Clemson

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense−0.067th
  Defense+0.0367th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense34.9%5th
  Defense41.7%42nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2238th
  Defense+1.1479th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0430th
  Defense+0.2210th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense0.009th
  Defense−0.0692nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense39.4%4th
  Defense44.3%65th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.6%21st
  Defense36.0%13th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6615th
  Defense3.691st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.8%13th
  Defense10.4%1st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.2%10th
  Defense15.6%46th

Percentiles among the 138 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2026

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Clemson allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. L
   LSU
2. W
   GASO
3. W
   UNC
4. W
   CAL
5. L
   MIA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Clemson.

Players, 2026

1. Bryant Wesco Jr.WR35 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 11th of 364 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
2. T.J. MooreWR34 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 16th of 364 WRs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.18
3. Gideon DavidsonRB69 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 54th of 320 RBs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.17
4. Tait ReynoldsQB157 plays · +0.021 pts/play · 159th of 192 QBs
   0.06WAR−0.23 to 0.33
5. Nolan HauserPK11 plays · +0.291 pts/play · 2nd of 82 kickers
   0.06WAR0.03 to 0.09
6. Tyler BrownWR22 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 150th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
7. Chris Johnson Jr.RB18 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 213th of 320 RBs
   0.04WAR0.03 to 0.05
8. Christian BentancurTE8 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 62nd of 164 TEs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Clemson's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  86386316th of 138Roster talent: 863, 16th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25425416th of 138Recruiting: 254, 16th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  41%41%63rd of 136Returning production: 41%, 63rd of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.2+2.261st of 138SP+ rating so far: +2.2, 61st of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Clemson's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.07 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at CALQ4 9:14 4th & 2 at CAL 30, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.5 pts
2. vs UNCQ2 0:00 4th & 2 at UNC 2, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. vs UNCQ3 10:42 4th & 3 at UNC 5, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
4. vs GASOQ2 14:57 4th & 2 at GASO 2, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs MIAQ1 0:04 4th & 3 at MIA 30, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at LSUQ1 7:57 4th & 3 at CLEM 49, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

43rd of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Clemson's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   LSU
2. W

   GASO
3. W

   UNC
4. W

   CAL
5. L

   MIA

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Clemson's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard+0.43
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.02
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.03

Game by game

• LSUL 10-51 at LSU25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts +1
• GASOW 22-7 vs GASO92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +12
• UNCW 28-20 vs UNC59% → 98%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts +2
• CALW 24-10 at CAL57% → 99%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +47, Clock +2
• MIAL 13-41 vs MIA16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22

Points of win probability, from Clemson's side.

Closest call

CLEM 38-35 UK (2023) - Clemson dropped to a 1.0% win probability before pulling it out.