Furman vs. Clemson: Final Score & Recap

ReplayCommandBoxAnalyticsMatchup

Furman

0010

Clemson5-5

▸0045

Final

Memorial Stadium (Clemson, SC)

	1	2	3	4	T
FURM	0	3	7	0	10
CLEM	17	14	0	14	45

FURMTeam statsCLEM

271Total yards456

205Pass237

66Rush219

15First downs23

4-173rd down4-12

2Turnovers0

32:07Possession29:49

Scoring plays

• Q4 0:09CLEMChris Denson 10 Yd Run (Quinn Castner Kick)10–45
• Q4 7:45CLEMLogan Brooking 4 Yd pass from Chris Denson (Quinn Castner Kick)10–38
• Q3 3:49FURMEvan James 19 Yd pass from Trey Hedden (Ian Williams Kick)10–31
• Q2 0:30FURMIan Williams 49 Yd Field Goal 3–31
• Q2 6:48CLEMChristian Bentancur 6 Yd pass from Christopher Vizzina (Quinn Castner Kick)0–31
• Q2 14:15CLEMAntonio Williams 35 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–24
• Q1 4:43CLEMTyler Brown 21 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–17
• Q1 8:34CLEMAntonio Williams 22 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–10
• Q1 12:17CLEMNolan Hauser 45 Yd Field Goal 0–3

How the model called it

Market line

CLEM −42

Against the number

FURM covered

line CLEM −42

What the numbers say

• FURM lived on explosives rather than sustaining drives — a profile that vanished once those chunk plays were tackled. 13% explosive on a 27% success rate

Win probability

ours solid · ESPN dashed

CLEM 100%50%FURM 100%

Kickoff160 plays →Final

Tap or hover on the chart to see play details

CLEM (top)FURM (bottom)· colored dots = scoresFinal: CLEM 100%

How the line closed

model vs market

Closing line

CLEM −42

Closing total

55.5

Model line

—

Actual result

FURM 10 – 45 CLEM

Leaders

Furman

• PassTrey Hedden 22/38, 179 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT
• RushBen Croasdale 8 CAR, 38 YDS
• RecKerry King 6 REC, 71 YDS

Clemson

• PassCade Klubnik 9/15, 159 YDS, 2 TD
• RushChris Denson 6 CAR, 106 YDS, 1 TD
• RecAntonio Williams 2 REC, 57 YDS, 2 TD

This exact spot, historically

empirical, no ratings

CLEM up 21 entering the 4th quarter. Across 671 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):

99%

CLEM went on to win

A near-lock historically

Most comparable games

WUtah vs Florida24-11WMiami vs Miami (OH)38-3WJames Madison vs Bucknell38-3WTroy vs Stephen F. Austin48-30WNorthwestern vs UTEP38-7

Fourth downs

19 calls

CLEM gave up 0.2 points to the model on fourth down.FURM 9/10 · CLEM 7/8 agreed

FAQ

What was the final score of Furman vs. Clemson?

Furman 10, Clemson 45.

Did Gridpex's model pick hit?

Yes — the model's pick (CLEM) was correct.

Situational splits

what the averages hide

FURM

CLEM

27%

Success rate

47%

0.02

EPA / pass

0.29

-0.15

EPA / rush

0.27

26%

Early-down success

51%

24%

Pass success

46%

31%

Rush success

48%

13%

Explosive play rate (15+ yds)

16%

31%

Stuffed rush rate

23%

63%

Pass rate

54%

8.9

Avg 3rd-down distance

8.1

FURM

8.9 yards to go on 3rd down

71 scrimmage snaps

CLEM

8.1 yards to go on 3rd down

68 scrimmage snaps

Team stats

the basics, from ESPN

FURM		CLEM
271	Total yards	456
205	Passing yards	237
66	Rushing yards	219
15	First downs	23
4-17	3rd down	4-12
1-3	4th down	1-2
25/42	Comp/Att	23/36
4.9	Yards per pass	6.6
2.4	Yards per rush	7.1
2	Turnovers	0
4-35	Penalties	5-54
32:07	Possession	29:49

Fourth downs

19 calls

FURM

9/10 with the model

−0.2 pts · −0.0% win prob

CLEM

7/8 with the model

−0.2 pts · −0.0% win prob

Costliest call

Q4 11:32 FURM go for it on 4th & 6 at CLEM 32. The model preferred field goal, a gap of 0.24 points.

Every call, priced (19)

Drive chart

every possession, start to finish

FURM 2/14 scoring drives← own end zone →CLEM 7/14 scoring drives

CLEMFG7 pl, 49 yds· own 25Q1

FURMPUNT3 pl, 3 yds· own 25Q1

CLEMTD6 pl, 41 yds· opp 41Q1

FURMPUNT3 pl, 4 yds· own 25Q1

CLEMTD5 pl, 80 yds· own 20Q1

FURMMISS6 pl, 40 yds· own 25Q1

CLEMPUNT3 pl, -20 yds· own 36Q1

FURMDOWNS4 pl, 7 yds· own 39Q1

CLEMTD2 pl, 46 yds· opp 46Q2

FURMFUM5 pl, 14 yds· own 25Q2

CLEMDOWNS6 pl, 25 yds· opp 39Q2

FURMINT5 pl, 18 yds· own 14Q2

CLEMTD6 pl, 22 yds· opp 22Q2

FURMPUNT3 pl, -7 yds· own 25Q2

CLEMMISS6 pl, 32 yds· midfieldQ2

FURMFG8 pl, 48 yds· own 20Q2

CLEMEND1 pl, 2 yds· own 19Q2

FURMPUNT3 pl, 4 yds· own 25Q3

CLEMPUNT4 pl, 14 yds· own 30Q3

FURMPUNT3 pl, 6 yds· own 20Q3

CLEMPUNT8 pl, 30 yds· own 20Q3

FURMTD6 pl, 55 yds· own 45Q3

CLEMPUNT4 pl, -4 yds· own 37Q3

FURMMISS15 pl, 60 yds· own 15Q3

CLEMTD5 pl, 75 yds· own 25Q4

FURMDOWNS8 pl, 30 yds· own 25Q4

CLEMTD6 pl, 55 yds· own 45Q4

FURMEND1 pl, -1 yds· own 35Q4

Scoring plays

• Q4 0:09CLEMChris Denson 10 Yd Run (Quinn Castner Kick)10–45
• Q4 7:45CLEMLogan Brooking 4 Yd pass from Chris Denson (Quinn Castner Kick)10–38
• Q3 3:49FURMEvan James 19 Yd pass from Trey Hedden (Ian Williams Kick)10–31
• Q2 0:30FURMIan Williams 49 Yd Field Goal 3–31
• Q2 6:48CLEMChristian Bentancur 6 Yd pass from Christopher Vizzina (Quinn Castner Kick)0–31
• Q2 14:15CLEMAntonio Williams 35 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–24
• Q1 4:43CLEMTyler Brown 21 Yd Run (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–17
• Q1 8:34CLEMAntonio Williams 22 Yd pass from Cade Klubnik (Nolan Hauser Kick)0–10
• Q1 12:17CLEMNolan Hauser 45 Yd Field Goal 0–3

Model prediction

how the number is built

One or both teams lack a power rating (often an FCS opponent), so the model prediction is low-confidence for this game.

Where this number comes from. Every projection on this page is produced by the same model, run before kickoff on opponent-adjusted efficiency, power ratings and situational data — walk-forward validated on eleven seasons and never adjusted after the fact. How the model works →