Clemson

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1050th
  Defense+0.0376th
• 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.
  Offense42.4%51st
  Defense37.0%87th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2242nd
  Defense+1.3317th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0216th
  Defense−0.0384th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2159th
  Defense+0.1067th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.1%52nd
  Defense42.2%87th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.2%34th
  Defense28.1%63rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9956th
  Defense2.6881st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.6%64th
  Defense22.6%88th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense15.1%57th
  Defense19.6%94th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   LSU
2. W
   TROY
3. L
   GT
4. L
   SYR
5. W
   UNC
6. W
   BC
7. L
   SMU
8. L
   DUKE
9. W
   FSU
10. W
    LOU
11. W
    FUR
12. W
    SC
13. L
    PSU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Clemson.

Players, 2025

1. Cade KlubnikQB406 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 51st of 231 QBs
   1.38WAR0.68 to 2.04
2. Adam RandallRB186 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 21st of 365 RBs
   0.39WAR0.29 to 0.51
3. T.J. MooreWR69 plays · +0.269 pts/play · 12th of 451 WRs
   0.35WAR0.18 to 0.50
4. Antonio WilliamsWR75 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 103rd of 451 WRs
   0.16WAR0.05 to 0.27
5. Bryant Wesco Jr.WR38 plays · +0.211 pts/play · 119th of 451 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.23
6. Christopher VizzinaQB59 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 177th of 231 QBs
   0.15WAR0.06 to 0.24
7. Nolan HauserPK17 plays · +0.240 pts/play · 70th of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12
8. Tristan SmithWR31 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 287th of 451 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  9189187th of 134Roster talent: 918, 7th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  25825816th of 134Recruiting: 258, 16th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  83%83%3rd of 132Returning production: 83%, 3rd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +9.5+9.534th of 134SP+ rating: +9.5, 34th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.15 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 SMUQ4 6:44 4th & 21 at SMU 23, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.2 pts
2. at SCQ3 3:13 4th & 1 at CLEM 13, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. at LOUQ2 0:06 4th & 4 at CLEM 15, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
4. vs DUKEQ3 0:14 4th & 4 at DUKE 4, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
5. at GTQ3 1:17 4th & 4 at CLEM 47, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
6. vs LSUQ4 3:22 4th & 8 at CLEM 22, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at LOUQ2 5:26 4th & 5 at LOU 45, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at GTQ1 1:40 4th & 3 at GT 35, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

122nd of 136 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

   LSU
2. W

   TROY
3. L

   GT
4. L

   SYR
5. W

   UNC
6. W

   BC
7. L

   SMU
8. L

   DUKE
9. W

   FSU
10. W

    LOU
11. W

    FUR
12. W

    SC
13. L

    PSU

What moved it, 2025

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−1.21
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock−0.13
• Timeouts+0.10
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.67

Game by game

• LSUL 10-17 vs LSU62% → 6%Before kickoff +12 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• TROYW 27-16 vs TROY97% → 97%Before kickoff +47 · On the field 0: Scoreboard +8
• GTL 21-24 at GT54% → 5%Before kickoff +4 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −39, Other −1
• SYRL 21-34 vs SYR90% → 1%Before kickoff +40 · On the field −89: Scoreboard −63, Clock −3
• UNCW 38-10 at UNC87% → 100%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +17
• BCW 41-10 at BC83% → 100%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +3
• SMUL 24-35 vs SMU66% → 7%Before kickoff +16 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −58, Timeouts +7
• DUKEL 45-46 vs DUKE67% → 18%Before kickoff +17 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −39, Clock −4
• FSUW 24-10 vs FSU60% → 98%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +1
• LOUW 20-19 at LOU51% → 95%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +47, Clock +3
• FURW 45-10 vs FUR99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• SCW 28-14 at SC45% → 98%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +58, Timeouts −3
• PSUL 10-22 vs PSU57% → 2%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −55: Scoreboard −55, 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.