Scorebook
Join
Teams / SEC / South Carolina
Index · this season
76
▲ Above its 5-year level +5
Career67since 1936
Peak901987
Last 571seasons
#24 nationally · 3-3 (1-3 conf)
Résumé #49 · better than its record
Schedule so far #26
Margin ±5 pts (tightens with games)
Why 76? →

South Carolina Gamecocks

SEC · Columbia, SC · Williams-Brice Stadium · Head coach Shane Beamer
Rival
Bitter rivalry
43-70-4 all time (117 meetings since 1902)
Clemson leads
Last: lost 28-14 (2025)
Wants it back
program traits are earned from history
No recognized national titles since 1936. Counted: AP poll champion, a coaches-poll champion, or the BCS / playoff title-game winner; a split year counts for both.0national titles
Heisman Trophy winners1Heisman
Seasons finishing in the AP top 10 since 19363AP top-10
Consensus All-Americans since 19364All-Americans
NFL draft picks since 1967116NFL picks
Winning percentage since 193649.6%win pct
History since 1936 · football since 1902. Every season →
Chemistry
Chem 61: typical61
Chem 66: typical
66Foundation
Chem 55: typical
55Gel
gel counts 45% so far
▲ Above its norm +4Trending down
early · #56 of 138
HC year6
Ret. starters46%
QB yrs w/ OC1
View chemistry →
Team chemistryearly · #56 of 138 FBS teams
Chem 66: typicalFoundation66+Chem 55: typicalGel55=Chem 61: typicalChem61Gel counts 45% so far (it grows as games are played, up to half)
Foundationwhat the program has built · moves over seasons
Foundation66Staff stability — Coach and coordinator tenure, staff who came along, assistant turnoverStaff stability63Roster continuity — Returning starters and the lineup's experienceRoster continuity72Unit cohesion — QB & coordinator, QB & receivers, offensive line, defense: how long each unit has played togetherUnit cohesion58Administration — Athletic director continuity and coach-AD alignmentAdministration49Investment — Commitment to football: its share of the department's spending and whether that is growing, plus spending and recruitingInvestment66Fan base — How passionate and loyal the fan base is: how often it sells out, and whether it sells out games that don't matterFan base82
ContinuityClimate
Continuity · who has played and coached togetherlive

Who has played and coached together, and for how long, ranked against every FBS team at the same point of the season.

▸Staff stability
Coach and coordinator tenure, staff who came along, assistant turnover
63
Staff cohesion72
HC year 6 · OC year 1 · DC year 6
Assistant turnover54
50% of on-field staff new this season (FBS average about 45%)
▸Roster continuity
Returning starters and the lineup's experience
72
Returning core74
45% of last season's starters · FBS median 32%
Experience69
13 career starts per starter · FBS median 12
▸Unit cohesion
QB & coordinator, QB & receivers, offensive line, defense: how long each unit has played together
58
QB & coordinator55
1st season together · same as 76% of FBS teams
QB & receivers91
10.0 games started together on average · FBS median 3.9
Line cohesion6
2.2 games per linemen pair · FBS median 5.2
Defensive cohesion64
4.6 games per defensive pair · FBS median 4.5
Climate · around the programlive

The administration, money and fans around the team: athletic director continuity, willingness to invest, and crowds.

▸Administration
Athletic director continuity and coach-AD alignment
49
AD continuity49
Jeremiah Donati · year 2 (Wikipedia, CC BY-SA)
▸Investment
Commitment to football: its share of the department's spending and whether that is growing, plus spending and recruiting
66
Football's share52
27% of department spending goes to football
Investment trend72
+50% over three years
Football investment78
$55.9M on football (2024-25 federal report)
Recruiting spend73
$2.52M men's recruiting
Department resources82
$205M athletic department revenue
▸Fan base
How passionate and loyal the fan base is: how often it sells out, and whether it sells out games that don't matter
82
Sellouts81
sellout crowds (95%+ of capacity) at 37 of 48 home games (last 8 seasons)
Sells out anyway82
sellout crowds at 27 of 35 games that didn't matter: cupcakes, or a team expected to lose or having a losing season

Finances: U.S. Department of Education athletics disclosures, as reported by each school. Athletic directors: Wikipedia (CC BY-SA). Attendance: reported crowds vs stadium capacity.

