Next up projections
vs Tennessee
Week 8 · Sat Oct 24, 2:30 PM CT / 3:30 PM ET · Williams-Brice Stadium (Columbia) · Tennessee (FBS, SEC)
·
Our call: Tennessee by 4.1Lean
All three models favor Tennessee (SP+ from the week 7 snapshot). The line, shown for comparison only, has South Carolina by 2.5.
The average of SP+, Elo and Our model; the line is left out and kept as a benchmark. Toss-up under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 and over. More ›
Regression watch: Last game's 19-point win matched the play (score -2 against play), inside the 7-point band: no flag. More ›
Schedule: Played the 30th-toughest schedule in FBS so far (average opponent rating +1.0); 14th-toughest remaining (+11.0). More ›
Opponents by our model's rating 6 played · 6 left
- Week 1 vs Kent State (-14.2)
- Week 2 vs Towson (-33.2) · FCS, pooled
- Week 3 vs Mississippi State (+9.0)
- Week 4 at Alabama (+22.9)
- Week 5 vs Kentucky (+7.9)
- Week 6 at Florida (+13.4)
- Remaining:
- Week 8 vs Tennessee (+16.1)
- Week 9 at Oklahoma (+13.2)
- Week 10 vs Texas A&M (+12.4)
- Week 11 at Arkansas (-1.4)
- Week 12 vs Georgia (+21.9)
- Week 13 at Clemson (+3.9)
Each opponent's rating from our model's week 8 snapshot, in points against an average FBS team; the averages are ranked among the 138 FBS teams. Played means through week 7. Experimental, like the Our model card.
Series: Tennessee leads 29–11–2 · last: Tennessee 41–20, 2023
Series history 42 meetings since 1903
- All-time: Tennessee leads 29–11–2 (42 meetings since 1903)
- Last meeting: Tennessee 41–20, 2023, Neyland Stadium
- Streak: none
- At Williams-Brice Stadium: South Carolina leads 6–5 (11 meetings)
- Biggest margins: South Carolina 63–38 (2022) · Tennessee 54–0 (1929)
- Since 2000: Tennessee leads 15–9 (24 meetings)
| Season | Result | Site |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Tennessee 41–20 | Neyland Stadium |
| 2022 | South Carolina 63–38 | Williams-Brice Stadium |
| 2021 | Tennessee 45–20 | Neyland Stadium |
| 2020 | Tennessee 31–27 | Williams-Brice Stadium |
| 2019 | Tennessee 41–21 | Neyland Stadium |
| 2018 | South Carolina 27–24 | Williams-Brice Stadium |
| 2017 | South Carolina 15–9 | Neyland Stadium |
| 2016 | South Carolina 24–21 | Williams-Brice Stadium |
| 2015 | Tennessee 27–24 | Neyland Stadium |
| 2014 | Tennessee 45–42 | Williams-Brice Stadium |
| 2013 | Tennessee 23–21 | Neyland Stadium |
| 2012 | South Carolina 38–35 | Williams-Brice Stadium |
| 2011 | South Carolina 14–3 | Neyland Stadium |
| 2010 | South Carolina 38–24 | Williams-Brice Stadium |
| 2009 | Tennessee 31–13 | Neyland Stadium |
| 2008 | South Carolina 27–6 | Williams-Brice Stadium |
| 2007 | Tennessee 27–24 | Neyland Stadium |
| 2006 | Tennessee 31–24 | Williams-Brice Stadium |
| 2005 | South Carolina 16–15 | Neyland Stadium |
| 2004 | Tennessee 43–29 | Williams-Brice Stadium |
| 2003 | Tennessee 23–20 | Neyland Stadium |
| 2002 | Tennessee 18–10 | Williams-Brice Stadium |
| 2001 | Tennessee 17–10 | Neyland Stadium |
| 2000 | Tennessee 17–14 | home |
| Rating | South Carolina | Tennessee |
|---|---|---|
| SP+ | +9.9 #37 | +16.7 #15 |
| Elo | 1699 | 1832 |
Projected margin for South Carolina · three models and the line, side by side
How to read this
- SP+ is a rating of how good a team is, in points better or worse than an average team, built from its play-by-play, so the gap between two teams' ratings is a projected margin.
