Skip to content
Clemson

Clemson Tigers

ACC·0-1·
Compare
Elo
1541#56
SP+
5.2#50
FPI
6.4
AP
NR
Nextvs Georgia Southern · Wk 2Win prob 92%Model -22.3
Talent #16 (862.9)Recruiting class #2041% production returning

Roster · 121 players

FR 24SO 17JR 31SR 49
#PlayerPosClHtWt
2Tait ReynoldsQBFR6'2"215
5Brock BradleyQBFR6'0"190
9Colson BrownQBSR6'3"205
14Trent PearmanQBSR6'0"190
15Chris DensonQBSO6'2"195
17Christopher VizzinaQBSR6'4"210
8Gideon DavidsonRBSO6'0"200
16Chris Johnson Jr.RBSR6'0"190
21Jarvis GreenRBSR5'9"205
23Peyton StrekoRBSR5'10"195
24David EziomumeRBJR6'0"215
26Jay HaynesRBSR5'11"200
34Max WilsonRBJR5'10"200
0Naeem BurroughsWRFR5'11"185
1T.J. MooreWRJR6'3"200
3Tristan SmithWRSR6'5"210
6Tyler BrownWRSR5'11"185
10Juju PrestonWRSO6'0"155
12Bryant Wesco Jr.WRJR6'2"195
13Connor SalminWRFR6'1"195
19Gordon Sellars IIIWRFR6'3"200
20Clark SandersonWRJR5'9"175
22Cole TurnerWRSR6'1"190
25Keil McGriffWRFR5'10"165
27Jack PurkersonWRSR5'7"160
29Chase ByrdWRJR5'10"185
80Luke StubbsWRSR6'2"200
82Sam EarleWRJR5'10"175
83Cam BlivensWRFR6'1"195
84Avery WietingWRJR5'9"180
86Jaylen Brown-WallaceWRSR6'2"175
88Clay SwinneyWRSR5'10"175
89Grady SherrillWRSR5'10"185
7Logan BrookingTESO6'4"240
11Olsen Patt-HenryTESR6'3"245
18Tayveon WilsonTEFR6'1"210
44Jack WolfTESO6'4"210
85Charlie JohnsonTESR6'4"245
87Christian BentancurTEJR6'4"250
50Collin SadlerOLSR6'6"310
51Gavin BlanchardOLSO6'2"305
52Elyjah ThurmonOLJR6'4"325
54Ian ReedOLSR6'6"305
55Harris SewellOLSR6'4"310
62Bryce SmithOLSR6'3"280
63Easton WareOLSO6'5"310
64Grant WiseOLFR6'4"300
65Chapman PendergrassOLSR6'3"295
67Carlito JonesOLSR6'8"275
70Chance BarclayOLFR6'4"295
71Leo DelaneyOLFR6'5"300
72Adam GuthrieOLFR6'6"285
73Hayes GallowayOLSR6'4"310
74Brayden JacobsOLSO6'7"345
75Tucker KattusOLSO6'5"310
76Mason WadeOLJR6'5"300
77Ronan O'ConnellOLJR6'5"320
78Carter ScruggsOLFR6'5"300
79Braden WilmesOLFR6'8"300
91Dietrick PenningtonOLSR6'5"355
13Will HeldtDESR6'6"260
14London MerrittDESO6'3"255
15Jahiem LawsonDESR6'2"250
17Ari WatfordDESO6'5"240
23C.J. WesleyDESR6'2"245
32Michael FosterDEFR6'1"240
34Armon MasonDESR6'3"240
41Connor McFaddenDEFR6'3"240
49Darien MayoDEJR6'7"270
90J.R. HardrickDEFR6'5"240
33Caden StoryDLSR6'3"270
29Champ ThompsonDTJR6'3"290
42Hevin Brown-ShulerDTJR6'3"305
44Kourtney KellyDTJR6'3"290
45Vic BurleyDTSR6'4"315
54Kam CodyDTFR6'3"295
55Makhi Williams LeeDTSO6'2"300
56Andy BurburijaDTJR6'2"305
92Devarrick WoodsDTSR6'3"285
95Amare AdamsDTSO6'4"305
97Patrick SwygertDTSR6'5"285
99Markus StrongDTSR6'3"295
7Jeremiah AlexanderLBSR6'2"235
9Drew WoodazLBJR6'2"220
19Brayden ReillyLBFR6'3"220
21Kobe McCloudLBSR5'11"225
24Logan AndersonLBSO6'2"225
26C.J. Kubah-TaylorLBJR6'2"220
38Dominic StatenLBSO5'9"215
39J.D. BonamyLBFR5'9"200
43Billy WilkesLBJR6'1"215
47Sammy BrownLBJR6'2"235
50Fletcher CothranLBSR6'3"220
53Joseph Roberto IILBJR6'2"225
0Donovan StarrCBSO5'11"185
1Branden StrozierCBSR6'1"190
2Ashton HamptonCBJR6'2"205
3Elliot Washington IICBSR5'11"200
8Corian GipsonCBJR6'1"195
12Shavar Young Jr.CBFR5'11"190
16Myles OliverCBSR5'11"185
25Marcell Gipson Jr.CBFR5'10"175
37Davion JoynerCBSR6'1"180
10Misun KelleyDBSR5'9"185
35Tyler ConnerDBSR5'11"185
5Ronan HanafinSSR6'3"215
6Jerome Carter IIISJR6'1"195
11Polo AndersonSFR6'2"190
18Kylon GriffinSSR5'11"200
20Jakarrion KenanSSO6'1"190
22Corey MyrickSJR6'3"200
27Noah DixonSJR6'1"195
30Kylen WebbSSR6'0"205
31Joe WilkinsonSJR6'1"200
38Robert Gunn IIIPKSR6'0"180
48Charlie ReedPKJR6'2"210
81Nolan HauserPKJR6'1"200
89Jack SmithPSR6'5"240
40Brodey ConnLSSR6'1"210
43J.R. BucknerLSJR5'11"260
46Jackson ReachLSFR6'2"220

