The SportsWire

South Carolina

2026 · Last game: week 6 vs Florida · bye in week 7

Updated Tue Oct 20, 7:46 PM CT

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 ›

Game page: vs Tennessee ›

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)
SeasonResultSite
2023Tennessee 41–20Neyland Stadium
2022South Carolina 63–38Williams-Brice Stadium
2021Tennessee 45–20Neyland Stadium
2020Tennessee 31–27Williams-Brice Stadium
2019Tennessee 41–21Neyland Stadium
2018South Carolina 27–24Williams-Brice Stadium
2017South Carolina 15–9Neyland Stadium
2016South Carolina 24–21Williams-Brice Stadium
2015Tennessee 27–24Neyland Stadium
2014Tennessee 45–42Williams-Brice Stadium
2013Tennessee 23–21Neyland Stadium
2012South Carolina 38–35Williams-Brice Stadium
2011South Carolina 14–3Neyland Stadium
2010South Carolina 38–24Williams-Brice Stadium
2009Tennessee 31–13Neyland Stadium
2008South Carolina 27–6Williams-Brice Stadium
2007Tennessee 27–24Neyland Stadium
2006Tennessee 31–24Williams-Brice Stadium
2005South Carolina 16–15Neyland Stadium
2004Tennessee 43–29Williams-Brice Stadium
2003Tennessee 23–20Neyland Stadium
2002Tennessee 18–10Williams-Brice Stadium
2001Tennessee 17–10Neyland Stadium
2000Tennessee 17–14home
RatingSouth CarolinaTennessee
SP+ +9.9 #37 +16.7 #15
Elo 1699 1832

Projected margin for South Carolina · three models and the line, side by side

SP+
-4.3
South Carolina +9.9 vs Tennessee +16.7 · week 7 snapshot, before last week's games
avg miss 11.0
closest 57/100
Elo
-2.8
South Carolina 1699 vs Tennessee 1832
avg miss 12.3
closest 44/100
Line · benchmark
+2.5
pregame line
avg miss 11.3
Our model · experimental
-5.2
South Carolina +8.4 vs Tennessee +16.1
prior 50%
avg miss 12.0
closest 23/61
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.

South Carolinalonger bar = betterTennessee

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
MeasureSouth CarolinaTennesseeEdge
Off. success rate45.1%43.4%South Carolina
Off. explosiveness1.261.17South Carolina
Def. success rate allowed41.6%37.0%Tennessee
Def. explosiveness allowed1.271.05Tennessee
Havoc created14.1%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

DateOpponentOur win chanceProjected
Sat Oct 24vs #14 Tennessee40%by 4.1 them
Fri Oct 30at Oklahoma37%by 5.1 them
Fri Nov 6vs Texas A&M53%by 1.3 us
Fri Nov 13at Arkansas69%by 7.3 us
Fri Nov 20vs #1 Georgia20%by 12.4 them
Fri Nov 27at Clemson61%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.

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 South Carolina was as low as 20% and won Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 100% 50% 0% 38–19
  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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).

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.

South Carolinalonger bar = betterFlorida
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.

MeasureSouth CarolinaFloridaEdge
PPA / play+0.30-0.00South Carolina
Total PPA+21.2-0.1South Carolina
Success rate43.1%45.5%Florida
Explosiveness1.330.93South Carolina
Havoc created14.9%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

PlayerPass usagePPA/play
Lanorris Sellers QB 100% +16.9 +0.44

Rushing

PlayerRush usagePPA/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

PlayerTarget usagePPA/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
MeasureSouth CarolinaFloridaEdge
Rushing PPA+0.13-0.09South Carolina
Rushing success44.1%41.7%South Carolina
Passing PPA+0.44+0.08South Carolina
Passing success42.1%50.0%Florida
Standard downs PPA+0.12-0.15South Carolina
Standard downs success50.0%48.3%South Carolina
Passing downs PPA+0.61+0.44South Carolina
Passing downs success30.8%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.

◀ South CarolinaFlorida ▶
  • 12Drives12
  • 10Scoring opportunities9
  • 3.8Points per opportunity2.1
  • own 34Avg. starting field positionown 26
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 CarolinaFlorida
1st2nd1st2nd
PPA / play+0.24+0.37+0.19-0.14
Success rate32%58%42%51%
Plays41313143

Recruiting

MeasureSouth CarolinaFlorida
2026 class rank1417
2026 class points256.43250.98
Talent composite 862.9
#15 of 138
891.1
#10 of 138
Transfer portal · 28 in, 25 out

Arrivals (28)

PlayerFrom★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)

PlayerTo★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
PlayerHometown★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% PPAPPAUsage
Overall69.0%148.367.6%
Passing65.4%28.390.7%
Receiving67.2%93.051.1%
Rushing80.1%27.056.7%

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.