South Carolina · Week 4 analysis

Where the team stands

South Carolina ranks No. 46 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of +3.78 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 46; this update moves it +0 places and +0.54 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 4 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 2–2. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: +2.089. Prior-season margin: +8.048.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: +0.0401; EPA/play net: +0.0058; success-rate net: +0.0188; explosiveness net: -0.0597. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 1 eligible games. Excluded games contribute no fabricated EP observation. Opponent results can move a rating even during a bye.

The result and the reconstructed expectation

South Carolina lost to Alabama by 31 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -15.08; the result was -15.92 points relative to that expectation.

This is a newly reconstructed forecast under the frozen EP model. It is not represented as a prediction published before the game, and it does not replace the original published grade.

Next scheduled test

The next scheduled opponent at this snapshot is Kentucky on 2026-10-03. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 419 versus 489; Net passing yards: 203 versus 365; Rushing yards: 216 versus 124; First downs: 22 versus 20

Completions–attempts: 20-33 versus 21-27; Rush attempts: 40 versus 30; Yards per pass: 6.2 versus 13.5; Yards per rush: 5.4 versus 4.1

Read production alongside workload: more attempts can raise a yardage total without raising efficiency. The model uses opponent-adjusted rate signals, not this box score alone.

Defense and possession

The opponent scored 49 points and recorded 489 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 2 versus 1; Tackles for loss: 5 versus 4; Third downs: 3-14 versus 5-10; Fourth downs: 3-5 versus 0-0

Turnovers: 2 versus 0; Fumbles lost: 1 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 1 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 7-65 versus 4-36; Possession time: 29:40 versus 30:20

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 2–2. The expected final record is 6.0–6.0 over 12 scheduled games.

Expected wins add recorded results to the estimated win probabilities of remaining games. They are not a list of certain winners. Probabilities use a symmetric approximation from historical development residuals; independent calibration has not been established.

The comparison around the ranking

Nearby in this same snapshot: No. 45 East Carolina (+4.02); No. 47 Texas A&M (+3.64).

PSR compares predictive strength rather than sorting teams by wins. A team can win and move down, or lose and move up, as its performance and opponents change the adjusted evidence.

How to read this assessment

This is a fresh assessment under the frozen EP model, using this period's eligible inputs. Earlier published releases remain preserved separately; the reconstructed archive is not presented as a prediction published before those games.

Scoring margin, prior-season margin, first-down efficiency, EPA per play, success rate and explosiveness contribute together. Correlated signals should not be interpreted as independent proof of an advantage, and a model disagreement with a betting line is not proof of profit.