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
10.0
scoring offense
Points allowed
51.0
scoring defense
Differential
-41.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
145.0#134
Yards / play
3.0#134
Passing yards / game
105.0#125
Rushing yards / game
40.0#133
First downs / game
8.0#135
3rd down %
7.7%#138
4th down %
——
Time of possession
23:51#129
Defense
Yards allowed / game
644.0#138
Yards / play allowed
6.9#124
Pass yards allowed / game
335.0#132
Rush yards allowed / game
309.0#137
3rd down % allowed
68.8%#138
Sacks
0#130
Tackles for loss
2#130
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
0#66
Takeaways
1#88
Giveaways
1#31
Penalties / game
5.0#38
Penalty yards / game
41.0#45

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 2026 projection

pass-leaning

Clemson throws it: Dabo Swinney's offenses have been pass-leaning across 11 seasons. The strengths are defensive, led by 14th at stuffing runs at the line. The way in is 118th at keeping everything in front of them.

On fourth down he goes for it about as often as his peers do from the same spots (−2.2%). Against what the expected-points model recommends he is −43.8% — the profession as a whole is negative on this.

Clemson has played 1 FBS opponent, but with much of the country still on non-conference openers there is no national field to measure that against yet — so this stays the projection until there is.

Projected strengths

  • Defensegetting stopped at the line
    #14
    projected
  • Defensesacks and tackles for loss
    #21
    projected
  • Defensefirst and second down
    #22
    projected

Projected soft spots

  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    #118
    projected

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 10 to play
6.5 – 4.5
projected final record (now 0–1)
Exp. wins left
6.5
of 10 games
Bowl odds
78%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
92%
vs Georgia Southern
Toughest
25%
vs Miami

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 10 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

012345678910
final winstallest bar = 28% chance
Likeliest finish 7-4 (28%)Bowl eligible 78% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
WRTyler Brown, Bryant Wesco Jr. +1
+2.5 EPA
TEChristian Bentancur, Olsen Patt-Henry
-1.0 EPA
RBGideon Davidson, Chris Johnson Jr.
-4.1 EPA
QBChristopher Vizzina, Tait Reynolds
-11.7 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off-0.491st#138
Def0.387th#129
Explosiveness
Off0.996th#130
Def1.2457th#60
Field position
Off74.080th#28
Def72.947th#73
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off3.3328th#99
Def4.0924th#105
Turnovers
Won 1Lost 1
Margin 0

