South Carolina at Tennessee Week 5 College Football Matchup South Carolina at Tennessee Matchup - Week 5
Sat, Sep 30 2023 · Week 5 · 🏟 Neyland Stadium Knoxville, TN · Turf · 102,455 cap
South Carolina✈ 214 miSame TZ
20 41
Final
Home
📊 Punt & Rally Projection
South Carolina
22
Tennessee
34
P&R Line Tennessee -11.5
P&R Total O/U 55.5
Confidence 86 High
Vegas Tennessee -12 · O/U 59.0
Matchup Prediction
Tennessee has the edge in this matchup
Both Momentum Control (CSS) and Game Control metrics favor Tennessee entering this game.
Momentum Control
71.6%
Tennessee wins
Solid
Game Control
58.6%
Tennessee wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Tennessee -12
O/U 59.0
William Hill (New Jersey)
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → Tennessee · 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
🏠 Tennessee 2nd straight Home Game
South Carolina 2023 Schedule
South Carolina's 2023 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/2South Carolina vs North Carolina-2.5L17–3163.5L17–31UN
Sat 9/9South Carolina vs Furman-18.0W47–2152.5W47–21OY
Sat 9/16South Carolina at Georgia+27.0L14–2454.5L14–24UY
Sat 9/23South Carolina vs Mississippi State-6.0W37–3046.5W37–30OY
Sat 9/30South Carolina at Tennessee+12.0L20–4159.0L20–41ON
— Bye Week —
Sat 10/14South Carolina vs Florida+1.0L39–4150.0L39–41ON
Sat 10/21South Carolina at Missouri+7.5L12–3457.5L12–34UN
Sat 10/28South Carolina at Texas A&M+17.0L17–3051.5L17–30UY
Sat 11/4South Carolina vs Jacksonville State-15.5W38–2855.0W38–28ON
Sat 11/11South Carolina vs Vanderbilt-13.5W47–653.5W47–6UY
Sat 11/18South Carolina vs Kentucky-2.5W17–1452.5W17–14UY
Sat 11/25South Carolina vs Clemson+7.5L7–1648.0L7–16UN
Tennessee 2023 Schedule
Tennessee's 2023 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/2Tennessee vs Virginia-27.5W49–1356.0W49–13OY
Sat 9/9Tennessee vs Austin Peay-48.0W30–1365.5W30–13UN
Sat 9/16Tennessee at Florida-5.0L16–2957.0L16–29UN
Sat 9/23Tennessee vs UTSA-24.0W45–1459.0W45–14UY
Sat 9/30Tennessee vs South Carolina-12.0W41–2059.0W41–20OY
— Bye Week —
Sat 10/14Tennessee vs Texas A&M-3.0W20–1354.5W20–13UY
Sat 10/21Tennessee at Alabama+8.5L20–3447.5L20–34ON
Sat 10/28Tennessee at Kentucky-4.0W33–2750.5W33–27OY
Sat 11/4Tennessee vs UConn-35.0W59–355.5W59–3OY
Sat 11/11Tennessee at Missouri-1.0L7–3658.5L7–36UN
Sat 11/18Tennessee vs Georgia+9.0L10–3859.0L10–38UN
Sat 11/25Tennessee vs Vanderbilt-27.0W48–2458.0W48–24ON
Mon 1/1Tennessee vs Iowa-4.5W35–037.0W35–0UY
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) · 2023 season
Tennessee PPA Edge
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Tennessee
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
South Carolina #67
+0.358
Tennessee #36
+0.471
Tennessee Edge
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
South Carolina #50
+0.623
Tennessee #39
+0.658
Tennessee Edge
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
South Carolina #72
0.160
Tennessee #35
0.178
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
Tennessee Edge
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
South Carolina #51
+7.469
Tennessee #94
+6.982
South Carolina Edge
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
South Carolina #86
+0.797
Tennessee #24
+0.900
Tennessee Edge
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
South Carolina #33
69.3
Tennessee #44
69.7
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
South Carolina Edge
Advanced stats sourced from CFBD · 2023 season · Edges are matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense)
Power Ratings
Team Power Ratings
Overall · Offense · Defense ratings · Updated as season progresses
Tennessee Rated Higher
Overall Power Rating
South Carolina
5.3
Tennessee
14.6
Offense Rating
South Carolina
18.3
Tennessee
21.0
Defense Rating (lower = better defense)
South Carolina
13.0
Tennessee
6.4
Power ratings updated throughout the season as results accumulate
Momentum Control (CSS)
Consecutive Scoring Sequences Who builds scoring momentum? Tennessee Edge
Avg sequences created per game
South Carolina #69
0.67
Tennessee #68
1.67
Avg sequences allowed per game (lower is better)
South Carolina #59
0.67
Tennessee #89
1.33
Tennessee +1.00
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 71.6% of games historically
Based on 3 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance Who controls games start to finish? Tennessee Edge
Avg GC score per game (offense)
South Carolina #1
54.0
Tennessee #1
64.7
Avg GC score allowed per game (lower is better)
South Carolina #83
25.6
Tennessee #24
24.7
Tennessee +10.7
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.6% of games historically
Based on 4 games this season
Actual Result
CSS Battle
Tie
1 — 1 sequences
✗ Predicted incorrectly
GC Battle
Tennessee
61.4 — 14.8 GC score
✓ Predicted correctly
Game Result
Tennessee won by 21
✓ Model called it
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season

Both metrics agree on Tennessee. Teams with this edge profile have covered 50.3% historically — essentially a coin flip against the spread.

ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.

Coaching Matchup
South Carolina
Shane Beamer #1
16–13 (55%) · Yr 3 at school
OC Dowell Loggains Yr 1 #1
DC Clayton White Yr 3 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #1
Tennessee
Josh Heupel #1
20–9 (69%) · Yr 3 at school
OC Joey Halzle Yr 1 #1
DC Tim Banks Yr 3 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #1
About these metrics
Advanced Stats shows matchup-adjusted factor edges (offense vs opponent defense). Combination signals — when PPA, PPO, Success Rate, and Havoc all point the same direction — have historically predicted the SU winner in 95–97% of games and the ATS winner in 82–83% of games (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS, regular season).
Impact: Advanced Stats are the best performance based metric used to predict the outcome of games.

Momentum Control (CSS) measures consecutive scoring sequences — when a team scores, holds the opponent scoreless, then scores again. Teams entering a game with a CSS edge of +1.0 or more have won 71–78% of games historically (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS).
Impact: CSS is not a predictive ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set.

Game Control (GC) measures win probability dominance — how thoroughly a team controlled the game from start to finish. Teams with a GC edge of +12 or more have won 67–76% of games historically. When both metrics agree, combined confidence is higher. When they split, treat as a lean at best.
Impact: GS is not a predictive ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set.

Power Ratings are a custom-built composite of a Teams Talent, Experience & Production, Coaching & Performance Metrics. These are updated constantly with roster changes, performance once the games start for the 2026 season, injuries the team is dealing with and scheduling situations.
Impact: There are a wide range of power ratings available, we think ours is the best, you can decide for yourself