A relative strength
Turnover rate
14.0% · rank 28 of 366 · 35 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Clemson
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.26
+18.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
24–112025–26 recorded finals
115.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
97.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Clemson.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
24–1135 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.1Mean opponent adj. net 9.1 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.6%35 games · higher is betterRank 147 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.8%35 games · lower is betterRank 71 / 366 · 81th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.0%35 games · lower is betterRank 28 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.4%35 games · higher is betterRank 138 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.1%35 games · higher is betterRank 287 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.3%35 games · lower is betterRank 33 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.7%35 games · higher is betterRank 125 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.9%35 games · lower is betterRank 165 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 112.4 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 101.7 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.6% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.0% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.1% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.4% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.1% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.2% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.5% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.8% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.3% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.0% | 35 | Opponent assists / FGM. |
Window changes describe the historical sample; they do not refit the preseason model. Full-season ranks require 10 games. Percentiles compare qualifying programs in the model’s rated field. Source coverage can differ by metric.
NCAA source context / 2025–26
What did the possessions look like?
2,297 source possession rows across 35 recorded team-games. These are descriptive NCAA source aggregates: they do not assign individual credit or enter the forecast.
02 / The film queue
Turn a number into a question.
A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.3% · rank 33 of 366 · 35 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.9% · rank 165 of 366 · 35 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
28.1% · rank 287 of 366 · 35 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
These are stat-led film prompts, not verified explanations of a scheme. Lower-ranked factors can still be above average. A five-point-or-closer final occurred 15 times in the selected window; Clemson won 10. That small-sample record is not a clutch-skill estimate.
03 / How the season moved
Read beyond the average.
● Offense● Opponent offenseRaw points / 100 possessions · game order
Mar 20, 2026 · neutral vs Iowa · L 61–67 · offense 113.6 / defense 124.7
Higher offense and lower opponent offense are better. Opponent strength and venue are not adjusted here. Missing paired boxes create gaps.
Open the game-by-game scouting log · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IowaMar 20, 2026 · neutral | L 61–67 | 28 | 113.6 | 124.7 | 53.7 | 49.1 | 5.6 | 28.6 |
| DukeMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 61–73 | 1 | 96.5 | 115.5 | 63.2 | 39.1 | 9.5 | 20.0 |
| North CarolinaMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 80–79 | 22 | 115.9 | 114.5 | 69.0 | 57.3 | 10.1 | 10.0 |
| Wake ForestMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 71–62 | 60 | 119.0 | 103.9 | 59.7 | 48.4 | 6.7 | 39.5 |
| Georgia TechMar 7, 2026 · home | W 79–76 | 137 | 119.4 | 114.9 | 66.2 | 52.7 | 13.6 | 31.4 |
| North CarolinaMar 4, 2026 · road | L 63–67 | 22 | 96.2 | 102.3 | 65.5 | 49.2 | 15.3 | 20.0 |
| LouisvilleFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 80–75 | 32 | 114.4 | 107.3 | 69.9 | 57.1 | 12.9 | 16.1 |
| Florida StFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 65–70 | 81 | 108.6 | 116.9 | 59.9 | 46.4 | 13.4 | 30.3 |
| Wake ForestFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 77–85 | 60 | 115.6 | 127.6 | 66.6 | 53.6 | 13.5 | 32.3 |
| DukeFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 54–67 | 1 | 87.2 | 108.2 | 61.9 | 40.4 | 14.5 | 24.3 |
| Virginia TechFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 66–76 | 79 | 101.8 | 117.2 | 64.9 | 50.0 | 13.9 | 24.2 |
| CaliforniaFeb 8, 2026 · road | W 77–55 | 104 | 119.2 | 85.2 | 64.6 | 67.3 | 15.5 | 14.8 |
| StanfordFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 66–64 | 77 | 106.7 | 103.5 | 61.9 | 53.3 | 19.4 | 23.1 |
| PittJan 31, 2026 · home | W 63–52 | 71 | 111.8 | 92.3 | 56.4 | 56.1 | 19.5 | 22.7 |
| Georgia TechJan 24, 2026 · road | W 77–63 | 137 | 115.6 | 94.6 | 66.6 | 54.9 | 15.0 | 28.1 |
| NC StateJan 21, 2026 · home | L 76–80 | 45 | 106.1 | 111.7 | 63.7 | 52.6 | 18.1 | 27.3 |
| MiamiJan 17, 2026 · home | W 69–59 | 57 | 106.6 | 91.2 | 64.7 | 60.8 | 18.5 | 14.8 |
| Boston CollegeJan 14, 2026 · home | W 74–50 | 152 | 112.9 | 76.3 | 65.6 | 53.7 | 15.3 | 29.4 |
| Notre DameJan 10, 2026 · road | W 76–61 | 114 | 118.7 | 95.2 | 64.1 | 52.6 | 9.4 | 25.8 |
| SMUJan 8, 2026 · home | W 74–70 | 51 | 112.8 | 106.7 | 65.6 | 50.9 | 13.7 | 30.6 |
| PittJan 3, 2026 · road | W 73–68 | 71 | 108.7 | 101.2 | 67.2 | 61.1 | 20.8 | 16.0 |
| SyracuseDec 31, 2025 · road | W 64–61 | 102 | 96.2 | 91.7 | 66.6 | 51.8 | 18.0 | 21.9 |
| CincinnatiDec 21, 2025 · neutral | W 68–65 | 41 | 101.7 | 97.2 | 66.9 | 58.0 | 17.9 | 7.1 |
| South CarolinaDec 17, 2025 · home | W 68–61 | 99 | 102.5 | 92.0 | 66.3 | 52.1 | 12.1 | 14.3 |
| MercerDec 13, 2025 · home | W 70–63 | 196 | 109.9 | 98.9 | 63.7 | 53.7 | 14.1 | 25.8 |
| BYUDec 9, 2025 · neutral | L 64–67 | 19 | 105.1 | 110.0 | 60.9 | 44.0 | 19.7 | 45.9 |
| AlabamaDec 4, 2025 · road | L 84–90 | 12 | 116.6 | 125.0 | 72.0 | 43.7 | 9.7 | 40.9 |
| Alabama A&MNov 29, 2025 · home | W 92–56 | 346 | 130.2 | 79.3 | 70.6 | 61.8 | 15.6 | 33.3 |
| GeorgiaNov 23, 2025 · neutral | W 97–94 | 37 | 116.8 | 113.2 | 73.8 | 54.3 | 15.7 | 35.7 |
| West VirginiaNov 21, 2025 · neutral | W 70–67 | 52 | 106.0 | 101.5 | 66.0 | 52.9 | 18.2 | 20.0 |
| North AlabamaNov 18, 2025 · home | W 81–61 | 290 | 129.0 | 97.1 | 62.8 | 53.3 | 19.1 | 54.3 |
| GeorgetownNov 15, 2025 · road | L 74–79 | 105 | 105.9 | 113.1 | 69.9 | 49.2 | 14.3 | 27.5 |
| Morehead StNov 12, 2025 · home | W 83–56 | 276 | 138.6 | 93.5 | 59.9 | 55.6 | 8.3 | 40.5 |
| Gardner-WebbNov 8, 2025 · home | W 97–59 | 349 | 138.7 | 84.4 | 69.9 | 54.5 | 4.3 | 46.3 |
| New HampshireNov 4, 2025 · home | W 88–38 | 348 | 126.8 | 54.8 | 69.4 | 56.9 | 8.6 | 24.1 |
04 / The people behind the possessions
Personnel and workload.
2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →
| Player | GP | MIN/G | PTS/G | REB/G | AST/G | TS% | Est. usage | Usage games | AST/TO | 3PA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dillon HunterG | 35 | 28.6 | 7.5 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 53.4 | 15.4% | 35 | 2.7235 games | 9535 games |
| Jestin PorterG | 35 | 27.1 | 9.6 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 51.1 | 20.4% | 35 | 1.7435 games | 18735 games |
| RJ GodfreyF | 35 | 25.2 | 12.0 | 5.3 | 1.6 | 63.1 | 23.3% | 35 | 1.1935 games | 1035 games |
| Nick DavidsonF | 35 | 21.9 | 9.1 | 4.0 | 1.1 | 59.8 | 21.4% | 35 | 1.0635 games | 8435 games |
| Butta JohnsonG | 35 | 21.1 | 6.3 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 54.9 | 15.8% | 35 | 2.1935 games | 12435 games |
| Jake WahlinF | 35 | 20.5 | 5.3 | 3.9 | 0.7 | 52.8 | 14.9% | 35 | 0.9235 games | 10035 games |
| Ace BucknerG | 35 | 19.5 | 8.3 | 2.9 | 1.8 | 54.3 | 24.3% | 35 | 1.7535 games | 9335 games |
| Carter WellingF | 32 | 20.9 | 10.2 | 5.4 | 1.1 | 58.0 | 25.7% | 32 | 0.8832 games | 5832 games |
| Chase ThompsonF | 35 | 8.9 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 63.7 | 12.6% | 35 | 0.9135 games | 2535 games |
| Zac FosterG | 12 | 18.6 | 6.9 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 43.9 | 24.3% | 12 | 2.0012 games | 4712 games |
Usage is a minutes-based estimate over the stated sample, not a direct measure of on-court possessions. Low-minute estimates are noisy. AST/TO is unavailable when recorded turnovers are zero; missing fields are never filled with zero.
05 / Recruiting evidence
What changed around Clemson?
This panel keeps dated school publications, source-listed roster observations and prior college production in separate evidence lanes. A source record does not establish eligibility, availability or a future role.