Gelhow it is working right now · moves week to week
Gel55Playing above its parts — Results vs what its preseason projection expected, game by gamePlaying above its parts59Settled & sharp — A settled starting lineup and clean execution (penalties, turnovers) vs its own normalSettled & sharp60Alignment — Coaches and players telling the same story; the staff on one pageAlignmentsoonResilience — Confidence, and how the team sounds after adversityResiliencesoonFan & media mood — Expectations met or missed this season (preseason rank vs now), stronger for fan bases that react hard; fan and media sentiment joins laterFan & media mood51Coach security — The hard-facts hot seat, inverted: results vs expectation, recent seasons vs the program's norm, stakes, a new ADCoach security49
InternalOn-field fitExternal
Internal · how the program talkscoming

How the team talks in press conferences and interviews, each program against its own normal, so a naturally terse coach isn't read as upset. Being built program by program, Big Ten first.

▸Alignment
Coaches and players telling the same story; the staff on one page
soon
Coming: measured from press conferences and interviews.
▸Resilience
Confidence, and how the team sounds after adversity
soon
Coming: measured from press conferences and interviews.

Readings are team-level; we don't publish psychological readings of individual players.

On-field fit · how it is playing togetherlive

How the team is playing together this season: beating or missing its preseason expectation, a settled lineup, clean execution.

▸Playing above its parts
Results vs what its preseason projection expected, game by game
59
This season59
-0.6 points a game vs its preseason projection (5 games)
▸Settled & sharp
A settled starting lineup and clean execution (penalties, turnovers) vs its own normal
60
This season60
79% of starters kept game to game
External · pressure from outsidelive

Pressure from outside the building: the hard-facts hot seat now; this season's fan and media mood as it is measured.

▸Fan & media mood
Expectations met or missed this season (preseason rank vs now), stronger for fan bases that react hard; fan and media sentiment joins later
51
This season51
outside the AP poll: projected #27 preseason -> #24 in our Index now · lost to rival Kentucky 35-34 (-10) · results 3-3 (-2, recent games count more)
▸Coach security
The hard-facts hot seat, inverted: results vs expectation, recent seasons vs the program's norm, stakes, a new AD
49
This season49
Shane Beamer, year 6 · 50% wins so far · -0.6 pts a game vs preseason expectation · last two seasons +5% vs the program's norm

Dashed gold ring = typical (62). 20-50 is the warning zone; under 10 is a collapse. Spokes with no data yet are dashed and left out until they fill in. Chem blends the two halves, then places the blend among this season's teams.

