USC

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1877th
  Defense+0.0759th
• 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.
  Offense45.9%74th
  Defense44.1%39th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2157th
  Defense+1.1569th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1482nd
  Defense0.0074th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2570th
  Defense+0.1937th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.8%83rd
  Defense47.1%52nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.0%39th
  Defense37.3%19th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8954th
  Defense2.8748th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.0%46th
  Defense17.7%24th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.2%34th
  Defense1.4%12th

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, 2015

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
   ARST
2. W
   IDHO
3. L
   STAN
4. W
   ASU
5. L
   WASH
6. L
   ND
7. W
   UTAH
8. W
   CAL
9. W
   ARIZ
10. W
    COLO
11. L
    ORE
12. W
    UCLA
13. L
    STAN
14. L
    WIS

Bars above the line: better than expected for USC.

Players, 2015

1. Cody KesslerQB401 plays · +0.238 pts/play · 39th of 205 QBs
   1.79WAR1.15 to 2.42
2. JuJu Smith-SchusterWR107 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 17th of 411 WRs
   0.36WAR0.18 to 0.53
3. Ronald Jones II?127 plays · +0.148 pts/play
   0.35WAR0.24 to 0.46
4. Justin Davis?140 plays · +0.123 pts/play
   0.32WAR0.21 to 0.43
5. Tre MaddenLB64 plays · +0.117 pts/play
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.19
6. Alex WoodPK15 plays · +0.413 pts/play · 61st of 115 kickers
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.15
7. Darreus RogersWR32 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 217th of 411 WRs
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
8. Adoree' JacksonDB24 plays · +0.179 pts/play
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.12

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, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9279272nd of 128Roster talent: 927, 2nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2882883rd of 128Recruiting: 288, 3rd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  53%53%77th of 127Returning production: 53%, 77th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +16.8+16.817th of 128SP+ rating: +16.8, 17th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 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, 2015

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.07 of the 0.13 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 UCLAQ3 12:10 4th & 1 at USC 25, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
2. at CALQ4 9:39 4th & 1 at USC 39, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
3. at CALQ3 1:42 4th & 3 at CAL 27, up 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. vs UCLAQ2 2:47 4th & 3 at UCLA 4, down 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. at WISQ4 5:34 4th & 3 at USC 17, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs STANQ4 0:04 4th & 13 at STAN 23, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs UTAHQ2 11:26 4th & 4 at USC 47, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at COLOQ1 2:44 4th & 1 at USC 46, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

115th 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

   ARST
2. W

   IDHO
3. L

   STAN
4. W

   ASU
5. L

   WASH
6. L

   ND
7. W

   UTAH
8. W

   CAL
9. W

   ARIZ
10. W

    COLO
11. L

    ORE
12. W

    UCLA
13. L

    STAN
14. L

    WIS

What moved it, 2015

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−0.65
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.14

Game by game

• ARSTW 55-6 vs ARST96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• IDHOW 59-9 vs IDHO100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• STANL 31-41 vs STAN74% → 4%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −59, Clock −4
• ASUW 42-14 at ASU70% → 100%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +35, Clock +1
• WASHL 12-17 vs WASH90% → 5%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −86: Scoreboard −54, Clock −4
• NDL 31-41 at ND44% → 3%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −35, Possession & field position −1
• UTAHW 42-24 vs UTAH64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +38, Clock −2
• CALW 27-21 at CAL63% → 93%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +1
• ARIZW 38-30 vs ARIZ88% → 97%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +17
• COLOW 27-24 at COLO85% → 95%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +25, Clock +2
• OREL 28-48 at ORE49% → 0%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −1
• UCLAW 40-21 vs UCLA62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts −1
• STANL 22-41 at STAN42% → 2%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −38, Possession & field position +1
• WISL 21-23 at WIS64% → 5%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −39, Timeouts −3

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.