USC

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.2787th
  Defense+0.1354th
• 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.
  Offense44.7%66th
  Defense43.0%46th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3697th
  Defense+1.1570th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0736th
  Defense+0.0471st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4595th
  Defense+0.2247th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.1%36th
  Defense48.9%31st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.9%98th
  Defense29.8%79th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9046th
  Defense2.7861st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.2%53rd
  Defense18.7%39th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.4%90th
  Defense1.2%2nd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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
   FRES
2. W
   STAN
3. L
   BC
4. W
   ORST
5. L
   ASU
6. W
   ARIZ
7. W
   COLO
8. L
   UTAH
9. W
   WSU
10. W
    CAL
11. L
    UCLA
12. W
    ND
13. W
    NEB

Bars above the line: better than expected for USC.

Players, 2014

1. Cody KesslerQB408 plays · +0.262 pts/play · 26th of 199 QBs
   2.00WAR1.31 to 2.68
2. Javorius Allen?260 plays · +0.143 pts/play
   0.70WAR0.49 to 0.87
3. Nelson AgholorWR112 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 6th of 469 WRs
   0.44WAR0.26 to 0.62
4. Justin Davis?89 plays · +0.123 pts/play
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.27
5. JuJu SmithWR63 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 90th of 469 WRs
   0.18WAR0.10 to 0.26
6. Darreus RogersWR25 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 265th of 469 WRs
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12
7. Adoree' JacksonDB11 plays · +0.179 pts/play
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
8. Steven Mitchell Jr.WR6 plays · +0.053 pts/play · 434th of 469 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.17 of the 0.21 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 STANQ3 0:53 4th & 1 at STAN 7, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−4.7 pts
2. at STANQ4 2:30 4th & 5 at STAN 35, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
3. at UTAHQ3 12:36 4th & 1 at USC 43, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
4. vs ORSTQ2 0:00 4th & 15 at ORST 48, up 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
5. vs NEBQ4 9:43 4th & 1 at USC 38, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. at BCQ4 12:22 4th & 2 at USC 44, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
7. vs ASUQ4 0:23 4th & 12 at ASU 46, up 2Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
8. at WSUQ2 10:06 4th & 2 at USC 39, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

71st of 128 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

   FRES
2. W

   STAN
3. L

   BC
4. W

   ORST
5. L

   ASU
6. W

   ARIZ
7. W

   COLO
8. L

   UTAH
9. W

   WSU
10. W

    CAL
11. L

    UCLA
12. W

    ND
13. W

    NEB

What moved it, 2014

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+0.83
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.09

Game by game

• FRESW 52-13 vs FRES92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• STANW 13-10 at STAN39% → 94%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• BCL 31-37 at BC93% → 1%Before kickoff +43 · On the field −92: Scoreboard −53, Timeouts −1
• ORSTW 35-10 vs ORST83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +20
• ASUL 34-38 vs ASU78% → 5%Before kickoff +28 · On the field −73: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• ARIZW 28-26 at ARIZ62% → 94%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +44, Clock +3
• COLOW 56-28 vs COLO92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +10
• UTAHL 21-24 at UTAH57% → 18%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −19, Possession & field position −2
• WSUW 44-17 at WSU69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +36, Possession & field position +1
• CALW 38-30 vs CAL82% → 97%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +2
• UCLAL 20-38 at UCLA41% → 1%Before kickoff −9 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −37, Possession & field position −1
• NDW 49-14 vs ND70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +32
• NEBW 45-42 vs NEB66% → 86%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1

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.