Skip to content
USC

USC Trojans

Big Ten·2-0·
Compare
Elo
1835#13
SP+
17.7#17
FPI
17.5
AP
#14
Nextvs Louisiana · Wk 2Win prob 99%Model -30.9
Talent #9 (899.0)Recruiting class #159% production returning

Roster · 127 players

FR 60SO 28JR 18SR 21
#PlayerPosClHtWt
7Sam HuardQBSR6'1"205
14Jayden MaiavaQBSR6'4"230
15Jonas WilliamsQBFR6'1"220
21Alex MedynQBFR6'0"210
28James JohnsonQBFR5'11"190
29Will DohertyQBJR6'4"220
2Waymond JordanRBSR5'10"210
6Deshonne RedeauxRBFR5'10"205
8King MillerRBSO6'0"225
22Shahn AlstonRBFR5'10"220
27Riley WormleyRBFR5'9"190
30Kayne MillerRBFR5'8"185
34Tyson ParkRBFR5'6"195
41Cian McKelveyRBJR5'9"185
0Zacharyus WilliamsWRSO6'2"200
1Ethan FeasterWRFR6'1"190
4Trent MosleyWRFR5'10"180
9Terrell AndersonWRJR6'2"200
10Corey SimmsWRSO6'3"205
16Tanook HinesWRSO6'0"190
17Kayden Dixon-WyattWRFR6'2"200
18Romero IsonWRFR6'0"185
31Seth ZamoraWRSO5'9"175
40Marcus SungWRJR5'10"205
49Grant WoodsWRFR6'7"230
80Luc WeaverWRFR6'2"215
81Cameron SermonsWRFR5'10"160
82Roderick TezenoWRFR6'2"190
85Tron BakerWRFR6'0"200
86Luke DegnerWRSR5'11"190
89Griffin BrahmWRFR6'1"195
19Mark BowmanTEFR6'4"245
23Walter MatthewsTESO6'6"305
24Carson TabaracciTESR6'1"230
38Patrick O'BrienTESO6'5"240
44Manoah LeiatoTEFR6'2"255
49Fisher MeltonTEFR6'4"245
84Tucker AshcraftTEJR6'5"260
87Josiah JeffersonTEJR6'3"240
88Taniela TupouTEFR6'3"255
51Vlad DyakonovOLFR6'6"295
52Willi WascherOLFR6'2"310
56Kannon SmithOLFR6'4"310
57Esun TafaOLFR6'4"325
60Kaylon MillerOLSO6'0"305
62Travis LeonardOLSO5'11"275
63Cash JacobsenOLFR6'4"295
64Ryan PauleyOLSR6'2"320
65Erwin TaomiOLJR6'4"375
66Breck KolojayOLFR6'7"310
67Kilian O'ConnorOLSR6'1"300
68Hayden TreterOLSO6'6"320
70Aaron DunnOLFR6'7"310
71Keenyi PepeOLFR6'7"330
72Elijah PaigeOLJR6'7"315
73Tobias RaymondOLJR6'6"310
74Justin TauanuuOLSO6'6"310
75Ratumana BulabalavuOLSO6'3"325
76John FifitaOLFR6'6"380
77Alani NoaOLSR6'3"315
78Chase DenizOLFR6'7"315
79Elijah VaikonaOLFR6'8"360
1Kameryn CrawfordDEJR6'5"255
10Braylan ShelbyDESR6'5"260
18Zuriah FisherDESR6'4"265
35Ty SwansonDEFR6'4"220
49Simote KatoangaDEFR6'5"275
51Andrew WilliamsDEFR6'5"220
54Ethan BroughamDEJR6'2"245
92Sam SmithDEFR6'3"235
94Luke WafleDEFR6'6"265
95Jadyn RamosDEFR6'4"250
4Jahkeem StewartDTSO6'5"295
44Braeden JonesDTFR6'4"270
45Jaimeon WinfieldDTFR6'3"320
52Tomuhini TopuiDTFR6'3"320
88Floyd BoucardDTSO6'3"315
89Brendan ChoDTSO6'3"300
90Jake JohnsonDTFR6'3"300
91Alex VanSumerenDTSR6'2"300
96Jordan AbarcaDTSO6'4"260
97Jide AbasiriDTJR6'5"280
99Jamaal JarrettDTJR6'5"360
8Desman Stephens IILBJR6'3"250
14Ta'Mere RobinsonLBJR6'3"240
15Jadyn WalkerLBSO6'2"240
17Deven BryantLBJR5'11"230
22Talanoa IliLBFR6'3"225
24Shaun ScottLBFR6'3"240
26Elijah NewbyLBSO6'3"235
41Ryan O'ConnellLBSR6'1"230
46Nick De FinaLBSR6'0"195
47Austin EngroffLBFR5'11"215
50Taylor JohnsonLBFR6'0"220
57Roman MarchettiLBSR6'2"225
58GianCarlo RufoLBSR6'2"230
0Jontez WilliamsCBSR5'10"200
2Elbert Hill IVCBFR5'10"190
7Alex GrahamCBFR6'0"195
16Prophet BrownCBSR5'11"190
19Brandon LockhartCBFR6'2"175
21RJ SermonsCBFR6'1"190
25Marcelles WilliamsCBSO5'11"190
27Chasen JohnsonCBSO6'1"195
28Carrington PierceCBSO5'11"185
29Joshua Holland IICBFR6'1"185
34Jayden CrowderCBFR5'10"175
37Trestin CastroCBFR6'0"190
40Shawn SehraCBJR5'9"180
48Derek DinizCBFR5'10"185
6Christian PierceSSR6'1"205
9Kennedy UrlacherSJR5'11"200
23Kendarius ReddickSSO5'11"190
30Marquis GallegosSSO6'0"195
31Madden RiordanSFR5'10"180
36Peyton DyerSFR6'0"200
38Isaiah RubinSSO5'11"195
39Peter SciarrinoSFR5'10"190
45Caden ChittendenPKSO5'10"190
35Lachlan CarriganPSO6'3"205
36Rey SanchezPSR6'2"225
37Zachary NandlalPSO5'8"177
39Nate HillenburgPSR6'4"220
48Ryon SayeriPSO5'11"185
93William WeisbergPFR6'3"190
46Dylan BlackLSSR6'1"220
53Luke BrownLSFR6'2"215