- Elo is a rating that goes up with every win and down with every loss, more for beating a strong team, less for beating a weak one. The gap between two ratings is divided by 25 to turn it into points.
- The line is the pregame line, the margin the market expected, shown from South Carolina's side. It is not one of the models: it is shown for comparison only, as the benchmark the models and Our call are measured against.
- Our model is this site's own experimental rating, built from each team's play-by-play adjusted for who it has played, blended with a preseason estimate from last season, returning players and recruiting. "prior 67%" means 67 percent of the rating is still that preseason estimate; the share shrinks as games are played.
- In SP+, Elo and our model the home team gets 2.5 points (South Carolina); the line already includes the market's own home edge. The conversion to points is approximate.
- "avg miss 9.8" under a card is how far that model's projections have been from the actual margins this season, on average, in points. "closest 10/39" is how many of the season's 39 finished games that model came closest on (a tie counts for every tied model); the line, a benchmark, shows its average miss only. Shown once a model has 20 finished games.
- Our call, above the cards, is the site's prediction: the simple average of the SP+, Elo and our model margins. The pregame line is left out of it and kept as a benchmark to measure it against. Toss-up means the average is under 3 points, Lean 3 to 7, Strong 7 or more. It is made only when all three of those models have a number, and it is scored after the game like the models.
- Each card is one method's estimate, shown side by side; when they disagree, that is worth knowing.
- After a game, the sentence under the score shows every model and the line against the actual margin: ✓ when a model named the winner, ✗ when it did not (the line, a benchmark, gets no mark), and Closest: the model nearest the final margin among those present, never the line (an exact tie goes to the first listed). The "closest 10/39" counts keep the accuracy report's scoring of SP+ and Elo, where a tie credits both.
- Metrics explained: the four models and their track record ›
Efficiency matchup · season to date · South Carolina 6 games, Tennessee 7 games
Edge: Tennessee wins 3 of 5
Tennessee stops plays better, is more disruptive and allows fewer big plays. South Carolina moves the ball better and has the edge on big plays.
-
45%✓ Moves the ballsuccessful plays 43%
-
42% Stops playssuccessful plays allowed ✓37%
-
14% Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers ✓23%
-
1.26✓ Big playson offense 1.17
-
1.27 Big plays allowedon defense ✓1.05
Run game, head to head · season to date
South Carolina's runs work 49% of the time; Tennessee's run defense allows 39%. Tennessee's runs work 48% of the time; South Carolina's run defense allows 41%.
More numbers
| Measure | South Carolina | Tennessee | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Off. success rate | 45.1% | 43.4% | South Carolina |
| Off. explosiveness | 1.26 | 1.17 | South Carolina |
| Def. success rate allowed | 41.6% | 37.0% | Tennessee |
| Def. explosiveness allowed | 1.27 | 1.05 | Tennessee |
| Havoc created | 14.1% | 22.9% | Tennessee |
- Run game, success rate: South Carolina offense 48.9% · Tennessee defense allows 39.1% · edge: even
- Run game, success rate: Tennessee offense 47.7% · South Carolina defense allows 40.9% · edge: Tennessee
- Run game, PPA per play: South Carolina offense +0.23 · Tennessee defense allows -0.06 · edge: even
- Run game, PPA per play: Tennessee offense +0.25 · South Carolina defense allows -0.04 · edge: Tennessee
- Success rate: how often a play does its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
- Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays are on average; a higher number means more big gains.
- Havoc: how often the defense blows up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
- PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play is worth to the offense; above zero is good for the offense, below zero good for the defense.
How to read this
- Each row compares the two teams on one measure of how well they have played this season, offense and defense, using every game so far with garbage time (plays late in a decided game) left out.
- The run game rows pair one team's rushing offense with the other's run defense. The row goes to whichever side is further from the FBS baseline this season, the offense by how far it runs above it, the defense by how much less it allows (baseline: run success rate 43%, PPA per play +0.08, the midpoint of what FBS offenses gain and FBS defenses allow, since both also play FCS teams), so two strong sides or two weak ones are judged by which is the more so. Edges within 3 points of success rate or 0.05 PPA are even. A strong run offense against a weak run defense is where a team can control the game on the ground.
