Clemson

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.3198th
  Defense−0.1299th
• 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.
  Offense50.8%95th
  Defense34.8%98th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2672nd
  Defense+1.1181st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.3098th
  Defense−0.1699th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3488th
  Defense−0.0593rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense56.4%97th
  Defense40.2%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.
  Offense35.8%71st
  Defense25.7%97th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4294th
  Defense2.1199th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.8%95th
  Defense25.8%95th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.5%95th
  Defense20.9%98th

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, 2018

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
   FUR
2. W
   TA&M
3. W
   GASO
4. W
   GT
5. W
   SYR
6. W
   WAKE
7. W
   NCSU
8. W
   FSU
9. W
   LOU
10. W
    BC
11. W
    DUKE
12. W
    SC
13. W
    PITT
14. W
    ND
15. W
    ALA

Bars above the line: better than expected for Clemson.

Players, 2018

1. Trevor LawrenceQB298 plays · +0.290 pts/play · 43rd of 225 QBs
   1.62WAR1.15 to 2.15
2. Travis EtienneRB136 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 52nd of 351 RBs
   0.53WAR0.42 to 0.65
3. Tee HigginsWR67 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 35th of 434 WRs
   0.21WAR0.12 to 0.29
4. Kelly BryantQB38 plays · +0.237 pts/play · 192nd of 225 QBs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.24
5. Justyn RossWR41 plays · +0.218 pts/play · 71st of 434 WRs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.24
6. Tavien FeasterRB48 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 237th of 351 RBs
   0.16WAR0.13 to 0.20
7. Hunter RenfrowWR48 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 122nd of 434 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.21
8. Adam ChoiceRB37 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 257th of 351 RBs
   0.13WAR0.11 to 0.15

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8938935th of 130Roster talent: 893, 5th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2682688th of 130Recruiting: 268, 8th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  79%79%27th of 129Returning production: 79%, 27th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +29.7+29.73rd of 130SP+ rating: +29.7, 3rd of 130 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, 2018

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.06 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 BCQ3 2:25 4th & 1 at BC 49, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. at BCQ2 8:21 4th & 1 at CLEM 37, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. at BCQ2 0:00 4th & 11 at BC 42, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs SCQ2 1:56 4th & 9 at SC 36, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at WAKEQ1 3:49 4th & 1 at CLEM 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at TA&MQ3 9:04 4th & 2 at CLEM 24, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs NCSUQ3 9:28 4th & 1 at CLEM 31, up 24Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at GTQ1 0:46 4th & 2 at CLEM 38, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

15th 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

   FUR
2. W

   TA&M
3. W

   GASO
4. W

   GT
5. W

   SYR
6. W

   WAKE
7. W

   NCSU
8. W

   FSU
9. W

   LOU
10. W

    BC
11. W

    DUKE
12. W

    SC
13. W

    PITT
14. W

    ND
15. W

    ALA

What moved it, 2018

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+2.23
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.06
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.81

Game by game

• FURW 48-7 vs FUR100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• TA&MW 28-26 at TA&M82% → 95%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +28, Clock +2
• GASOW 38-7 vs GASO98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• GTW 49-21 at GT88% → 100%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +18, Clock +1
• SYRW 27-23 vs SYR95% → 83%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −12: Scoreboard +8, Possession & field position +1
• WAKEW 63-3 at WAKE93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +10
• NCSUW 41-7 vs NCSU90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +13
• FSUW 59-10 at FSU89% → 100%Before kickoff +39 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +16, Clock +1
• LOUW 77-16 vs LOU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• BCW 27-7 at BC90% → 100%Before kickoff +40 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +16, Clock +1
• DUKEW 35-6 vs DUKE97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• SCW 56-35 vs SC95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• PITTW 42-10 at PITT97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• NDW 30-3 vs ND79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +24
• ALAW 44-16 at ALA36% → 100%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +63, 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.