Tennessee Vols vs. South Carolina Gamecocks: statistical game preview

A weekly look at our upcoming opponent from a statistics perspective. CAVEATS: You'll get tired of hearing this, but yeah, we know that small sample sets preclude concrete conclusions. One game (or even two or three) doesn't provide enough data to approach the predictive accuracy of even a Magic 8 Ball, but that doesn't mean we're not going to look at what little we have. The results from 2012 and 2011 are understandably a mixed bag, but they also suggest that it's a worthwhile endeavor.

Also, this: All of the following information is gleaned exclusively from the NCAA statistics and does not account for things like injuries, shared playing time, suspensions, and other stuff difficult to see in the stats from a bird's eye view under time constraints. We generally put the "conclusions" and "predictions" at the top of the post, with the data upon which those are based below.

Now that I have my statsy preview machine all programmed and stuff, I'm better able to easily run the thing for different teams, which also means I can run each game twice, one from each team's perspective. It matters because the comps change depending on the team from whose perspective you're viewing it. The caveats all still apply, and I will still eyeball the thing and revise predictions as I think is necessary.

Head-to-Head, from South Carolina's Perspective

					Comps				Result against Comps		Prediction
					Closest Lower		Closest Higher		Closest Lower	Closest Higher
					Team		Team		Team	Team
	Rank	Value	Rank	Value	Rank	Value	Rank	Value
South Carolina rushing offense vs. Tennessee rushing defense	19	225.67	81	175.67	North Carolina		Vanderbilt		North Carolina	Vanderbilt	224
					102	197	76	168.5	228	220
South Carolina passing offense vs. Tennessee passing defense	44	260.8	79	240.8	Georgia		North Carolina		Georgia	North Carolina	203
					97	259.3	73	238.8	228	178
South Carolina rushing defense vs. Tennessee rushing offense	43	142.83	30	211	Georgia		Arkansas		Georgia	Arkansas	223
					34	206.33	24	216.29	227	218
South Carolina passing defense vs. Tennessee passing offense	29	202.7	113	164.2	Arkansas		Kentucky		Arkansas	Kentucky	104
					115	154.6	96	201.5	30	178
South Carolina scoring offense vs. Tennessee scoring defense	38	34.5	75	28	Kentucky		Arkansas		Kentucky	Arkansas	44
					86	29.3	72	27.6	35	52
South Carolina scoring defense vs. Tennessee scoring offense	39	22.7	51	31.7	North Carolina		UCF		North Carolina	UCF	24
					93	23.6	50	31.8	10	25
Caveats: These are informed guesses rather than mathematical calculations, and this early in the season, the guesses are particularly sketchy. But here's the general analytical framework: We are averaging X in a certain category. The opponent averages Y against that, which is most closely comparable to some identified previous opponent, against whom we did Z. All of that leads to an informed guess labeled as Prediction. And one more time for emphasis: The less data you have, the more sketchy the guess, and the guesses range from ALL CAPS SKETCHY WITH EXCLAMATION POINTS at the beginning of the season to merely lower case sketchy for the last game.

Head-to-Head, from Tennessee's Perspective

					Comps				Result against Comps		Prediction
					Closest Lower		Closest Higher		Closest Lower	Closest Higher
					Team		Team		Team	Team
	Rank	Value	Rank	Value	Rank	Value	Rank	Value
Tennessee rushing offense vs. South Carolina rushing defense	30	211	43	142.83	South Alabama		Georgia		South Alabama	Georgia	234
					48	146.2	37	139.67	278	189
Tennessee passing offense vs. South Carolina passing defense	113	164.2	29	202.7	Georgia		Oregon		Georgia	Oregon	140
					97	259.3	27	201	215	138
Tennessee rushing defense vs. South Carolina rushing offense	81	175.67	19	225.67	Western Kentucky		Oregon		Western Kentucky	Oregon	180
					26	214.33	3	324	171	216
Tennessee passing defense vs. South Carolina passing offense	79	240.8	44	260.8	Western Kentucky		South Alabama		Western Kentucky	South Alabama	220
					46	259.3	25	288.6	222	257
Tennessee scoring offense vs. South Carolina scoring defense	51	31.7	39	22.7	Western Kentucky		Oregon		Western Kentucky	Oregon	33
					47	23.8	6	13.8	52	14
Tennessee scoring defense vs. South Carolina scoring offense	75	28	38	34.5	Western Kentucky		Georgia		Western Kentucky	Georgia	27
					53	31.2	27	37.5	20	34

When Tennessee runs the ball: We're getting about 200 yards per game, and SC is allowing about 140. That's right in line with Georgia and South Alabama, against whom we got 189 and 278 respectively. The closet comps to our rushing offense from their perspective are Georgia and Arkansas, who they held to 227 and 218. So a prediction of about 230 yards on the ground may be a little high, but doesn't seem out of the question.

