Clemson

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.0715th
  Defense−0.0295th
• 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.
  Offense40.1%23rd
  Defense35.8%97th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2334th
  Defense+1.1788th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1042nd
  Defense−0.1199th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0714th
  Defense+0.0986th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense45.3%21st
  Defense41.1%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.
  Offense29.6%37th
  Defense26.6%84th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2267th
  Defense2.6196th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense13.1%84th
  Defense19.6%81st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.0%64th
  Defense19.5%87th

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, 2021

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. L
   UGA
2. W
   SCST
3. W
   GT
4. L
   NCSU
5. W
   BC
6. W
   SYR
7. L
   PITT
8. W
   FSU
9. W
   LOU
10. W
    CONN
11. W
    WAKE
12. W
    SC
13. W
    ISU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Clemson.

Players, 2021

1. DJ UiagaleleiQB384 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 71st of 219 QBs
   1.32WAR0.58 to 2.02
2. Will ShipleyRB149 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 52nd of 387 RBs
   0.56WAR0.44 to 0.68
3. Kobe PaceRB104 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 116th of 387 RBs
   0.36WAR0.28 to 0.44
4. Justyn RossWR57 plays · +0.151 pts/play · 110th of 474 WRs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.22
5. Phil MafahRB48 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 248th of 387 RBs
   0.15WAR0.12 to 0.19
6. Will SpiersP54 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 32nd of 101 punters
   0.14WAR0.05 to 0.23
7. B.T. PotterPK20 plays · +0.370 pts/play · 8th of 128 kickers
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.19
8. Joseph NgataWR35 plays · +0.183 pts/play · 187th of 474 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9359354th of 130Roster talent: 935, 4th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2902904th of 130Recruiting: 290, 4th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  26%26%125th of 128Returning production: 26%, 125th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +18.7+18.78th of 130SP+ rating: +18.7, 8th 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, 2021

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 0.01 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 12:51 4th & 4 at BC 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
2. at ISUQ4 6:55 4th & 5 at ISU 46, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. at LOUQ2 5:44 4th & 2 at LOU 21, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs BCQ2 10:10 4th & 2 at BC 2, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs UGAQ4 9:08 4th & 5 at UGA 5, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs FSUQ2 12:12 4th & 4 at FSU 31, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. vs UGAQ2 0:53 4th & 15 at UGA 42, down 7Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs GTQ3 8:49 4th & 4 at midfield, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

46th 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. L

   UGA
2. W

   SCST
3. W

   GT
4. L

   NCSU
5. W

   BC
6. W

   SYR
7. L

   PITT
8. W

   FSU
9. W

   LOU
10. W

    CONN
11. W

    WAKE
12. W

    SC
13. W

    ISU

What moved it, 2021

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+1.37
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock−0.12
• Timeouts+0.23
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−1.01

Game by game

• UGAL 3-10 vs UGA50% → 4%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• SCSTW 49-3 vs SCST100% → 100%Before kickoff +50 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• GTW 14-8 vs GT95% → 91%Before kickoff +45 · On the field −3: Scoreboard +10, Possession & field position +1
• NCSUL 21-27 at NCSU74% → 12%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −62: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts +20
• BCW 19-13 vs BC81% → 96%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +2
• SYRW 17-14 at SYR80% → 94%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• PITTL 17-27 at PITT35% → 3%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• FSUW 30-20 vs FSU73% → 97%Before kickoff +23 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts +1
• LOUW 30-24 at LOU57% → 84%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +40, Clock +3
• CONNW 44-7 vs CONN99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• WAKEW 48-27 vs WAKE59% → 99%Before kickoff +9 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +39, Possession & field position +1
• SCW 30-0 at SC79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +27
• ISUW 20-13 at ISU52% → 96%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +48, 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.