USC

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1547th
  Defense+0.2616th
• 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.
  Offense46.0%74th
  Defense47.1%15th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.157th
  Defense+1.2459th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1253rd
  Defense+0.1532nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2250th
  Defense+0.409th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense51.4%77th
  Defense53.4%6th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.2%77th
  Defense32.0%40th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2065th
  Defense3.0646th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.7%60th
  Defense14.2%23rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%51st
  Defense12.7%7th

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, 2021

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for USC.

Players, 2021

1. Kedon SlovisQB252 plays · +0.249 pts/play · 84th of 219 QBs
   1.17WAR0.74 to 1.58
2. Jaxson DartQB207 plays · +0.285 pts/play · 87th of 219 QBs
   1.10WAR0.66 to 1.55
3. Keaontay IngramRB136 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 80th of 387 RBs
   0.45WAR0.32 to 0.56
4. Drake LondonWR83 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 9th of 474 WRs
   0.37WAR0.27 to 0.46
5. Vavae MalepeaiRB109 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 134th of 387 RBs
   0.33WAR0.22 to 0.44
6. Darwin BarlowRB62 plays · +0.197 pts/play · 199th of 387 RBs
   0.23WAR0.17 to 0.29
7. Tahj WashingtonWR63 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 63rd of 474 WRs
   0.20WAR0.13 to 0.29
8. Ben GriffithsP31 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 35th of 101 punters
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.20

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  87587510th of 130Roster talent: 875, 10th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  24924917th of 130Recruiting: 249, 17th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%69th of 128Returning production: 71%, 69th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −0.6−0.681st of 130SP+ rating: −0.6, 81st of 130 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, 2021

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.06 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 SJSUQ3 12:53 4th & 1 at USC 32, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
2. at ASUQ3 0:28 4th & 5 at ASU 46, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs UCLAQ2 0:35 4th & 5 at UCLA 28, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at ASUQ3 9:23 4th & 4 at ASU 28, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs ARIZQ4 8:59 4th & 5 at ARIZ 40, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at WSUQ2 0:32 4th & 9 at WSU 38, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at ASUQ4 7:30 4th & 3 at USC 32, down 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs SJSUQ2 11:08 4th & 3 at USC 9, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

129th 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

   SJSU
2. L

   STAN
3. W

   WSU
4. L

   ORST
5. W

   COLO
6. L

   UTAH
7. L

   ND
8. W

   ARIZ
9. L

   ASU
10. L

    UCLA
11. L

    BYU
12. L

    CAL

What moved it, 2021

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−2.84
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.49

Game by game

• SJSUW 30-7 vs SJSU87% → 99%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +18
• STANL 28-42 vs STAN91% → 1%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −89: Scoreboard −62, Clock −3
• WSUW 45-14 at WSU72% → 100%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +28: Scoreboard +34, Clock +1
• ORSTL 27-45 vs ORST82% → 1%Before kickoff +32 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −65, Clock −3
• COLOW 37-14 at COLO78% → 99%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +30, Clock +1
• UTAHL 26-42 vs UTAH68% → 1%Before kickoff +18 · On the field −67: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• NDL 16-31 at ND36% → 1%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −35: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• ARIZW 41-34 vs ARIZ94% → 97%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +11, Timeouts +1
• ASUL 16-31 at ASU28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −30
• UCLAL 33-62 vs UCLA45% → 0%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −48
• BYUL 31-35 vs BYU37% → 7%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −44, Clock −3
• CALL 14-24 at CAL39% → 3%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −34, Timeouts −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.