USC

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1979th
  Defense+0.0950th
• 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.
  Offense46.6%83rd
  Defense40.6%63rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2675th
  Defense+1.2916th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0860th
  Defense+0.1323rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3085th
  Defense+0.0574th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.5%88th
  Defense45.1%66th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.4%69th
  Defense32.2%55th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9970th
  Defense3.0134th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.4%56th
  Defense16.8%24th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.9%84th
  Defense18.0%71st

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   WMU
2. W
   STAN
3. W
   TEX
4. W
   CAL
5. L
   WSU
6. W
   ORST
7. W
   UTAH
8. L
   ND
9. W
   ASU
10. W
    ARIZ
11. W
    COLO
12. W
    UCLA
13. W
    STAN
14. L
    OSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for USC.

Players, 2017

1. Sam DarnoldQB451 plays · +0.274 pts/play · 8th of 226 QBs
   2.32WAR1.55 to 3.16
2. Ronald Jones II?225 plays · +0.184 pts/play
   0.78WAR0.57 to 0.99
3. Tyler VaughnsWR53 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 53rd of 426 WRs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.22
4. Stephen CarrRB76 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 189th of 352 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.22
5. Deontay BurnettWR99 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 103rd of 426 WRs
   0.14WAR0.04 to 0.23
6. Steven Mitchell Jr.WR42 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 179th of 426 WRs
   0.10WAR0.07 to 0.14
7. Aca'Cedric Ware?28 plays · +0.152 pts/play
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.10
8. Reid BudrovichPK44 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 77th of 110 kickers
   0.08WAR0.00 to 0.16

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9349343rd of 130Roster talent: 934, 3rd of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2872875th of 130Recruiting: 287, 5th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  68%68%48th of 128Returning production: 68%, 48th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +17.9+17.917th of 128SP+ rating: +17.9, 17th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 0.06 of the 0.15 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 STANQ3 9:12 4th & 1 at USC 42, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. at WSUQ2 4:56 4th & 1 at USC 29, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
3. at WSUQ2 9:47 4th & 2 at WSU 2, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs ARIZQ3 11:43 4th & 1 at USC 22, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at WSUQ4 6:05 4th & 13 at WSU 42, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs TEXQ4 13:05 4th & 4 at USC 47, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at COLOQ3 7:43 4th & 1 at USC 34, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. vs UTAHQ2 0:21 4th & 7 at UTAH 33, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

33rd of 130 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

   WMU
2. W

   STAN
3. W

   TEX
4. W

   CAL
5. L

   WSU
6. W

   ORST
7. W

   UTAH
8. L

   ND
9. W

   ASU
10. W

    ARIZ
11. W

    COLO
12. W

    UCLA
13. W

    STAN
14. L

    OSU

What moved it, 2017

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+1.51
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.07
• Timeouts−0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.99

Game by game

• WMUW 49-31 vs WMU97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +7
• STANW 42-24 vs STAN62% → 100%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +39, Clock −2
• TEXW 27-24 vs TEX88% → 79%Before kickoff +38 · On the field −9: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts −15
• CALW 30-20 at CAL91% → 97%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +19, Clock +1
• WSUL 27-30 at WSU63% → 4%Before kickoff +13 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −38, Timeouts −3
• ORSTW 38-10 vs ORST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• UTAHW 28-27 vs UTAH83% → 94%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +2
• NDL 14-49 at ND43% → 0%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −43: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts −1
• ASUW 48-17 at ASU65% → 100%Before kickoff +15 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +41
• ARIZW 49-35 vs ARIZ72% → 98%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• COLOW 38-24 at COLO84% → 98%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• UCLAW 28-23 vs UCLA85% → 96%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +2
• STANW 31-28 vs STAN63% → 95%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +32, Possession & field position +1
• OSUL 7-24 at OSU24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, 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.