Trend · Foundationeach program year runs Feb 1 to the title game
'1651'1769'1863'1963'2061'2117'2268'2347'2469'2562'262016 wk 1 vs Vanderbilt: 45 · W2016 wk 2 vs Mississippi State: 58 · L2016 wk 3 vs East Carolina: 43 · W2016 wk 4 vs Kentucky: 38 · L2016 wk 5 vs Texas A&M: 35 · L2016 wk 6 vs Georgia: 36 · L2016 wk 8 vs Massachusetts: 51 · W2016 wk 9 vs Tennessee: 39 · W2016 wk 10 vs Missouri: 42 · W2016 wk 11 vs Florida: 52 · L2016 wk 12 vs Western Carolina: 55 · W2016 wk 13 vs Clemson: 53 · L2016 wk 1 vs South Florida: 51 · L2017 wk 2 vs Missouri: 75 · W2017 wk 3 vs Kentucky: 75 · L2017 wk 4 vs Louisiana Tech: 74 · W2017 wk 5 vs Texas A&M: 71 · L2017 wk 6 vs Arkansas: 70 · W2017 wk 7 vs Tennessee: 69 · W2017 wk 9 vs Vanderbilt: 69 · W2017 wk 10 vs Georgia: 72 · L2017 wk 11 vs Florida: 71 · W2017 wk 12 vs Wofford: 72 · W2017 wk 13 vs Clemson: 72 · L2017 wk 1 vs Michigan: 69 · W2018 wk 2 vs Georgia: 69 · L2018 wk 4 vs Vanderbilt: 68 · W2018 wk 5 vs Kentucky: 69 · L2018 wk 6 vs Missouri: 68 · W2018 wk 7 vs Texas A&M: 63 · L2018 wk 9 vs Tennessee: 68 · W2018 wk 10 vs Ole Miss: 66 · W2018 wk 11 vs Florida: 68 · L2018 wk 12 vs Chattanooga: 68 · W2018 wk 13 vs Clemson: 66 · L2018 wk 14 vs Akron: 66 · W2018 wk 1 vs Virginia: 63 · L2019 wk 2 vs Charleston Southern: 69 · W2019 wk 3 vs Alabama: 68 · L2019 wk 4 vs Missouri: 62 · L2019 wk 5 vs Kentucky: 63 · W2019 wk 7 vs Georgia: 63 · W2019 wk 8 vs Florida: 62 · L2019 wk 9 vs Tennessee: 64 · L2019 wk 10 vs Vanderbilt: 64 · W2019 wk 11 vs App State: 63 · L2019 wk 12 vs Texas A&M: 65 · L2019 wk 14 vs Clemson: 63 · L2020 wk 5 vs Florida: 70 · L2020 wk 6 vs Vanderbilt: 70 · W2020 wk 7 vs Auburn: 69 · W2020 wk 8 vs LSU: 71 · L2020 wk 10 vs Texas A&M: 70 · L2020 wk 11 vs Ole Miss: 72 · L2020 wk 12 vs Missouri: 71 · L2020 wk 13 vs Georgia: 67 · L2020 wk 14 vs Kentucky: 61 · L2021 wk 3 vs Georgia: 29 · L2021 wk 4 vs Kentucky: 32 · L2021 wk 5 vs Troy: 31 · W2021 wk 6 vs Tennessee: 17 · L2021 wk 7 vs Vanderbilt: 27 · W2021 wk 8 vs Texas A&M: 14 · L2021 wk 10 vs Florida: 16 · W2021 wk 11 vs Missouri: 15 · L2021 wk 12 vs Auburn: 17 · W2021 wk 13 vs Clemson: 17 · L2021 wk 1 vs North Carolina: 17 · W2022 wk 2 vs Arkansas: 70 · L2022 wk 3 vs Georgia: 68 · L2022 wk 4 vs Charlotte: 65 · W2022 wk 5 vs South Carolina State: 66 · W2022 wk 6 vs Kentucky: 64 · W2022 wk 8 vs Texas A&M: 64 · W2022 wk 9 vs Missouri: 64 · L2022 wk 10 vs Vanderbilt: 63 · W2022 wk 11 vs Florida: 65 · L2022 wk 12 vs Tennessee: 65 · W2022 wk 13 vs Clemson: 66 · W2022 wk 1 vs Notre Dame: 68 · L2023 wk 2 vs Furman: 60 · W2023 wk 3 vs Georgia: 57 · L2023 wk 4 vs Mississippi State: 58 · W2023 wk 5 vs Tennessee: 58 · L2023 wk 7 vs Florida: 57 · L2023 wk 8 vs Missouri: 58 · L2023 wk 9 vs Texas A&M: 58 · L2023 wk 10 vs Jacksonville State: 48 · W2023 wk 11 vs Vanderbilt: 57 · W2023 wk 12 vs Kentucky: 48 · W2023 wk 13 vs Clemson: 47 · L2024 wk 2 vs Kentucky: 68 · W2024 wk 3 vs LSU: 65 · L2024 wk 4 vs Akron: 66 · W2024 wk 6 vs Ole Miss: 66 · L2024 wk 7 vs Alabama: 67 · L2024 wk 8 vs Oklahoma: 68 · W2024 wk 10 vs Texas A&M: 69 · W2024 wk 11 vs Vanderbilt: 69 · W2024 wk 12 vs Missouri: 69 · W2024 wk 13 vs Wofford: 69 · W2024 wk 14 vs Clemson: 68 · W2024 wk 1 vs Illinois: 69 · L2025 wk 2 vs South Carolina State: 66 · W2025 wk 3 vs Vanderbilt: 64 · L2025 wk 4 vs Missouri: 64 · L2025 wk 5 vs Kentucky: 61 · W2025 wk 7 vs LSU: 59 · L2025 wk 8 vs Oklahoma: 61 · L2025 wk 9 vs Alabama: 62 · L2025 wk 10 vs Ole Miss: 63 · L2025 wk 12 vs Texas A&M: 64 · L2025 wk 13 vs Coastal Carolina: 64 · W2025 wk 14 vs Clemson: 62 · L2026 wk 2 vs Towson: 67 · W2026 wk 3 vs Mississippi State: 64 · L2026 wk 4 vs Alabama: 64 · L2026 wk 5 vs Kentucky: 66 · L2026 wk 6 vs Florida: 64 · W2026 wk 8 vs Tennessee: 65 · next gametypical 62

Every game since 2016, one continuous line; thin rules separate seasons and the chip is where each season finished. Navy dot = win, red = loss. Big drops usually mean a new staff, a new quarterback or a rebuilt line.