- In the five rows at the top the longer bar is the better number: bars are scaled within each row, and in the two "allowed" rows the lower number gets the longer bar.
- Success rate is the share of plays that kept the offense on schedule (half the yards needed on first down, most of them on second, all of them on third or fourth). Explosiveness is how big the successful plays were, on average, in points. Havoc is the share of the opponent's snaps the defense wrecked: a tackle for loss, a sack, a takeaway or a pass broken up.
- "Allowed" rows are what each defense gave up, so the lower value wins.
- These are not adjusted for who each team has played, so a light schedule flatters a team, and early in the season they rest on very few games.
- Metrics explained: success rate, explosiveness and havoc ›
Rest of the season experimental
| Date | Opponent | Our win chance | Projected |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sat Oct 24 | vs #14 Tennessee | 40% | by 4.1 them |
| Fri Oct 30 | at Oklahoma | 37% | by 5.1 them |
| Fri Nov 6 | vs Texas A&M | 53% | by 1.3 us |
| Fri Nov 13 | at Arkansas | 69% | by 7.3 us |
| Fri Nov 20 | vs #1 Georgia | 20% | by 12.4 them |
| Fri Nov 27 | at Clemson | 61% | by 4.0 us |
Projected record: 5.8 wins on average; most likely 6-6 (27%). Conference title: <1%. Playoff: <1%. Playoff chances ›
From our model's simulation of the rest of the season (10,000 times); the win chance is how often we won that game in the simulations, the projected margin is Our call's (SP+, Elo and Our model averaged, 2.5 points to the home team).
Injuries
No injury report yet for this game. First reports usually come Wednesday.
Coverage (AI-assisted) · 4
Gathered by an AI model from public posts, not from CollegeFootballData. Not used in any number on this page. Verify against the linked sources.
-
Josh Heupel says he won't name a starter this week against South Carolina
Josh Heupel won't name a Tennessee starter this week but it would be a surprise if not George MacIntyre.
-
South Carolina and Utah State stars named Walter Camp players of the week
LaNorris Sellers and Asher Cunningham named Walter Camp National Players of the Week.
-
South Carolina edge rusher Dylan Stewart not on a pitch count today
South Carolina EDGE Dylan Stewart will not be on a pitch count today per the broadcast.
-
Florida receiver Vernell Brown ruled out against South Carolina
Florida wide receiver Vernell Brown has been ruled out for the game against South Carolina.
1 entry about games now final not shown.
Score and result
South Carolina 38, Florida 19W
Game page: the call before kickoff and how each model did ›
Projected: SP+ n/a · Elo -3.3 ✗ · Our model -9.2 ✗ · the line (benchmark) -14.5 · actual +19 · Closest: Elo
South Carolina was as low as 20% and won
- Q2 1:52 · 2nd & 11 · 59% → 80%(01:52) No Huddle-Shotgun #16 L.Sellers pass complete short right to #3 M.Bennett Jr. caught at FLA00, for 12 yards to the FLA00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 01:47, 1ST DOWN #32 M.Orsan kick attempt good (H: #24 M.Love, LS: #57 K.Farrow)
- Q1 0:17 · 3rd & 10 · 31% → 52%(00:17) Shotgun #16 L.Sellers pass complete short left to #8 N.Harbor caught at FLA00, for 15 yards to the FLA00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 00:12, 1ST DOWN #32 M.Orsan kick attempt good (H: #24 M.Love, LS: #57 K.Farrow)
- Q1 11:34 · 3rd & 6 · 40% → 21%(11:34) Shotgun #12 A.Philo pass complete short right to #3 B.Stockton caught at SC 40, for 59 yards to the SC 00 TOUCHDOWN, clock 11:25, 1ST DOWN #91 P.Durkin kick attempt good (H: #38 A.Clark, LS: #54 L.Anderson)
Away at Ben Hill Griffin Stadium · Sat Oct 10, 11:45 AM CT / 12:45 PM ET · vs Florida (FBS, SEC)
Opponent for every game-level number: Florida (FBS, SEC).
