Clemson

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1672nd
  Defense−0.0494th
• 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.
  Offense50.0%95th
  Defense35.9%96th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.078th
  Defense+1.1760th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0115th
  Defense−0.0484th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3387th
  Defense−0.0394th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense53.6%93rd
  Defense43.6%80th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.7%91st
  Defense22.3%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1272nd
  Defense2.4192nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.5%69th
  Defense22.9%82nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.9%92nd
  Defense22.3%98th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2016

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. W
   AUB
2. W
   TROY
3. W
   SCST
4. W
   GT
5. W
   LOU
6. W
   BC
7. W
   NCSU
8. W
   FSU
9. W
   SYR
10. L
    PITT
11. W
    WAKE
12. W
    SC
13. W
    VT
14. W
    OSU
15. W
    ALA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Clemson.

Players, 2016

1. Deshaun WatsonQB596 plays · +0.309 pts/play · 2nd of 218 QBs
   3.45WAR2.46 to 4.39
2. Wayne GallmanRB196 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 14th of 347 RBs
   0.74WAR0.56 to 0.92
3. Mike WilliamsWR117 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 8th of 417 WRs
   0.40WAR0.21 to 0.56
4. Deon CainWR47 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 124th of 417 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
5. Hunter RenfrowWR59 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 126th of 417 WRs
   0.16WAR0.07 to 0.23
6. Jordan LeggettTE53 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 1st of 195 TEs
   0.12WAR0.00 to 0.22
7. Ray-Ray McCloudWR50 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 206th of 417 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.14
8. Greg HuegelPK12 plays · +0.419 pts/play · 60th of 116 kickers
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.13

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8468469th of 128Roster talent: 846, 9th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  26326310th of 128Recruiting: 263, 10th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  89%89%20th of 128Returning production: 89%, 20th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +28.7+28.72nd of 128SP+ rating: +28.7, 2nd of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2016

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.19 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 ALAQ3 2:54 4th & 1 at CLEM 39, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. at ALAQ3 9:14 4th & 1 at ALA 43, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. vs OSUQ2 13:02 4th & 1 at CLEM 20, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
4. vs PITTQ4 14:48 4th & 3 at CLEM 49, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. vs NCSUQ2 0:27 4th & 14 at NCSU 33, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
6. at ALAQ2 9:22 4th & 1 at CLEM 31, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at BCQ2 5:07 4th & 1 at CLEM 11, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at WAKEQ3 3:39 4th & 1 at CLEM 34, up 15Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

10th of 128 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. W

   AUB
2. W

   TROY
3. W

   SCST
4. W

   GT
5. W

   LOU
6. W

   BC
7. W

   NCSU
8. W

   FSU
9. W

   SYR
10. L

    PITT
11. W

    WAKE
12. W

    SC
13. W

    VT
14. W

    OSU
15. W

    ALA

What moved it, 2016

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+2.87
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock+0.19
• Timeouts−0.09
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.40

Game by game

• AUBW 19-13 at AUB72% → 88%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +34, Clock +3
• TROYW 30-24 vs TROY98% → 97%Before kickoff +48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +6
• SCSTW 59-0 vs SCST100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• GTW 26-7 at GT81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +26, Clock +1
• LOUW 42-36 vs LOU62% → 96%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• BCW 56-10 at BC89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16
• NCSUW 24-17 vs NCSU91% → 80%Before kickoff +41 · On the field −10: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts −12
• FSUW 37-34 at FSU60% → 95%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +43, Clock +2
• SYRW 54-0 vs SYR96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• PITTL 42-43 vs PITT92% → 10%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −46, Clock −3
• WAKEW 35-13 at WAKE94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +11, Clock +1
• SCW 56-7 vs SC95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +7
• VTW 42-35 at VT77% → 95%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +33, Clock +2
• OSUW 31-0 vs OSU50% → 100%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +47
• ALAW 35-31 at ALA40% → 95%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3

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.