When Tennessee passes: We're getting a measly 164 yards through the air per game. They're allowing 203, which most closely resembles Oregon against whom we got 138. The result of the analysis from their perspective is 104, so my prediction is 120 passing yards.

When South Carolina runs the ball: We're holding opponents to 176 yards on the ground per game. They're getting 226, which is closest to Western Kentucky. The Hilltoppers got 171 against us, so the result there is 180. From their perspective, the result is 224, so splitting the difference gives us 200 yards on the ground for the Gamecocks.

When South Carolina passes the ball: Our passing defense gives up 240 yards per game (thanks, Oregon!), and SC gets 261. Again, Western Kentucky is the closest comp, and they got 222 against us. The result from SC's perspective is 203. Prediction: 210 passing yards for SC.

On the scoreboard for Tennessee: We put up almost 32 points per game. They hold opponents to 23. Western Kentucky is once again the closest comp, and we got 52 on them, but that seems a bit screwy. Good thing it's averaged out with the Oregon score and ends up 33. From their perspective, the result is 24. Prediction: 28, which may be a bit high.

On the scoreboard for South Carolina: We're holding opponents to 28 points per game. The Gamecocks are getting almost 35, right between Western Kentucky and Georgia, who scored 20 and 34 points against us. That gives us 27. Their perspective gives them a much different result of 44 points. Splitting the difference gives us 35 for SC, but this is an especially flimsy prediction.

Compiled Predictions

South Carolina's Perspective	Score	Rushing Yards	Passing Yards	Total Yards
South Carolina	44	224	203	427
Tennessee	24	223	104	327

Tennessee's Perspective	Score	Rushing Yards	Passing Yards	Total Yards
Tennessee	33	234	140	374
South Carolina	27	180	220	400

Combining the Two Perspectives	Score	Rushing Yards	Passing Yards	Total Yards
Tennessee	28	230	120	350
South Carolina	35	200	210	410

Taking all of that together, it's looking a lot like the current spread. I still think, like Will and I discussed on last night's podcast, that this is an excellent opportunity for the Vols to grab a relatively big upset. Working against that is the fact that South Carolina seems to have found its stride along with some extra motivation now that the SEC East is back up for grabs. Still, I think it's going to be a good game.

Schedule

North Carolina Tar Heels	8/29/13	win 27 - 10	coverage
@ Georgia Bulldogs	9/7/13	loss 30 - 41	coverage
Vanderbilt Commodores	9/14/13	win 35 - 25	coverage
@ Central Florida Knights	9/28/13	win 28 - 25	coverage
Kentucky Wildcats	10/5/13	win 35 - 28	coverage
@ Arkansas Razorbacks	10/12/13	win 52 - 7	coverage
Austin Peay Governors	8/31/13	win 45 - 0	coverage
Western Kentucky Hilltoppers	9/7/13	win 52 - 20	coverage
@ Oregon Ducks	9/14/13	loss 14 - 59	coverage
@ Florida Gators	9/21/13	loss 17 - 31	coverage
South Alabama Jaguars	9/28/13	win 31 - 24	coverage
Georgia Bulldogs	10/5/13	loss 31 - 34	coverage

I've been saying it for awhile, but that schedule for South Carolina isn't all that impressive, with the exception of Georgia. And they lost to Georgia.

National Unit Rankings

OFFENSIVE RANKINGS
Statistic	National Rank	Conference Rank	Value	National Leader	Value	Conference Leader	Value
Rushing Offense (123 ranked)	19	3	225.7	Army	352.3	Auburn	287.0
Passing Offense (123 ranked)	44	6	260.8	Oregon St.	433.2	Texas A&M	361.8
Total Offense (123 ranked)	23	4	486.5	Baylor	715.4	Texas A&M	586.5
Scoring Offense (123 ranked)	38	6	34.5	Baylor	63.4	Texas A&M	47.8
Team Passing Efficiency (123 ranked)	14	5	159.69	Baylor	221.36	LSU	184.11
Passing Yards per Completion (123 ranked)	25	5	13.73	Baylor	20.71	LSU	16.25
Passes Had Intercepted (122 ranked)	4	1	2	Houston New Mexico Army	1 1 1	South Carolina LSU Kentucky	2 2 2
Pass Sacks Allowed (123 ranked)	54	8	1.67	Toledo Northern Ill. Nebraska	0.50 0.50 0.50	Auburn	0.67
Tackles for Loss Allowed (123 ranked)	22	5	4.50	Navy	2.80	Tennessee	3.50
Red Zone Offense (123 ranked)	61	7	0.833	Iowa St. Rice Connecticut	1.000 1.000 1.000	LSU	0.882

Offensive observations. They're efficient and not mistake-prone through the air and really good on the ground.