Trend · Gelthis season, after each game
typical 62wk 1 · on-field 91 · fan mood 74851wk 2 vs Towson · W · on-field 86 · fan mood 73812wk 3 vs Mississippi State · L · on-field 59 · fan mood 62603wk 4 vs Alabama · L · on-field 53 · fan mood 53534wk 5 vs Kentucky · L · on-field 49 · fan mood 30425wk 6 vs Florida · W · on-field 59 · fan mood 40526

How the team is working right now, rebuilt after each game from only the games so far: on-field fit (results vs preseason expectation, lineup settling, execution) and that week's fan & media mood. Coach security is part of today's Gel number but isn't rebuilt week by week yet. Navy frame = win, red = loss.

Continuity facts
Head coach
Year 6
at this school
Offensive coordinator
Year 1
new this season
Defensive coordinator
Year 6
at this school
HC & OC together
1 seasons
working together
QB with his OC
1 seasons
same play-caller
QB & receivers
10.0 games
started together, average
Offensive line pairs
2.2 games
started together, average
Returning starters
45%
from last season
Starter experience
13 starts
career average
Internal facts
Pressers read
soon
this season, coaches and players
Coach tone
soon
vs his own normal
"We" vs "I"
soon
share of team language
Owning mistakes
soon
vs pointing outward
Same story
soon
coaches and players agree
After losses
soon
how fast tone recovers
Leaders named
soon
players teammates point to
Newcomers
soon
transfers talked about as part of it
Openness
soon
forthcoming vs guarded
Measured from press conferences and interviews, program by program.
Climate facts
Athletic director
Jeremiah Donati
year 2
Football spending
$55.9M
2024-25 federal report
Spending trend
+50%
over three years
Department revenue
$205M
all sports
Recruiting spend
$2.52M
men's teams
Home crowds
—
of capacity
Staff turnover
50%
on-field staff new this season
Fan mood
soon
fans and local media
Coach & AD
soon
on the same page
Finances: U.S. Department of Education athletics disclosures. Athletic directors: Wikipedia (CC BY-SA).
Offense · games started togetherlatest lineup · 11 starters
Sellers
Fuller
Harbor
Bennett
Black
Hunt
Peak
Hay
Poku
Nnabugwu
Gray
QBLaNorris Sellers24719921026414
RBMatt Fuller77742625414
WRNyck Harbor19723821026414
WRMazeo Bennett Jr.94892524414
WRDJ Black22222212212
TEBrady Hunt10610521026414
OLJacarrius Peak22221222212
OLNolan Hay65642626414
OLEmmanuel Kojo Poku44442424414
OLEbubedike Nnabugwu11111111111
OLDarius Gray44442424414

Each square: games the two players have started together at this school (darker = more). Gray diagonal: the player's own starts here.

Defense · games started togetherlatest lineup · 11 starters
Collins
Herring
Stewart
Clark
Okoronkwo
Johnson
Williams
Swain
Collier
Kilgore
Bucey
DLKelby Collins33113333333
DLCaleb Herring34124444434
DLDylan Stewart112017101121812
DLNoah Clark12122222212
LBJustin Okoronkwo347211111151035
LBFred Johnson3410211141451235
DBPeyton Williams3411211141551335
DBVicari Swain34225555435
DBJudge Collier3418210121342434
DBGerald Kilgore33113333333
DBDavid Bucey34225555435

Each square: games the two players have started together at this school (darker = more). Gray diagonal: the player's own starts here.

Chemistry is Scorebook's own rating of how well a program fits together, on the same all-time 0-99 scale as our other ratings (compared with every FBS team since 2016; 62 is typical, 20-50 signals something is wrong, and single digits are reserved for true collapses; each season is compared with its own era). This early version blends continuity (who has played and coached together, and for how long; it counts most) with the climate around the program; how the program talks joins as it is measured. Within continuity, quarterback-centered pairings count most because they held up when we tested them against results. How our ratings work →