- By quarter: South Carolina 7-10-14-7 · Florida 7-3-3-6
- Week 7 polls: neither team ranked
- Pregame Elo: South Carolina 1649, Florida 1669
- Postgame win probability: 95.0%
Verdict
The 19-point win matched the play: South Carolina's per-play edge (PPA (expected points added per play) +0.30 vs -0.00, success rate 43% vs 45%) implies roughly a +21 margin.
The verdict compares the score with the margin the plays earned. How it is reached ›
Efficiency
Edge: South Carolina won 3 of 4
South Carolina got more from each play, hit the bigger plays and was more disruptive. Florida moved the ball better.
-
43% Moved the ballsuccessful plays ✓45%
-
+0.30✓ Points per playwhat a play was worth -0.00
-
1.33✓ Big playssize of the good plays 0.93
-
15%✓ Disruptionsacks, TFLs, turnovers 8%
More numbers
South Carolina ran 72 plays, Florida 77. Each number is that team's offense; Florida's column is also what South Carolina's defense allowed.
| Measure | South Carolina | Florida | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| PPA / play | +0.30 | -0.00 | South Carolina |
| Total PPA | +21.2 | -0.1 | South Carolina |
| Success rate | 43.1% | 45.5% | Florida |
| Explosiveness | 1.33 | 0.93 | South Carolina |
| Havoc created | 14.9% | 8.3% | South Carolina |
- Success rate: how often a play did its job, gaining enough yards to keep the offense on schedule.
- Explosiveness: how big a team's successful plays were on average; a higher number means more big gains.
- Havoc: how often the defense blew up a play with a sack, a tackle for loss, a takeaway or a pass broken up. Counted from the play-by-play, so it is approximate.
- PPA (predicted points added): how many points an average play was worth to the offense. Total PPA adds up every play, and is what the Verdict compares with the score.
How to read this
- The four rows at the top compare the two offenses in this game; the longer bar is the better number, scaled within each row. A number at or below zero draws no bar.
- A check marks the better side of a row. The line above the rows counts them: it describes how the game was played, not who won it.
- Metrics explained ›
Top performers
South Carolina players by cumulative PPA in this game. Usage is the share of the team's plays of that type involving the player. Receiving is passing-play PPA for non-quarterbacks.
Passing
| Player | Pass usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lanorris Sellers QB | 100% | +16.9 | +0.44 |
Rushing
| Player | Rush usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lanorris Sellers QB | 38% | +4.5 | +0.41 |
| Jabree Coleman RB | 21% | +0.9 | +0.14 |
| Matthew Fuller RB | 31% | +0.2 | +0.02 |
| Jawarn Howell RB | 3% | -0.3 | -0.29 |
Receiving
| Player | Target usage | PPA | /play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nyck Harbor WR | 21% | +8.3 | +1.03 |
| Lex Cyrus WR | 5% | +4.0 | +2.01 |
| Jabree Coleman RB | 3% | +3.1 | +3.10 |
| DJ Black WR | 16% | +1.5 | +0.24 |
By play type
| Measure | South Carolina | Florida | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rushing PPA | +0.13 | -0.09 | South Carolina |
| Rushing success | 44.1% | 41.7% | South Carolina |
| Passing PPA | +0.44 | +0.08 | South Carolina |
| Passing success | 42.1% | 50.0% | Florida |
| Standard downs PPA | +0.12 | -0.15 | South Carolina |
| Standard downs success | 50.0% | 48.3% | South Carolina |
| Passing downs PPA | +0.61 | +0.44 | South Carolina |
| Passing downs success | 30.8% | 36.8% | Florida |
Havoc detail — South Carolina defense: TFL 3, sacks 2, takeaways 3, breakups 3 on 74 snaps. Florida defense: TFL 3, sacks 3, takeaways 0, breakups 0 on 72 snaps.
Drives
A scoring opportunity is a drive that reaches the opponent's 40-yard line or scores; points per opportunity is the points those drives produced divided by their number.
