USC

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.3392nd
  Defense+0.1333rd
• 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.
  Offense51.8%95th
  Defense40.1%55th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2239th
  Defense+1.3420th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0943rd
  Defense−0.0272nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.5897th
  Defense+0.409th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense54.7%86th
  Defense44.6%63rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense43.7%96th
  Defense31.2%35th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2062nd
  Defense2.7565th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.7%50th
  Defense17.4%36th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense9.7%93rd
  Defense12.4%10th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 USC 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
   SJSU
2. W
   FRES
3. W
   UL
4. W
   RUTG
5. L
   ORE
6. W
   WASH
7. W
   PSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for USC.

Players, 2026

1. Jayden MaiavaQB164 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 3rd of 192 QBs
   0.70WAR0.46 to 0.93
2. King MillerRB78 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 13th of 320 RBs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.25
3. Kayden Dixon-WyattWR31 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 18th of 364 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
4. Tanook HinesWR24 plays · +0.202 pts/play · 50th of 364 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
5. Waymond JordanRB51 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 92nd of 320 RBs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.12
6. Mark BowmanTE15 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 37th of 164 TEs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
7. Lachlan CarriganP9 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 24th of 84 punters
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04
8. Terrell AndersonWR3 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 292nd of 364 WRs
   0.01WAR0.01 to 0.02

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 USC'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8998999th of 138Roster talent: 899, 9th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  27527510th of 138Recruiting: 275, 10th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  59%59%42nd of 136Returning production: 59%, 42nd of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +14.4+14.421st of 138SP+ rating so far: +14.4, 21st of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 USC's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.01 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. vs OREQ3 1:32 4th & 3 at ORE 12, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
2. at PSUQ2 7:42 4th & 10 at PSU 39, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
3. vs SJSUQ3 10:32 4th & 2 at USC 35, up 28Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts
4. at RUTGQ3 0:07 4th & 2 at USC 33, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

54th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   SJSU
2. W

   FRES
3. W

   UL
4. W

   RUTG
5. L

   ORE
6. W

   WASH
7. W

   PSU

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at USC'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+0.58
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.37

Game by game

• SJSUW 42-26 vs SJSU99% → 99%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +4
• FRESW 39-0 vs FRES94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +8
• ULW 49-30 vs UL97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +7
• RUTGW 42-35 at RUTG93% → 96%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• OREL 27-41 vs ORE42% → 2%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• WASHW 25-21 vs WASH75% → 96%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +3
• PSUW 31-23 at PSU63% → 98%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2

Points of win probability, from USC's side.

Closest call

SJSU 28-56 USC (2023) - USC dropped to a 2.6% win probability before pulling it out.