USC

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.3799th
  Defense+0.2014th
• 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.
  Offense51.3%96th
  Defense48.5%5th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3486th
  Defense+1.3128th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3098th
  Defense+0.312nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4495th
  Defense+0.1951st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense57.1%97th
  Defense53.5%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.
  Offense36.3%89th
  Defense36.5%8th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.5295th
  Defense3.438th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.5%68th
  Defense14.7%27th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.0%95th
  Defense16.7%57th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for USC.

Players, 2022

1. Caleb WilliamsQB530 plays · +0.444 pts/play · 1st of 234 QBs
   4.41WAR3.50 to 5.38
2. Travis DyeRB137 plays · +0.231 pts/play · 18th of 384 RBs
   0.59WAR0.48 to 0.71
3. Jordan AddisonWR70 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 75th of 455 WRs
   0.18WAR0.03 to 0.31
4. Austin JonesRB132 plays · +0.071 pts/play · 178th of 384 RBs
   0.17WAR0.06 to 0.29
5. Mario WilliamsWR41 plays · +0.204 pts/play · 105th of 455 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
6. Brenden RiceWR45 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 129th of 455 WRs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.21
7. Tahj WashingtonWR50 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 202nd of 455 WRs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.21
8. Kyle FordWR26 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 284th of 455 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.11

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  86086011th of 129Roster talent: 860, 11th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  21821827th of 129Recruiting: 218, 27th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  22%22%118th of 128Returning production: 22%, 118th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +18.9+18.911th of 129SP+ rating: +18.9, 11th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.03 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. at UTAHQ2 0:00 4th & 18 at USC 8, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−3.0 pts
2. vs UTAHQ2 12:08 4th & 3 at UTAH 3, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
3. at ORSTQ4 7:37 4th & 8 at USC 30, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. vs NDQ4 6:03 4th & 15 at ND 36, up 10Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs UTAHQ4 8:10 4th & 3 at USC 32, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs TULNQ4 4:30 4th & 4 at TULN 26, up 12Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. vs WSUQ4 2:08 4th & 3 at WSU 14, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at ORSTQ2 5:38 4th & 5 at ORST 25, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

23rd of 131 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

   RICE
2. W

   STAN
3. W

   FRES
4. W

   ORST
5. W

   ASU
6. W

   WSU
7. L

   UTAH
8. W

   ARIZ
9. W

   CAL
10. W

    COLO
11. W

    UCLA
12. W

    ND
13. L

    UTAH
14. L

    TULN

What moved it, 2022

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+1.94
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.04
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.45

Game by game

• RICEW 66-14 vs RICE97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• STANW 41-28 at STAN63% → 98%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• FRESW 45-17 vs FRES71% → 100%Before kickoff +21 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts −1
• ORSTW 17-14 at ORST58% → 79%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +36, Clock +2
• ASUW 42-25 vs ASU94% → 99%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +10
• WSUW 30-14 vs WSU80% → 99%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• UTAHL 42-43 at UTAH31% → 23%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12, Clock −1
• ARIZW 45-37 at ARIZ75% → 97%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +34, Clock +2
• CALW 41-35 vs CAL90% → 97%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +15, Timeouts +1
• COLOW 55-17 vs COLO97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• UCLAW 48-45 at UCLA50% → 94%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• NDW 38-27 vs ND54% → 97%Before kickoff +4 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +1
• UTAHL 24-47 vs UTAH47% → 1%Before kickoff −3 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −49, Clock −1
• TULNL 45-46 vs TULN45% → 25%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −31, Possession & field position −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.