Clemson

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.3797th
  Defense−0.0798th
• 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.
  Offense53.0%97th
  Defense37.0%94th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2983rd
  Defense+1.0891st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.4299th
  Defense−0.0791st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3389th
  Defense−0.0699th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.5%96th
  Defense44.1%82nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense46.5%98th
  Defense23.2%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.8299th
  Defense2.5883rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.1%98th
  Defense21.3%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.7%96th
  Defense25.3%92nd

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, 2019

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
   GT
2. W
   TA&M
3. W
   SYR
4. W
   CLT
5. W
   UNC
6. W
   FSU
7. W
   LOU
8. W
   BC
9. W
   WOF
10. W
    NCSU
11. W
    WAKE
12. W
    SC
13. W
    UVA
14. W
    OSU
15. L
    LSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Clemson.

Players, 2019

1. Trevor LawrenceQB225 plays · +0.238 pts/play · 81st of 228 QBs
   1.00WAR0.64 to 1.39
2. Travis EtienneRB102 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 110th of 349 RBs
   0.37WAR0.29 to 0.45
3. Tee HigginsWR38 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 126th of 439 WRs
   0.15WAR0.10 to 0.20
4. Justyn RossWR54 plays · +0.143 pts/play · 129th of 439 WRs
   0.14WAR0.06 to 0.24
5. Amari RodgersWR18 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 398th of 439 WRs
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.05
6. Will SpiersP31 plays · +0.026 pts/play · 89th of 100 punters
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.04
7. J.C. ChalkTE9 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 132nd of 207 TEs
   0.01WAR−0.01 to 0.02

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  8638639th of 130Roster talent: 863, 9th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2672679th of 130Recruiting: 267, 9th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  81%81%19th of 130Returning production: 81%, 19th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +28.1+28.14th of 130SP+ rating: +28.1, 4th 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, 2019

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.05 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. vs TA&MQ3 10:04 4th & 1 at CLEM 33, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
2. at OSUQ2 12:15 4th & 1 at CLEM 34, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at LSUQ2 13:43 4th & 3 at LSU 35, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. at OSUQ3 14:06 4th & 3 at CLEM 44, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at SYRQ2 7:27 4th & 1 at CLEM 39, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at OSUQ1 6:05 4th & 4 at OSU 45, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs WAKEQ2 3:15 4th & 2 at CLEM 40, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs WAKEQ1 4:02 4th & 19 at CLEM 49, up 14Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

52nd 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

   GT
2. W

   TA&M
3. W

   SYR
4. W

   CLT
5. W

   UNC
6. W

   FSU
7. W

   LOU
8. W

   BC
9. W

   WOF
10. W

    NCSU
11. W

    WAKE
12. W

    SC
13. W

    UVA
14. W

    OSU
15. L

    LSU

What moved it, 2019

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+0.89
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.60

Game by game

• GTW 52-14 vs GT99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• TA&MW 24-10 vs TA&M86% → 99%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• SYRW 41-6 at SYR97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• CLTW 52-10 vs CLT99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• UNCW 21-20 at UNC96% → 94%Before kickoff +46 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +13, Clock +1
• FSUW 45-14 vs FSU96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• LOUW 45-10 at LOU95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• BCW 59-7 vs BC98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• WOFW 59-14 vs WOF100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• NCSUW 55-10 at NCSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• WAKEW 52-3 vs WAKE98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• SCW 38-3 at SC96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +8
• UVAW 62-17 vs UVA97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• OSUW 29-23 at OSU63% → 94%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +43, Clock +3
• LSUL 25-42 at LSU37% → 1%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1

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.