DEFENSIVE RANKINGS
Statistic	National Rank	Conference Rank	Value	National Leader	Value	Conference Leader	Value
Rushing Defense (123 ranked)	44	5	142.8	Michigan St.	58.0	Florida	83.3
Passing Yards Allowed (123 ranked)	29	4	202.7	Miami (FL)	141.4	Florida	152.0
Team Passing Efficiency Defense (123 ranked)	93	12	139.60	Miami (FL)	83.08	Florida	85.52
Passes Intercepted (119 ranked)	77	6	5	Virginia Tech Northwestern Missouri	13 13 13	Missouri	13
Total Defense (123 ranked)	23	3	345.5	Michigan St.	228.3	Florida	235.3
Scoring Defense (123 ranked)	39	5	22.7	Louisville	7.3	Alabama	11.3
Team Pass Sacks (123 ranked)	41	5	2.33	Clemson	4.00	Arkansas	2.86
Team Tackles for Loss (123 ranked)	42	5	6.5	Clemson	10.2	Auburn	8.2
Red Zone Defense (120 ranked)	61	7	0.826	Bowling Green	0.500	Florida	0.692

Defensive observations. The total defense ranking is very good, but it seems to be from a balanced effort. Basically, they're just very solid all the way around, but not spectacular at any particular thing.

SPECIAL TEAMS AND TURNOVERS RANKINGS
Statistic	National Rank	Conference Rank	Value	National Leader	Value	Conference Leader	Value
Net Punting (123 ranked)	122	14	31.38	Memphis	45.13	Vanderbilt	41.70
Punt Returns (123 ranked)	90	11	5.43	Boise St.	26.71	Ole Miss	19.60
Punt Return Defense (123 ranked)	104	13	12.00	Houston	-2.25	LSU	0.75
Kickoff Returns (123 ranked)	111	14	18.06	Miami (FL)	33.08	Mississippi St.	31.25
Kickoff Return Defense (123 ranked)	56	7	20.71	La.-Monroe	12.00	Vanderbilt	14.82
Turnover Margin (123 ranked)	64	10	0.0	Houston	2.8	Missouri	1.5
Fewest Penalties Per Game (123 ranked)	42	6	5.33	Navy	2.80	Auburn	4.17
Fewest Penalty Yards Per Game (123 ranked)	34	5	41.00	Tulsa	20.83	Tennessee	32.00

Special teams and turnovers observations. Hmm. Somebody doesn't think special teams is as important as offense or defense. We could have an advantage here.

Players to Watch

Category	Player	National Rank	Value
OFFENSE
Rushing Yards (299 ranked)	Mike Davis Connor Shaw	10 134	742 319
Rushing Yards Per Game (300 ranked)	Mike Davis Connor Shaw Brandon Wilds	10 136 273	123.7 53.2 28.0
Passing Efficiency (114 ranked)	Connor Shaw	7	172.8
Passing TDs (105 ranked)	Connor Shaw	41	10
Passing Yards (135 ranked)	Connor Shaw Dylan Thompson	66 135	1,146 416
Passing Yards Per Game (135 ranked)	Connor Shaw Dylan Thompson	74 118	191.0 83.2
Passing Yards per Completion (114 ranked)	Connor Shaw	32	13.48
Total Offense (299 ranked)	Connor Shaw Mike Davis Dylan Thompson	50 125 162	244.2 123.7 87.6
Receiving Yards (400 ranked)	Bruce Ellington Damiere Byrd Nick Jones Mike Davis Shaq Roland	123 190 301 310 371	332 263 191 185 161
Receiving Yards Per Game (400 ranked)	Bruce Ellington Damiere Byrd Nick Jones Mike Davis	131 198 302 311	55.3 43.8 31.8 30.8
Receptions Per Game (380 ranked)	Bruce Ellington Nick Jones Damiere Byrd Mike Davis	177 230 303 303	3.5 3.0 2.5 2.5
Scoring (245 ranked)	Mike Davis Elliott Fry	23 98	9.0 7.2

Offensive Observations. Running back Mike Davis is terrific. Really, really good. And Connor Shaw is efficient and effective. Shaw spreads it around well to several different receivers, so everyone will have to cover their own guy or area and not get distracted.

Category	Player	National Rank	Actual
DEFENSE
Interceptions (155 ranked)	Victor Hampton Jimmy Legree	68 68	0.3 0.3
Pass Sacks (73 ranked)	Kelcy Quarles	36	0.7
Solo Tackles (57 ranked)
Tackles For Loss (36 ranked)
Total Tackles (390 ranked)

Defense. Everyone knows about Clowney. Well, everyone but the NCAA national statistical rankings database.

Category	Player	National Rank	Actual
SPECIAL TEAMS
Punt Return TDs (5 ranked)
Punt Returns (74 ranked)
Punting (95 ranked)
Kickoff Returns (106 ranked)	Shon Carson	101	17.8
Field Goals Per Game (121 ranked)	Elliott Fry	59	1.0
All Purpose (249 ranked)	Mike Davis Bruce Ellington	13 208	154.50 76.33

Special teams. This chart almost ended up entirely blank. But the Gamecocks do have Mike Davis and a field goal kicker.