:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/45165332/460898060.0.jpg)
Clemson 40, Oklahoma 6
Confused? Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here.
| Basics | Clemson | Oklahoma | Nat'l Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Plays | 82 | 68 | |
| Close Rate (non-garbage time) | 37.3% | ||
| Avg Starting FP | 32.7 | 23.9 | 30.0 |
| Possessions | 15 | 17 | |
| Scoring Opportunities* |
8 | 2 | |
| Points Per Opportunity | 4.25 | 3.50 | 4.65 |
| Leverage Rate** | 64.7% | 54.5% | 68.3% |
| Close S&P*** | 0.522 | 0.261 | 0.506 |
|
* A scoring opportunity occurs when an offense gets a first down inside the opponent's 40 (or scores from outside the 40). ** Leverage Rate = Standard Downs / (Standard Downs + Passing Downs) *** When using IsoPPP, the S&P formula is (0.8*Success Rate) + (0.2*IsoPPP) |
|||
| EqPts (what's this?) | Clemson | Oklahoma | |
| Total | 26.4 | 13.3 | |
| Rushing | 6.5 | 9.8 | |
| Passing | 19.9 | 3.5 | |
| Success Rate (what's this?) | Clemson | Oklahoma | Nat'l Avg |
| All (close) | 38.2% | 27.3% | 41.8% |
| Rushing (close) | 25.0% | 33.3% | 43.2% |
| Passing (close) | 45.5% | 23.1% | 40.3% |
| Standard Downs | 45.5% | 41.7% | 47.0% |
| Passing Downs | 25.0% | 10.0% | 30.6% |
| IsoPPP (what's this?) | Clemson | Oklahoma | Nat'l Avg |
| All (close) | 1.08 | 0.21 | 0.86 |
| Rushing (close) | 0.82 | 0.18 | 0.74 |
| Passing (close) | 1.16 | 0.24 | 0.99 |
| Standard Downs | 0.96 | 0.14 | 0.77 |
| Passing Downs | 1.47 | 0.60 | 1.13 |
| Line Stats | Clemson | Oklahoma | Nat'l Avg |
| Line Yards/Carry (what's this?) | 2.79 | 0.94 | 2.92 |
| Std. Downs Sack Rt. | 0.0% | 16.7% | 4.8% |
| Pass. Downs Sack Rt. | 33.3% | 0.0% | 7.6% |
| Turnovers | Clemson | Oklahoma |
|---|---|---|
| Turnovers | 0 | 5 |
| Turnover Points (what's this?) | 0.0 | 24.3 |
| Turnover Margin | Clemson +5 | |
| Exp. TO Margin | Clemson +0.73 | |
| TO Luck (Margin vs. Exp. Margin) | Clemson +4.27 | |
| TO Points Margin | Clemson +24.3 points | |
| Situational | Clemson | Oklahoma |
| Q1 S&P | 0.570 | 0.292 |
| Q2 S&P | 0.405 | 0.377 |
| Q3 S&P | 0.586 | 0.267 |
| Q4 S&P | 0.151 | 0.549 |
| 1st Down S&P | 0.514 | 0.383 |
| 2nd Down S&P | 0.442 | 0.483 |
| 3rd Down S&P | 0.427 | 0.224 |
| Projected Scoring Margin: Clemson by 37.4 | ||
| Actual Scoring Margin: Clemson by 34 | ||
As with the Ole Miss-TCU game, I felt really, really sorry for OU's defense. The Sooners gave up a long touchdown on Clemson's first play of the game, and Cole Stoudt certainly had more success in this game than he did for good portions of the year. But including sacks, Stoudt still only averaged 7.4 yards per pass attempt -- better than it should have been, but not amazing -- and the Clemson ground game went nowhere. OU's defense played well enough to keep the Sooners in the game ... and the OU offense was just a horror show. (I could also have said this about Clemson's defense for about half of this season.)
Now ... Clemson's defense had a lot to do with that. The Tigers finish the year with the No. 1 defense in the country in Def. F/+, and in terms of Havoc Rate, their defensive line was the shop-wreckingest line in football. But there's "performing badly" and there's "performing like OU's offense did." Trevor Knight was every bit as bad in this game as he was good in last year's Sugar Bowl, and Samaje Perine didn't get going until the game was well into garbage time.
Or, to summarize the last two paragraphs in one sentence: the above data is why Bob Stoops fired his two offensive co-coordinators but didn't dump Mike Stoops, I guess.