Clemson

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.1777th
  Defense−0.1099th
• 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.
  Offense46.7%86th
  Defense33.5%99th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1017th
  Defense+1.1082nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1787th
  Defense−0.0788th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1857th
  Defense−0.1298th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.4%91st
  Defense39.6%95th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.3%30th
  Defense23.2%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1585th
  Defense2.4389th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.0%81st
  Defense22.1%71st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.0%67th
  Defense21.5%97th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   KENT
2. W
   AUB
3. W
   LOU
4. W
   BC
5. W
   VT
6. W
   WAKE
7. L
   SYR
8. W
   GT
9. W
   NCSU
10. W
    FSU
11. W
    CIT
12. W
    SC
13. W
    MIA
14. L
    ALA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Clemson.

Players, 2017

1. Kelly BryantQB454 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 23rd of 226 QBs
   1.83WAR1.04 to 2.55
2. Tavien FeasterRB95 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 128th of 352 RBs
   0.25WAR0.18 to 0.33
3. Travis EtienneRB53 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 184th of 352 RBs
   0.17WAR0.13 to 0.22
4. Hunter RenfrowWR62 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 77th of 426 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
5. Deon CainWR71 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 86th of 426 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.23
6. Adam ChoiceRB47 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 231st of 352 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.15
7. Ray-Ray McCloudWR53 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 215th of 426 WRs
   0.09WAR0.05 to 0.13
8. C.J. FullerRB29 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 259th of 352 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.08

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8548549th of 130Roster talent: 854, 9th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25725711th of 130Recruiting: 257, 11th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  24%24%119th of 128Returning production: 24%, 119th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +26.4+26.45th of 128SP+ rating: +26.4, 5th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 0.14 of the 0.23 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 NCSUQ4 10:12 4th & 1 at CLEM 30, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−7.0 pts
2. at NCSUQ3 9:36 4th & 1 at NCSU 46, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
3. vs AUBQ3 0:15 4th & 3 at AUB 48, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs MIAQ2 0:00 4th & 8 at CLEM 3, up 21Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.4 pts
5. at NCSUQ3 7:17 4th & 4 at NCSU 43, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs AUBQ2 12:12 4th & 1 at CLEM 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. at LOUQ2 6:57 4th & 2 at LOU 14, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
8. at VTQ4 11:21 4th & 3 at VT 49, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

25th of 130 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

   KENT
2. W

   AUB
3. W

   LOU
4. W

   BC
5. W

   VT
6. W

   WAKE
7. L

   SYR
8. W

   GT
9. W

   NCSU
10. W

    FSU
11. W

    CIT
12. W

    SC
13. W

    MIA
14. L

    ALA

What moved it, 2017

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+2.04
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.07
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.07

Game by game

• KENTW 56-3 vs KENT98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• AUBW 14-6 vs AUB62% → 97%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +2
• LOUW 47-21 at LOU55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +45: Scoreboard +50, Clock +2
• BCW 34-7 vs BC98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +4
• VTW 31-17 at VT69% → 99%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +38, Clock +2
• WAKEW 28-14 vs WAKE88% → 99%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16, Timeouts +1
• SYRL 24-27 at SYR92% → 6%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −86: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −3
• GTW 24-10 vs GT83% → 99%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• NCSUW 38-31 at NCSU70% → 91%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +35, Clock +3
• FSUW 31-14 vs FSU82% → 98%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +16: Scoreboard +22
• CITW 61-3 vs CIT100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• SCW 34-10 at SC77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +29, Clock +2
• MIAW 38-3 vs MIA78% → 100%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +25
• ALAL 6-24 vs ALA30% → 1%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2

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.