South Carolina

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0114th
  Defense+0.0566th
• 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.
  Offense37.2%13th
  Defense41.6%51st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3279th
  Defense+1.1972nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0126th
  Defense−0.0693rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0718th
  Defense+0.1944th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.5%21st
  Defense47.0%48th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense24.2%7th
  Defense29.3%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8944th
  Defense2.7078th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.2%68th
  Defense21.9%81st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.8%4th
  Defense16.0%55th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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. W
   VT
2. W
   SCST
3. L
   VAN
4. L
   MIZ
5. W
   UK
6. L
   LSU
7. L
   OU
8. L
   ALA
9. L
   MISS
10. L
    TA&M
11. W
    CCU
12. L
    CLEM

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

Players, 2025

1. LaNorris SellersQB333 plays · +0.213 pts/play · 55th of 231 QBs
   1.33WAR0.75 to 1.90
2. Rahsul FaisonRB105 plays · +0.101 pts/play · 109th of 365 RBs
   0.20WAR0.14 to 0.27
3. Nyck HarborWR38 plays · +0.276 pts/play · 74th of 451 WRs
   0.20WAR0.11 to 0.29
4. Mason LovePK47 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 4th of 112 kickers
   0.15WAR0.05 to 0.27
5. Oscar Adaway IIIRB30 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 275th of 365 RBs
   0.05WAR0.04 to 0.07
6. Brady HuntTE23 plays · +0.063 pts/play · 151st of 213 TEs
   0.03WAR0.00 to 0.06
7. Jordan DingleTE17 plays · +0.057 pts/play · 169th of 213 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.02 to 0.05
8. Mazeo Bennett Jr.WR6 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 401st of 451 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.03

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  83383318th of 134Roster talent: 833, 18th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24024018th of 134Recruiting: 240, 18th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%20th of 132Returning production: 63%, 20th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.9+5.948th of 134SP+ rating: +5.9, 48th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.12 of the 0.17 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 TA&MQ4 1:07 4th & 16 at SC 25, down 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.1 pts
2. at LSUQ4 8:46 4th & 20 at LSU 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
3. vs VANQ3 13:08 4th & 1 at SC 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs OUQ3 13:23 4th & 1 at SC 34, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs CLEMQ3 14:05 4th & 1 at SC 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs VTQ3 8:03 4th & 4 at VT 44, up 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
7. at MISSQ4 5:56 4th & 17 at MISS 40, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
8. vs UKQ3 4:04 4th & 12 at SC 29, up 18Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

115th of 136 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. W

   VT
2. W

   SCST
3. L

   VAN
4. L

   MIZ
5. W

   UK
6. L

   LSU
7. L

   OU
8. L

   ALA
9. L

   MISS
10. L

    TA&M
11. W

    CCU
12. L

    CLEM

What moved it, 2025

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−2.12
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.02
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.49

Game by game

• VTW 24-11 vs VT73% → 99%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• SCSTW 38-10 vs SCST99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• VANL 7-31 vs VAN55% → 0%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• MIZL 20-29 at MIZ26% → 3%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts +1
• UKW 35-13 vs UK70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts +1
• LSUL 10-20 at LSU26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Possession & field position −1
• OUL 7-26 vs OU37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −42, Clock −2
• ALAL 22-29 vs ALA20% → 8%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −29, Possession & field position −2
• MISSL 14-30 at MISS22% → 1%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −25, Timeouts −1
• TA&ML 30-31 at TA&M13% → 4%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −1
• CCUW 51-7 vs CCU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• CLEML 14-28 vs CLEM55% → 2%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −54: Scoreboard −58, Timeouts +3

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.