By half
Shown because the game changed between halves: the per-play edge swung by 0.46 points a play (South Carolina +0.05 in the first half, +0.51 in the second). Overtime counts with the second half.
| South Carolina | Florida | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 2nd | 1st | 2nd | |
| PPA / play | +0.24 | +0.37 | +0.19 | -0.14 |
| Success rate | 32% | 58% | 42% | 51% |
| Plays | 41 | 31 | 31 | 43 |
Recruiting
| Measure | South Carolina | Florida |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 class rank | 14 | 17 |
| 2026 class points | 256.43 | 250.98 |
| Talent composite | 862.9 #15 of 138 |
891.1 #10 of 138 |
Transfer portal · 28 in, 25 out
Arrivals (28)
| Player | From | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jacarrius Peak OT | NC State | 4 | Immediate | Jan 9, 2026 |
| Tomiwa Durojaiye DL | Illinois | 4 | Immediate | Jan 10, 2026 |
| Jayden Gibson WR | Oklahoma | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Jordan Thomas DL | Georgia | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Carter Miller IOL | UCF | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Hank Purvis IOL | Purdue | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Quay'sheed Scott CB | Kentucky | 3 | Immediate | Jan 9, 2026 |
| Emmanuel Poku IOL | East Carolina | 3 | Immediate | Jan 9, 2026 |
| Sam Dixon RB | Ohio State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 10, 2026 |
| Nitro Tuggle WR | Purdue | 3 | Immediate | Jan 10, 2026 |
+18 more not shown (28 total).
Departures (25)
| Player | To | ★ | Elig. | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vandrevius Jacobs WR | Miami | 4 | Immediate | Jan 11, 2026 |
| Josiah Thompson OT | undecided | 4 | Withdrawn | Jan 14, 2026 |
| Michael Smith TE | Syracuse | 3 | Immediate | Jan 4, 2026 |
| Jaron Willis LB | Kansas | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Trovon Baugh IOL | Texas A&M | 3 | Immediate | Jan 5, 2026 |
| Tree Babalade OT | Nebraska | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Nick Sharpe IOL | Michigan State | 3 | Immediate | Jan 6, 2026 |
| Cason Henry OT | Louisville | 3 | Immediate | Jan 7, 2026 |
| Boaz Stanley IOL | Purdue | 3 | Immediate | Jan 8, 2026 |
| Jaylen Brown EDGE | LSU | 3 | Immediate | Jan 8, 2026 |
+15 more not shown (25 total).
2026 commits · 18
| Player | Hometown | ★ | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| Julian Walker EDGE | Irmo, SC | 4 | 0.9833 |
| Darius Gray IOL | Richmond, VA | 4 | 0.9823 |
| J'Zavien Currence S | Rock Hill, SC | 4 | 0.9704 |
| Aiden Harris DL | Matthews, NC | 4 | 0.9611 |
| Landon Duckworth QB | Jackson, AL | 4 | 0.9414 |
| Zyon Guiles IOL | Hemingway, SC | 4 | 0.9381 |
| Kosci Barnes CB | Greensboro, NC | 4 | 0.9159 |
| Sequel Patterson ATH | Fort Mill, SC | 4 | 0.9077 |
| Noah Clark DL | Durham, NC | 4 | 0.9061 |
| Andrew Harris EDGE | Matthews, NC | 4 | 0.8933 |
| Keenan Britt LB | Oxford, AL | 3 | 0.8900 |
| KJ Johnson CB | Birmingham, AL | 3 | 0.8878 |
| Triston Lewis ATH | Greenwood, SC | 3 | 0.8833 |
| Caden Ramsey WR | Cross, SC | 3 | 0.8722 |
| Anthony Baxter IOL | Rock Hill, SC | 3 | 0.8589 |
+3 more not shown (18 total).
Returning production
Share of last season's production returning for South Carolina in 2026.
| Unit | % PPA | PPA | Usage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 69.0% | 148.3 | 67.6% |
| Passing | 65.4% | 28.3 | 90.7% |
| Receiving | 67.2% | 93.0 | 51.1% |
| Rushing | 80.1% | 27.0 | 56.7% |
A figure above 100% or below 0% is expected when last season's returning players had negative PPA in that phase, since PPA can be negative.