13Source-listed players
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
100%Prior minutes represented
Role workload watch
Which source-listed role is represented?
Prior minutes are grouped by the source-reported position on the current listing. “Unrepresented” means prior minutes not attached to a same-program listing in this release; it does not establish a departure, transfer, eligibility or expected role.
| Role | Listed | Prior minutes | Returning minutes | Incoming prior minutes | Returning share | Unrepresented |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guard | 5 | 3,592 | 3,592 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 8 | 3,458 | 3,458 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,050 minutes).
No dated school announcement is in the selected review file for this program. The roster row below is observation-only; absence of a reviewed announcement does not mean the program made no move.
No announced additions are in the reviewed file for this program.
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
13 source-listed players. Prior rates below are attached by exact source ID where available; missing values remain missing.
| Player | Observation | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Prior TS% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dillon Hunter →G | Same programClemson Tigers | 28.6 | 7.5 | 53.4% |
| Jestin Porter →G | Same programClemson Tigers | 27.1 | 9.6 | 51.1% |
| RJ Godfrey →F | Same programClemson Tigers | 25.2 | 12.0 | 63.1% |
| Nick Davidson →F | Same programClemson Tigers | 21.9 | 9.1 | 59.8% |
| Butta Johnson →G | Same programClemson Tigers | 21.1 | 6.3 | 54.9% |
| Jake Wahlin →F | Same programClemson Tigers | 20.5 | 5.3 | 52.8% |
| Ace Buckner →G | Same programClemson Tigers | 19.5 | 8.3 | 54.3% |
| Carter Welling →F | Same programClemson Tigers | 20.9 | 10.2 | 58.0% |
| Chase Thompson →F | Same programClemson Tigers | 8.9 | 2.3 | 63.7% |
| Zac Foster →G | Same programClemson Tigers | 18.6 | 6.9 | 43.9% |
| Dallas Thomas →F | Same programClemson Tigers | 4.4 | 2.2 | 70.4% |
| Trent Steinour →F | Same programClemson Tigers | 2.5 | 1.0 | 43.8% |
Showing the 12 highest prior-minute records. Open the full roster board for every source-listed player.
Recruiting review edition Sep 8, 2026 · coverage is partial (14 programs reviewed). See the full methodology and coverage map before drawing a roster conclusion.
Look ahead / 2026–27
The next assignments.
Checking the live schedule edition…
American vs Clemson
58.5American
77.5Clemson
Clemson win estimate90.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.1
Projected total136.0
80% home-margin range3.1 to 35.0
Estimated possessions63.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.2 pts
Clemson attack 54.0% · American defense 53.5%American attack 51.6% · Clemson defense 47.9%
Ball securityHome 2.3 pts
Clemson attack 15.2% · American defense 17.9%American attack 17.4% · Clemson defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 0.5 pts
Clemson attack 29.5% · American defense 29.5%American attack 26.5% · Clemson defense 26.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.3 pts
Clemson attack 34.9% · American defense 38.3%American attack 31.2% · Clemson defense 32.2%
Littlejohn Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Georgetown vs Clemson
63.8Georgetown
75.2Clemson
Clemson win estimate80.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.4
Projected total139.0
80% home-margin range-4.5 to 27.4
Estimated possessions65.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.8 pts
Clemson attack 54.0% · Georgetown defense 50.3%Georgetown attack 50.7% · Clemson defense 47.9%
Ball securityHome 0.8 pts
Clemson attack 15.2% · Georgetown defense 17.3%Georgetown attack 16.6% · Clemson defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 6.4 pts
Clemson attack 29.5% · Georgetown defense 29.7%Georgetown attack 32.2% · Clemson defense 26.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.5 pts
Clemson attack 34.9% · Georgetown defense 33.2%Georgetown attack 34.5% · Clemson defense 32.2%
Littlejohn Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Read the evidence correctly.
The top-line adjusted ratings use the full published preseason model. Split statistics below them are unadjusted observations from 2025–26. Opponent ranks are the current model’s ranks, not what was known before each historical game. The “top 50” split is descriptive and does not enter model evaluation.
Rates pool numerators and denominators from games with all fields required for that metric. Missing values remain unavailable; every metric shows its game count. Ranks require at least 10 games and compare programs in the model’s rated field. Ties share rank; percentiles use their average position. High percentiles mean favorable values only for metrics with a defined direction.
Player workloads refer to recorded 2025–26 appearances. Estimated usage divides FGA + 0.475 × FTA + turnovers by minutes-prorated team opportunities in those same games. It assumes team opportunity rates were constant while a player was on court; it is not a lineup or play-by-play measurement. Overtime is included in available minutes. Minutes and usage samples can differ.
Source statistics: SportsDataverse bulk releases, CC BY 4.0. Calculations and model: Silvermine. Definitions draw on publicly documented Four Factors and basketball rate statistics; these are not another publisher’s proprietary ratings. Model notebook →