−4.2 pts
3. at UNCQ2 13:25 4th & 11 at UNC 22, tiedPunted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.9 pts
4. at UNCQ4 8:40 4th & 19 at SC 25, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.8 pts
5. at UNCQ4 3:23 4th & 21 at SC 22, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.7 pts
6. at MIZQ4 10:31 4th & 3 at MIZ 3, down 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at UNCQ2 0:18 4th & 13 at UNC 42, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
8. at UGAQ4 7:43 4th & 15 at SC 46, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

98th of 133 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up South Carolina's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   UNC
2. W

   FUR
3. L

   UGA
4. W

   MSST
5. L

   TENN
6. L

   FLA
7. L

   MIZ
8. L

   TA&M
9. W

   JXST
10. W

    VAN
11. W

    UK
12. L

    CLEM

What moved it, 2023

Every game starts at South Carolina's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−0.13
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.16

Game by game

• UNCL 17-31 at UNC55% → 98%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +48, Clock +2
• FURW 47-21 vs FUR87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +16
• UGAL 14-24 at UGA5% → 3%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −11, Timeouts −1
• MSSTW 37-30 vs MSST69% → 98%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +1
• TENNL 20-41 at TENN20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts +2
• FLAL 39-41 vs FLA52% → 7%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −51, Clock −3
• MIZL 12-34 at MIZ31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −32, Timeouts −1
• TA&ML 17-30 at TA&M14% → 1%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −19
• JXSTW 38-28 vs JXST89% → 97%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +16
• VANW 47-6 vs VAN84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts −1
• UKW 17-14 vs UK58% → 96%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• CLEML 7-16 vs CLEM30% → 2%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from South Carolina's side.

Closest call

SC 23-20 FLA (2014) - South Carolina dropped to a 4.3% win probability before pulling it out.