Clemson

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.2589th
  Defense+0.0860th
• 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%84th
  Defense40.1%65th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2857th
  Defense+1.3520th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2290th
  Defense+0.0944th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3085th
  Defense+0.0971st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.3%74th
  Defense44.5%74th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense38.2%96th
  Defense31.8%34th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2881st
  Defense2.9357th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.3%62nd
  Defense19.2%66th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense13.9%77th
  Defense19.7%87th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   APP
3. W
   NCSU
4. W
   STAN
5. W
   FSU
6. W
   WAKE
7. W
   UVA
8. L
   LOU
9. W
   VT
10. W
    PITT
11. W
    CIT
12. L
    SC
13. W
    SMU
14. L
    TEX

Bars above the line: better than expected for Clemson.

Players, 2024

1. Cade KlubnikQB473 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 22nd of 232 QBs
   2.13WAR1.35 to 2.84
2. Phil MafahRB205 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 29th of 373 RBs
   0.48WAR0.30 to 0.63
3. T.J. MooreWR48 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 73rd of 452 WRs
   0.16WAR0.04 to 0.29
4. Antonio WilliamsWR70 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 74th of 452 WRs
   0.16WAR0.00 to 0.33
5. Aidan SwansonP49 plays · +0.130 pts/play · 18th of 106 punters
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.21
6. Bryant Wesco Jr.WR55 plays · +0.085 pts/play · 160th of 452 WRs
   0.09WAR−0.04 to 0.26
7. Jake BriningstoolTE51 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 44th of 221 TEs
   0.07WAR−0.06 to 0.20
8. Nolan HauserPK16 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 74th of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.11

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9259255th of 131Roster talent: 925, 5th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  2742749th of 131Recruiting: 274, 9th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  77%77%17th of 130Returning production: 77%, 17th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +13.3+13.322nd of 131SP+ rating: +13.3, 22nd of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.05 of the 0.13 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 SCQ4 9:18 4th & 2 at CLEM 17, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
2. vs STANQ3 2:01 4th & 1 at CLEM 16, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. at VTQ4 6:11 4th & 1 at CLEM 38, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. at VTQ2 3:06 4th & 5 at VT 44, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at UGAQ3 1:07 4th & 1 at CLEM 34, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at UGAQ2 6:21 4th & 1 at CLEM 34, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at TEXQ4 11:43 4th & 6 at TEX 7, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at FSUQ2 0:00 4th & 3 at FSU 8, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

77th of 134 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

   APP
3. W

   NCSU
4. W

   STAN
5. W

   FSU
6. W

   WAKE
7. W

   UVA
8. L

   LOU
9. W

   VT
10. W

    PITT
11. W

    CIT
12. L

    SC
13. W

    SMU
14. L

    TEX

What moved it, 2024

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+0.39
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Timeouts+0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.93

Game by game

• UGAL 3-34 at UGA22% → 0%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26
• APPW 66-20 vs APP85% → 100%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +17
• NCSUW 59-35 vs NCSU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts +1
• STANW 40-14 vs STAN93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +10
• FSUW 29-13 at FSU88% → 99%Before kickoff +38 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• WAKEW 49-14 at WAKE93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• UVAW 48-31 vs UVA92% → 99%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +14, Timeouts −1
• LOUL 21-33 vs LOU85% → 4%Before kickoff +35 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −60, Clock −3
• VTW 24-14 at VT68% → 97%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• PITTW 24-20 at PITT82% → 86%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +6
• CITW 51-14 vs CIT99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +1
• SCL 14-17 vs SC66% → 8%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −52, Clock −4
• SMUW 34-31 at SMU47% → 94%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +49, Clock +3
• TEXL 24-38 at TEX19% → 1%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −23, 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.