Clemson 45, North Carolina 37
Confused? Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here.
|Basics||Clemson||North Carolina||Nat'l Avg|
|Close Rate (non-garbage time)||97.0%|
|Avg Starting FP||28.4||38.1||29.8|
|Points Per Opportunity||5.00||4.75||4.73|
* 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||North Carolina|
|Success Rate (what's this?)||Clemson||North Carolina||Nat'l Avg|
|IsoPPP (what's this?)||Clemson||North Carolina||Nat'l Avg|
|Line Stats||Clemson||North Carolina||Nat'l Avg|
|Line Yards/Carry (what's this?)||3.38||2.97||2.88|
|Std. Downs Sack Rt.||0.0%||6.3%||4.9%|
|Pass. Downs Sack Rt.||0.0%||5.6%||7.5%|
|Turnover Points (what's this?)||4.3||8.2|
|Turnover Margin||Clemson +1|
|Exp. TO Margin||Clemson +0.22|
|TO Luck (Margin vs. Exp. Margin)||Clemson +0.78|
|TO Points Margin||Clemson +3.8 points|
|1st Down S&P||0.584||0.613|
|2nd Down S&P||0.623||0.612|
|3rd Down S&P||0.670||0.556|
|Projected Scoring Margin: Clemson by 21.5|
|Actual Scoring Margin: Clemson by 8|
Usually when there's this big a difference between the projected and actual scoring margins, it means that either something funky happened on special teams (because this box score doesn't really account for that) or there was a large disparity in terms of finishing drives. That wasn't significantly the case here, but North Carolina did manage a healthy field position advantage, in part because of more effective punting (net punting average: UNC 41, Clemson 34).
The Clemson defense was put into tough positions, with UNC starting drives, on average, within a first down of field. But the Heels threw an interception at the Clemson 16 and lost a fumble at the 46. That flipped the advantage to the Tigers.
Clemson's run effectiveness was encouraging -- returns had diminished of late -- and the Tigers' pass defense was magnificent, holding UNC to a 27 percent success rate. But field position and some big plays kept the Heels close enough that the horrific offsides call on the late UNC onside kick might have actually made a difference.
|Backs-Wide||% of Plays||Yds/Play||% of Plays||Yds/Play|
|0 backs, 5 wide||4.0%||3.0|
|1 back, 2 wide||1.4%||46.0||9.9%||4.8|
|1 back, 3 wide||46.5%||3.2||34.7%||6.8|
|1 back, 4 wide||36.6%||7.0||47.5%||6.3|
|2 backs, 3 wide||12.7%||5.1||3.0%||2.3|
|3 backs, 0 wide||1.4%||1.0||1.0%||-1.0|
|3 backs, 2 wide||1.4%||1.0|
|No Huddle?||% of Plays||Yds/Play|
|Hash||% of Plays||Yds/Play||% of Plays||Yds/Play|
The base formations worked better for Clemson than UNC, and for one reason or another, the Tigers held a significant advantage when the ball was lined up in the middle of the field. I'll let someone else figure that one out.
|Passing||Comp Rt||Yds/Pass||Passing||Comp Rt||Yds/Pass|
|Behind Line||0-6, 0 yards||0.0%||0.0||5-9, 32 yards||55.6%||3.6|
|0 to 4||3-7, 50 yards||42.9%||7.1||9-9, 89 yards||100.0%||9.9|
|5 to 9||4-6, 54 yards||66.7%||9.0||8-10, 62 yards||80.0%||6.2|
|10 to 19||1-8, 21 yards||12.5%||2.6||2-6, 29 yards||33.3%||4.8|
|20 to 29||4-5, 115 yards||80.0%||23.0||0-1, 0 yards||0.0%||0.0|
|30-plus||0-3, 0 yards||0.0%||0.0||2-7, 77 yards||28.6%||11.0|
|Passing (no blitz)||8-21, 129 yards, 0 sacks, 6.1 yds. per att.||21-31, 244 yards, 0 sacks, 7.9 yds. per att.|
|Passing (blitz)||4-14, 111 yards, 2 sacks, 6.9 yds. per att.||5-11, 45 yards, 0 sacks, 4.1 yds. per att.|
|Reason for INC/INT||North Carolina||Clemson|
North Carolina never sacked Deshaun Watson, but the biltz was still effective -- Watson averaged 7.9 yards per attempt when UNC rushed four or fewer defenders but only 4.1 when they rushed more. Music to Mike Stoops' ears.
One other note: Deshaun Watson is an efficiency machine, but he was only 4-for-14 on passes thrown 10 or more yards downfield. Marquise Williams was only 5-for-16, so this didn't hurt that much, but big plays are still awfully hard to come by for the Tigers.
Neither team saw much success between the tackles, but in part because of Watson, Clemson held the edge on the edges.
|Option - speed option||1-11|
|Option - zone read||4-19||7-24|
|Sack - in pocket||1-(-10)|
UNC defended the zone read well (as did Clemson), but the straight-up QB draw, often with the RB as a lead blocker, saw effectiveness, especially on a 33-yarder that set up Clemson's second touchdown.