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
40.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
13.0
scoring defense
Differential
+27.5
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
528.5#17
Yards / play
7.3#26
Passing yards / game
376.5#4
Rushing yards / game
152.0#74
First downs / game
28.0#17
3rd down %
66.7%#6
4th down %
50.0%#67
Time of possession
38:04#6
Defense
Yards allowed / game
226.0#34
Yards / play allowed
4.5#57
Pass yards allowed / game
155.5#50
Rush yards allowed / game
70.5#25
3rd down % allowed
33.3%#60
Sacks
6#12
Tackles for loss
12#33
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-1#89
Takeaways
2#53
Giveaways
3#95
Penalties / game
5.0#38
Penalty yards / game
39.0#37

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 2026 projection

pass-leaning

USC throws it: Lincoln Riley's offenses have been pass-leaning across 9 seasons. The strengths are offensive, led by 3rd at throwing it.

On fourth down he goes for it about as often as his peers do from the same spots (+1.9%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −24.8% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

USC has played 1 game against an average slate, adjusted for here. That football carries about 0% of what is below; the rest is still the preseason projection.

Projected strengths

  • Offensethrowing it
    #3
    projected
  • Offensefirst and second down
    #3
    projected
  • Offenseturning trips inside the 40 into points
    #4
    projected

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 10 to play
9.8 – 2.2
projected final record (now 2–0)
Exp. wins left
7.8
of 10 games
Bowl odds
100%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
99%
vs Louisiana
Toughest
40%
vs Indiana

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 10 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

23456789101112
final winstallest bar = 35% chance
Likeliest finish 10-2 (35%)Bowl eligible 100% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
WRTanook Hines, Zach Williams +4
+41.0 EPA
QBJayden Maiava
+34.0 EPA
RBRiley Wormley, Shahn Alston +3
+6.6 EPA
TECarson Tabaracci, Taniela Tupou +1
+4.5 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

Estimated NIL Market Value
ESTIMATED
QBJayden Maiava
~$985K
EPA +34.00.653/play52 snaps
RBKing Miller
~$169K
EPA +3.20.129/play25 snaps

