Clemson

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.3396th
  Defense−0.0190th
• 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.
  Offense50.9%94th
  Defense35.8%94th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3275th
  Defense+1.3913th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1679th
  Defense−0.1194th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4696th
  Defense+0.0879th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense55.8%95th
  Defense42.2%89th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense39.5%90th
  Defense24.9%94th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0771st
  Defense2.3395th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.3%82nd
  Defense26.6%94th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.1%69th
  Defense23.2%99th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   WAKE
2. W
   CIT
3. W
   UVA
4. W
   MIA
5. W
   GT
6. W
   SYR
7. W
   BC
8. L
   ND
9. W
   PITT
10. W
    VT
11. W
    ND
12. L
    OSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Clemson.

Players, 2020

1. Trevor LawrenceQB179 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 60th of 212 QBs
   0.60WAR0.23 to 0.93
2. Travis EtienneRB135 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 45th of 338 RBs
   0.42WAR0.30 to 0.52
3. DJ UiagaleleiQB97 plays · +0.192 pts/play · 91st of 212 QBs
   0.35WAR0.18 to 0.51
4. Amari RodgersWR57 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 52nd of 409 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.23
5. Cornell PowellWR44 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 122nd of 409 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
6. B.T. PotterPK12 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 41st of 97 kickers
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06
7. Braden GallowayTE16 plays · +0.056 pts/play · 60th of 191 TEs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.04
8. Davis AllenTE11 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 60th of 191 TEs
   0.02WAR0.00 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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9169164th of 127Roster talent: 916, 4th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2772775th of 127Recruiting: 277, 5th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%35th of 127Returning production: 76%, 35th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +26.1+26.14th of 127SP+ rating: +26.1, 4th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.04 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. vs BCQ4 1:24 4th & 1 at BC 45, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it3.2 pts
2. vs MIAQ2 0:00 4th & 6 at MIA 44, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored punting1.1 pts
3. at NDQ3 9:19 4th & 3 at ND 48, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
4. vs OSUQ2 3:20 4th & 3 at CLEM 43, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.4 pts
5. vs BCQ2 8:44 4th & 3 at BC 16, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.3 pts
6. vs OSUQ4 7:43 4th & 8 at OSU 33, down 21Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)0.2 pts
7. vs OSUQ2 14:51 4th & 2 at CLEM 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.2 pts
8. at WAKEQ2 10:54 4th & 3 at WAKE 25, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

99th of 127 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

   WAKE
2. W

   CIT
3. W

   UVA
4. W

   MIA
5. W

   GT
6. W

   SYR
7. W

   BC
8. L

   ND
9. W

   PITT
10. W

    VT
11. W

    ND
12. L

    OSU

What moved it, 2020

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−0.11
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.17
• Timeouts+0.20
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.72

Game by game

• WAKEW 37-13 at WAKE98% → 99%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +5
• CITW 49-0 vs CIT100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• UVAW 41-23 vs UVA97% → 99%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +6
• MIAW 42-17 vs MIA86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +17
• GTW 73-7 at GT95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• SYRW 47-21 vs SYR100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• BCW 34-28 vs BC97% → 97%Before kickoff +47 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +8, Timeouts +1
• NDL 40-47 at ND69% → 9%Before kickoff +19 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts +19
• PITTW 52-17 vs PITT95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +8
• VTW 45-10 at VT95% → 100%Before kickoff +45 · On the field +5: Scoreboard +9
• NDW 34-10 at ND81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +26, Clock +2
• OSUL 28-49 vs OSU72% → 0%Before kickoff +22 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −64, 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.