USC

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.1357th
  Defense+0.0284th
• 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.
  Offense46.2%76th
  Defense40.8%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1512th
  Defense+1.3226th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.202nd
  Defense0.0068th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3484th
  Defense+0.0485th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.0%75th
  Defense46.8%54th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense35.2%71st
  Defense28.0%83rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.417th
  Defense2.9150th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.9%13th
  Defense22.5%75th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.0%40th
  Defense16.5%49th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   ASU
2. W
   ARIZ
3. W
   UTAH
4. W
   WSU
5. W
   UCLA
6. L
   ORE

Bars above the line: better than expected for USC.

Players, 2020

1. Kedon SlovisQB264 plays · +0.255 pts/play · 11th of 212 QBs
   1.26WAR0.78 to 1.72
2. Vavae MalepeaiRB65 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 164th of 338 RBs
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.25
3. Drake LondonWR42 plays · +0.236 pts/play · 27th of 409 WRs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.24
4. Markese SteppRB43 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 208th of 338 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.19
5. Stephen CarrRB55 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 213th of 338 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.19
6. Amon-Ra St. BrownWR50 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 57th of 409 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.22
7. Tyler VaughnsWR40 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 194th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. Kenan Christon IIRB10 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 284th of 338 RBs
   0.03WAR0.02 to 0.03

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  85385310th of 127Roster talent: 853, 10th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25325316th of 127Recruiting: 253, 16th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  83%83%21st of 127Returning production: 83%, 21st of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +12.4+12.422nd of 127SP+ rating: +12.4, 22nd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 of the 0.04 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 ASUQ2 4:38 4th & 1 at USC 35, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. vs ASUQ4 2:52 4th & 13 at ASU 26, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
3. vs OREQ3 2:28 4th & 4 at ORE 4, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. at UTAHQ2 14:51 4th & 3 at USC 44, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
5. at UCLAQ1 7:18 4th & 2 at USC 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
6. at UTAHQ1 5:17 4th & 3 at UTAH 18, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at ARIZQ1 2:04 4th & 4 at ARIZ 13, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs ASUQ1 12:11 4th & 3 at USC 44, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

27th of 127 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

   ASU
2. W

   ARIZ
3. W

   UTAH
4. W

   WSU
5. W

   UCLA
6. L

   ORE

What moved it, 2020

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+1.07
• Clock+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.62

Game by game

• ASUW 28-27 vs ASU78% → 80%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts −1
• ARIZW 34-30 at ARIZ85% → 86%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +25, Clock +2
• UTAHW 33-17 at UTAH51% → 99%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +52, Clock +2
• WSUW 38-13 vs WSU80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• UCLAW 43-38 at UCLA59% → 83%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• OREL 24-31 vs ORE58% → 10%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −47, Clock −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.