Estimated from position-group market rates and on-field EPA contribution. Actual NIL valuations depend on social media following, brand fit, and market negotiations — these figures are directional only.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off0.4483rd#24
Def-0.0779th#30
Explosiveness
Off0.998th#127
Def1.2064th#51
Field position
Off69.950th#70
Def75.326th#103
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off4.3860th#56
Def3.4345th#76
Turnovers
Won 2Lost 3
Margin -1

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
0.9196th#7
Off · rush
0.0125th#104

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.0124th#105
Def-0.3191st#13
Passing
Off0.9195th#8
Def0.4815th#118

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.43#37
2nd-level / open-field
1.20 / 0.16
Power / stuff (off)
77.8% / 16.0%
Havoc — total (def)
15.7%#70
Havoc — front 7 / DB
12.7% / 2.9%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.24
Def-0.21
Pass downs
Off1.28
Def0.22

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.33#200.60#180.90#24
Defense-0.03#770.01#510.00#15

Elo Trajectory

San José StateFinal
Elo rating 1747 → 1835+88 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 43 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.3668th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed-0.0672nd
  • Offense success rate60%91st
  • Defense success rate allowed33%64th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs61%83rd
  • Offense success — passing downs50%89th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs35%74th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs29%45th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness1.122nd
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.162nd
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.8215th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs1.836th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards3.253rd
  • Defense line yards allowed2.464th
  • Offense highlight yards0.3119th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.5059th
  • Offense power success0.7550th
  • Defense power success allowed0.0099th
  • Offense stuff rate0.1842nd
  • Defense stuff rate0.2365th

Third down

  • Third down conversion67%96th
  • Third down distance faced5.090th
  • Third down conversion allowed39%42nd
  • Third down distance forced6.323rd

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.3684th
  • Net success rate — second half0.1158th

Drives

  • Points per drive4.388th
  • Points per drive allowed1.176th
  • Average starting field position2959th
  • Opponent starting field position2575th
  • Available yards gained83%95th
  • Available yards allowed41%70th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive83%60th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed78%58th
  • Points per scoring opportunity5.193rd
  • Points allowed per opportunity1.481st
  • Three-and-out rate6%89th
  • Three-and-outs forced33%70th

Roster

  • Returning usage66%76th
  • Returning EPA30697th
  • Team talent composite89994th
  • Recruiting class rank1.099th
  • Recruiting class points31199th

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

⚡

Offensive DNA

Pass-dominant offense performing above the national average
EPA/play
+0.443#24 · top 20%
Pass EPA/play
+0.907#8
Rush EPA/play
+0.007#105
Explosiveness
0.995#127
Pts/opportunity
4.38#56
Success rate
65.3%

Pass efficiency edge: 0.900 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Disruptive defense suppressing opponents below the national average
EPA/play allowed
-0.070#30 · above avg
Havoc rate (total)
15.7%#70
Front-7 havoc
12.7%
DB havoc
2.9%
Big play rate allowed
1.197#51
Success rate allowed
31.3%

Disruption comes primarily from the front seven.

📊

Season Signature

40.5 PPG offense, 13.0 allowed — +27.5 margin/game
Points per game
40.5
Points allowed/game
13.0
Scoring margin/game
+27.5
Turnover margin
-1won 2 · lost 3
Production returning
59%
Talent rank (247)
#9

2-0 record through 2 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE83thEXPLOSIVENESS8thFINISHING60thFIELD POS50thDEFENSE79thHAVOC50th50th100th
Offense
83th
Explosiveness
8th
Finishing
60th
Field Pos
50th
Defense
79th
Havoc
50th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
+32.7
#2
Offense
+22.0
#1
Defense
-10.7
#12
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 18 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive4.281.11
Starting field positionown 29.4own 24.7
Available yards82.7%41.1%
Scoring opportunities83.3%77.8%
Points per opportunity5.131.43
Three-and-out rate5.6%33.3%
Every team’s drive efficiency →

Play-calling identity

Against what the league calls from the same down, distance, field position, score and clock — so this is the staff, not the game script.