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
-0.551st#138
Off · rush
-0.531st#138

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off-0.531st#138
Def0.414th#133
Passing
Off-0.551st#138
Def0.3328th#99

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
0.45#138
2nd-level / open-field
0.00 / 0.00
Power / stuff (off)
0.0% / 54.5%
Havoc — total (def)
10.5%#124
Havoc — front 7 / DB
3.2% / 7.4%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off-0.47
Def0.10
Pass downs
Off-0.51
Def1.01

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense-0.21#125-0.39#136-1.10#138
Defense-0.09#540.66#1341.14#133

Elo Trajectory

@LSUFinal
Elo rating 1670 → 1541-129 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 43 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play-0.271st
  • Defense EPA/play allowed0.4210th
  • Offense success rate24%4th
  • Defense success rate allowed54%7th

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs39%18th
  • Offense success — passing downs5%1st
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs52%18th
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs58%4th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness0.9510th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.329th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.9842nd
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs0.592nd

Trenches

  • Offense line yards1.98th
  • Defense line yards allowed3.57th
  • Offense highlight yards0.0511th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed0.7149th
  • Offense power success0.6738th
  • Defense power success allowed0.7843rd
  • Offense stuff rate0.326th
  • Defense stuff rate0.095th

Third down

  • Third down conversion8%1st
  • Third down distance faced9.62nd
  • Third down conversion allowed69%1st
  • Third down distance forced4.32nd

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half-0.411st
  • Net success rate — second half-0.1217th

Drives

  • Points per drive0.259th
  • Points per drive allowed4.114th
  • Average starting field position2638th
  • Opponent starting field position2757th
  • Available yards gained18%2nd
  • Available yards allowed71%11th
  • Scoring opportunities per drive83%60th
  • Scoring opportunities allowed91%27th
  • Points per scoring opportunity1.012th
  • Points allowed per opportunity4.514th
  • Three-and-out rate50%12th
  • Three-and-outs forced9%15th

Roster

  • Returning usage37%44th
  • Returning EPA12456th
  • Team talent composite86389th
  • Recruiting class rank20.086th
  • Recruiting class points24386th

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

⚡

Offensive DNA

Balanced offense — below average EPA/play nationally
EPA/play
-0.490#138 · bottom 20%
Pass EPA/play
-0.551#138
Rush EPA/play
-0.530#138
Explosiveness
0.988#130
Pts/opportunity
3.33#99
Success rate
12.9%

Near-equal efficiency edge: 0.021 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Coverage-heavy defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.376#129 · bottom 20%
Havoc rate (total)
10.5%#124
Front-7 havoc
3.2%
DB havoc
7.4%
Big play rate allowed
1.242#60
Success rate allowed
53.2%

Disruption comes primarily from the secondary.

📊

Season Signature

10.0 PPG offense, 51.0 allowed — -41.0 margin/game
Points per game
10.0
Points allowed/game
51.0
Scoring margin/game
-41.0
Turnover margin
+0won 1 · lost 1
Production returning
41%
Talent rank (247)
#16

0-1 record through 1 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE0thEXPLOSIVENESS6thFINISHING28thFIELD POS80thDEFENSE7thHAVOC10th50th100th
Offense
0th
Explosiveness
6th
Finishing
28th
Field Pos
80th
Defense
7th
Havoc
10th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
-9.9
#108
Offense
-9.9
#125
Defense
-0.1
#72
Full CORE ratings →

What a possession is worth · 12 drives

MeasureOffenseDefense
Points per drive0.254.09
Starting field positionown 26.1own 27.3
Available yards17.6%71.4%
Scoring opportunities83.3%90.9%
Points per opportunity1.004.50
Three-and-out rate50.0%9.1%
Every team’s drive efficiency →

Play-calling identity

Against what the league calls from the same down, distance, field position, score and clock — so this is the staff, not the game script.

