UPDATE: Stereotypes And The Clemson Tigers is now up at the SBN mothership.
Oh, Clemson. The Tigers of Death Valley rank 15th in terms of both recent recruiting and four-year F/+ performance. They have, in a sense, cracked the code; they know how to put a high-quality team on the field, and in four-year performance they rank ahead of No. 16 Georgia (11-2 in 2007, 10-3 in 2008), No. 17 Missouri (40 wins in four years), No. 18 Arkansas (10-3 last year), No. 20 Iowa (11-2 in 2009) and No. 21 Wisconsin (11-2 in 2010). They are constantly bringing in high-caliber recruits and producing high-caliber pros.
And they haven't won ten games in a season since 1990. What gives? What explanation could there be for Clemson's odd allergy to big seasons, other than a curse, or a muscular gag reflex, or a general funk that occupies Death Valley, or "F*** Clemson," or whatever other generalizations we can muster? Almost every single year, Clemson fields a team that is strong and athletic, and almost every single year the Tigers win fewer games than it seems they should. The last time they had a winning record in one-possession games was 2004; they are 11-23 in such games in that span ... not quite as bad as their unbelievable 1-13 stretch from 1997-99, but not good. Just a .500 record in such games would add an extra win per season. But Clemson evidently doesn't win these games. Why not?
----------
Close games have wrecked season after season for Clemson in recent years. Despite a Top 15 ranking in Four-Year F/+, the Tigers went just 31-22 from 2007-10. In games decided by more than one possession (eight points), they went a resounding 25-7, meaning that, like most high-quality teams, they're blowing teams out a lot more than they are getting blown out. But they've gone just 6-15 in games decided by one possession. Over the last six years, they're just 11-23, by far the worst of any top team. In fact, only one team -- Iowa -- comes even close. Chin up, Clemson fans. At least Death Valley's pretty awesome.
Here's a list of the nation's best recent teams and their recent record in close games.
The Nation's Best Programs (According to Recent Performance) Ranked in Order of Close-Game Win Percentage (2005-10) |
|||
4-Year F/+ Rk |
Team | Close Record |
Close Win% |
7 | Oregon | 15-6 | 0.714 |
10 | LSU | 25-10 | 0.714 |
5 | TCU | 14-6 | 0.700 |
9 | Boise State | 11-5 | 0.688 |
14 | Auburn | 21-11 | 0.656 |
12 | West Virginia | 17-10 | 0.630 |
13 | Penn State | 10-6 | 0.625 |
11 | Texas | 14-9 | 0.609 |
1 | Florida | 12-8 | 0.600 |
3 | Oklahoma | 15-10 | 0.600 |
6 | USC | 15-11 | 0.577 |
2 | Ohio State | 9-7 | 0.563 |
16 | Georgia | 18-14 | 0.563 |
4 | Alabama | 16-14 | 0.533 |
17 | Missouri | 10-9 | 0.526 |
19 | South Carolina | 16-15 | 0.516 |
18 | Arkansas | 14-15 | 0.483 |
8 | Virginia Tech | 10-11 | 0.476 |
20 | Iowa | 12-19 | 0.387 |
15 | Clemson | 11-23 | 0.324 |
A few notes:
- Yes, I did six-year close-game record with four-year performance rankings. I realized my error when I was sort of past the point of no return. That said, it's not like the recent history rankings change much. The "Six-Year F/+" list looks awfully similar.
- Penn State, Ohio State and Boise State are evidently allergic to close games, having played far fewer than anybody else on the list.
- Poor, poor Clemson.
Loading comments...