Pass rate
48.9%
Expected, given the spots
43.6%
Over expected
+5.3
Fourth down vs peers
+31
Fourth down vs the model
+0
All play-calling tendencies →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. USC is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to USC in 2026

by EPA/play distance
VirginiaSP+ +11.5
Off EPA/play +0.430Def EPA/play -0.107Elo 1652
Match
98%
Virginia TechSP+ +12.4
Off EPA/play +0.457Def EPA/play -0.147Elo 1421
Match
96%
MarylandSP+ +9.1
Off EPA/play +0.348Def EPA/play -0.059Elo 1424
Match
96%
ToledoSP+ -9.4
Off EPA/play +0.360Def EPA/play -0.023Elo 1568
Match
95%
MassachusettsSP+ -25.8
Off EPA/play +0.426Def EPA/play +0.024Elo 1076
Match
95%
North CarolinaSP+ +5.8
Off EPA/play +0.330Def EPA/play -0.045Elo 1398
Match
95%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 2015–2026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: +17.9, #15 of 1282016: +21.2, #11 of 1282017: +15.2, #20 of 1302018: +5.1, #42 of 1302019: +12.2, #26 of 1302020: +5.6, #44 of 1242021: -4.0, #84 of 1302022: +12.1, #24 of 1312023: +13.8, #27 of 1332024: +16.0, #21 of 1342025: +22.5, #10 of 1362026: +32.7, #2 of 138
20152026
Now +32.7 · #2 of 138Best +32.7 in 2026Worst -4.0 in 2021

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20262-00-0
100%
2.0+0.0
20259-47-2
69%
8.5+0.5
20247-64-5
54%
6.6+0.4
20238-55-4
62%
6.3+1.7
202211-38-2
79%
9.8+1.2
20214-83-6
33%
4.4-0.4
20205-15-1
83%
2.7+2.3
20198-57-2
62%
7.8+0.2
20185-74-5
42%
6.4-1.4
201711-39-1
79%
9.4+1.6

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

21%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

2-0 so far, projected to finish 8.0-4.1. Top-four bye in 4.3%. Wins the Big Ten in 3.1%.

If they finish with…

100%
0 losses
100%
1 loss
94%
2 losses
16%
3 losses
0.0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count. Better than even up to 2.

Win out and it is 100%. Running the table settles it.

down 4.3 points since preseason — won 42-26 over San José State against an expected margin of +36, so −2.3 against the number.

  • At 2 losses they are 94% where the average Big Ten team is 72%.
  • The Big Ten takes 3.19 bids in an average season, and four or more in 37%.

USC’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk9vs Ohio State34.1
  • wk11at Indiana33.3
  • wk4vs Oregon29.9
  • wk6at Penn State29.3
  • wk13at UCLA22.5
  • wk5vs Washington22.4

Who to root for

Games USC is not in that move its odds most. Same units, much smaller scale.

  • wk7Nebraska over Oregon2.7
  • wk12Michigan State over Oregon2.7
  • wk2Oklahoma State over Oregon2.4
  • wk2North Dakota State over Air Force2.4
  • wk5Iowa over Ohio State2.4
  • wk8Illinois over Oregon2.3
The full playoff picture →

Big Ten

0-0 in league play, projected 5.0-4.06 of 18 by title odds
3.1%
Wins the Big Ten
7.5%
Reaches the title game

The Big Ten sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 50% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk9Ohio State at USC8.1
  • wk11USC at Indiana7.5
  • wk4Oregon at USC6.3
  • wk6USC at Penn State5.9

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole Big Ten race →

If not the playoff, then

92%
Bowl eligible
72%
Placed in a bowl
21%
In the playoff
7.7%
Season over in November

USC is 2-0 and needs 4 more wins from 10 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent. In 0.5% they go with five wins, as a 5-7 fill-in — which in reality is decided by academic progress rate, not by anything modelled here.

  • ReliaQuest Bowl11%
  • Las Vegas Bowl10%
  • Music City Bowl10%
  • Citrus Bowl10.0%
  • Pinstripe Bowl8.6%
  • Rate Bowl7.5%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 20 have sent USC a player since 2010 — 101 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of USC's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
Mater DeiCA181
Junipero SerraCA144
St. John BoscoCA110
Santa Margarita CatholicCA81
Corona CentennialCA71
Bishop GormanNV60
Rancho CucamongaCA51
Oaks ChristianCA41
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.