USC

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1978th
  Defense+0.0768th
• 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.
  Offense48.9%92nd
  Defense38.6%80th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1528th
  Defense+1.358th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0122nd
  Defense+0.0560th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3790th
  Defense+0.1165th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.0%87th
  Defense42.7%83rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense41.7%94th
  Defense30.7%79th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0154th
  Defense2.8461st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.7%54th
  Defense17.3%26th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.2%77th
  Defense18.2%76th

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, 2016

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. L
   ALA
2. W
   USU
3. L
   STAN
4. L
   UTAH
5. W
   ASU
6. W
   COLO
7. W
   ARIZ
8. W
   CAL
9. W
   ORE
10. W
    WASH
11. W
    UCLA
12. W
    ND
13. W
    PSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for USC.

Players, 2016

1. Sam DarnoldQB367 plays · +0.288 pts/play · 22nd of 218 QBs
   1.98WAR1.35 to 2.54
2. Ronald Jones II?147 plays · +0.204 pts/play
   0.56WAR0.40 to 0.74
3. Justin Davis?105 plays · +0.166 pts/play
   0.33WAR0.23 to 0.43
4. JuJu Smith-SchusterWR83 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 25th of 417 WRs
   0.30WAR0.19 to 0.40
5. Max BrowneQB77 plays · +0.174 pts/play · 157th of 218 QBs
   0.25WAR0.15 to 0.35
6. Darreus RogersWR68 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 82nd of 417 WRs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.29
7. Deontay BurnettWR62 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 122nd of 417 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.23
8. Matt BoermeesterPK16 plays · +0.428 pts/play · 37th of 116 kickers
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9379372nd of 128Roster talent: 937, 2nd of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2832835th of 128Recruiting: 283, 5th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  61%61%78th of 128Returning production: 61%, 78th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +23.6+23.68th of 128SP+ rating: +23.6, 8th 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, 2016

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 0.10 of the 0.16 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 UTAHQ4 5:37 4th & 3 at UTAH 37, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.0 pts
2. at WASHQ4 4:17 4th & 1 at midfield, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
3. at WASHQ3 8:41 4th & 2 at USC 40, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
4. at ALAQ3 12:47 4th & 13 at USC 30, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.1 pts
5. at PSUQ4 3:56 4th & 10 at USC 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at UTAHQ4 14:55 4th & 3 at UTAH 25, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. vs ASUQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at USC 31, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at ARIZQ2 6:16 4th & 3 at midfield, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

15th 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. L

   ALA
2. W

   USU
3. L

   STAN
4. L

   UTAH
5. W

   ASU
6. W

   COLO
7. W

   ARIZ
8. W

   CAL
9. W

   ORE
10. W

    WASH
11. W

    UCLA
12. W

    ND
13. W

    PSU

What moved it, 2016

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+2.21
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.45

Game by game

• ALAL 6-52 at ALA28% → 0%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −30
• USUW 45-7 vs USU83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +20
• STANL 10-27 at STAN35% → 1%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −2
• UTAHL 27-31 at UTAH48% → 15%Before kickoff −2 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• ASUW 41-20 vs ASU73% → 100%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +30, Timeouts −1
• COLOW 21-17 vs COLO62% → 96%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +3
• ARIZW 48-14 at ARIZ71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1
• CALW 45-24 vs CAL86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19
• OREW 45-20 vs ORE84% → 100%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +20
• WASHW 26-13 at WASH24% → 99%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +74: Scoreboard +62, Clock +3
• UCLAW 36-14 at UCLA75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• NDW 45-27 vs ND86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +19
• PSUW 52-49 at PSU66% → 95%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +40, 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.