Pass rate
60.0%
Expected, given the spots
57.3%
Over expected
+2.7
Fourth down vs peers
-7
Fourth down vs the model
-33
All play-calling tendencies →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. Clemson is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to Clemson in 2026

by EPA/play distance
Northern IllinoisSP+ -22.3
Off EPA/play -0.330Def EPA/play +0.332Elo 1266
Match
92%
Fresno StateSP+ -7.6
Off EPA/play -0.356Def EPA/play +0.506Elo 1449
Match
91%
Missouri StateSP+ -24.3
Off EPA/play -0.292Def EPA/play +0.307Elo 1284
Match
90%
UTEPSP+ -24.3
Off EPA/play -0.307Def EPA/play +0.508Elo 1163
Match
89%
WisconsinSP+ -1.5
Off EPA/play -0.105Def EPA/play +0.349Elo 1475
Match
82%
UL MonroeSP+ -33.2
Off EPA/play -0.154Def EPA/play +0.646Elo 1071
Match
79%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 2015–2026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: +38.0, #1 of 1282016: +33.3, #3 of 1282017: +30.3, #5 of 1302018: +40.2, #2 of 1302019: +44.0, #3 of 1302020: +28.8, #3 of 1242021: +10.3, #34 of 1302022: +14.3, #18 of 1312023: +13.8, #26 of 1332024: +13.8, #26 of 1342025: +4.9, #56 of 1362026: -9.9, #108 of 138
20152026
Now -9.9 · #108 of 138Best +44.0 in 2019Worst -9.9 in 2026

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20260-10-0
0%
0.0-0.0
20257-64-4
54%
8.6-1.6
202410-48-1
71%
9.8+0.2
20239-44-4
69%
8.8+0.2
202211-39-0
79%
11.0-0.0
202110-36-2
77%
8.7+1.3
202010-29-1
83%
9.1+0.9
201914-19-0
93%
12.8+1.2
201815-09-0
100%
13.9+1.1
201712-28-1
86%
11.5+0.5

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

3.1%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-1 so far, projected to finish 6.3-5.7. Wins the ACC in 1.9%.

If they finish with…

100%
1 loss
54%
2 losses
5.7%
3 losses
0.5%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count. Better than even up to 2.

Win out and it is 100%. Running the table settles it.

down 16.1 points since preseason — lost 10-51 to LSU against an expected margin of −10, so −31.3 against the number.

  • At 2 losses they are 54% where the average ACC team is 44%.
  • The ACC takes 1.54 bids in an average season, and four or more in 0.7%.

Clemson’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk5vs Miami12.3
  • wk9at Florida State5.6
  • wk13vs South Carolina5.3
  • wk12at Duke5.2
  • wk8vs Virginia Tech5.0
  • wk3vs North Carolina4.6

Who to root for

Games Clemson is not in that move its odds most. Same units, much smaller scale.

  • wk3Wake Forest over Miami1.6
  • wk12Virginia Tech over Miami1.4
  • wk7Florida State over Miami1.3
  • wk9North Carolina over Miami1.3
  • wk11Duke over Miami0.9
  • wk10Notre Dame over Miami0.8
The full playoff picture →

ACC

0-0 in league play, projected 4.1-3.97 of 17 by title odds
1.9%
Wins the ACC
4.9%
Reaches the title game

The ACC sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 37% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk5Miami at Clemson8.5
  • wk9Clemson at Florida State3.4
  • wk12Clemson at Duke3.2
  • wk8Virginia Tech at Clemson3.0

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole ACC race →

If not the playoff, then

65%
Bowl eligible
62%
Placed in a bowl
3.1%
In the playoff
35%
Season over in November

Clemson is 0-1 and needs 6 more wins from 11 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent.

  • Pinstripe Bowl8.1%
  • Military Bowl7.7%
  • Pop-Tarts Bowl7.7%
  • Sun Bowl7.3%
  • Holiday Bowl6.4%
  • Fenway Bowl5.6%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

Recruiting Pipelines

since 2010

Of the 170 high-school programs with a pipeline page here, 16 have sent Clemson a player since 2010 — 33 signees between them. Where they signed, not where they were offered, and not a complete list of Clemson's feeder schools: only these 170 have the outcome history to measure.

High schoolSignedDrafted
WestlakeGA52
GraysonGA42
Our Lady of Good CounselMD31
South Fort MyersFL22
Highland SpringsVA21
Knoxville CatholicTN21
North GwinnettGA21
HeritageCA20
All 170 high-school pipelines →
✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.