Clemson’s 2018 defines the “who you play” vs. “how you play” debate

When I was putting together this week’s updated strength of schedule and Résumé S&P+ numbers, two contradictory Clemson tidbits came to my attention, almost simultaneously.

For the first two-thirds of this season, fans of basically every school in FBS were going through the denial phase, hitting my mentions hard about how the only reason Alabama looks dominant was that they ain’t played nobody. Even now, some still persist with this line.

The Crimson Tide are in the top 50 in strength of schedule, however. Notre Dame’s holding on in the top 60.

Clemson, however? Eighty-fifth.

Thanks to the almost jarring incompetence of the ACC in 2018, Clemson’s SOS ranking is far closer to UCF’s (102nd) among the unbeatens than it is to Bama’s or Notre Dame’s. In 11 games, they have played three against teams that currently rank in the S&P+ top 55. The only reason they’ve played a team ranked better than 35th is because they scheduled No. 21 Texas A&M in non-conference play.

In fact, the only reason UCF ranks worse than Clemson in the SOS department is that the dead weight on the Knights’ schedule has been a bit deader. UCF has played three current top-40 teams to Clemson’s two and five top-55 teams to Clemson’s three. (They’ve also played three 100th-or-worse teams to Clemson’s one, and both played an FCS opponent.)

If the average S&P+ top-five team played Clemson’s schedule a countless number of times, it would win 91.9 percent of its games. Against UCF’s schedule, it would win 93 percent, a difference of basically one win per 100 games.

Mind you, none of this is Clemson’s fault. The Tigers did schedule a non-conference road game in College Station, plus the annual rivalry game against South Carolina. And their division features foes like Florida State (five top-15 finishes this decade) and Louisville (four ranked finishes this decade).

That should have made this a formidable schedule. But Louisville bottomed out, and FSU has struggled with its worst offense in ages. They rank 108th and 74th in S&P+, respectively. South Carolina, thought by some to be an East contender, is a disappointing 6-4 and 38th in S&P+.

Of course, it’s not UCF’s fault its schedule ranks where it does, either. The Knights obliterated ACC Coastal champion Pitt and had another ACC non-conference game (vs. North Carolina, which wouldn’t have helped the SOS numbers that much) canceled because of Hurricane Florence. Their SOS has also suffered because of Navy’s sudden collapse (the Midshipmen are 101st, just three years after peaking at 25th).

Still, as I say, you can learn something about a team in every game if you try. Adjusting for opponent, the Tigers are still a healthy second in S&P+, and they’ve been dominant enough of late that the Ain’t Played Nobody chorus hasn’t dared question them.

UCF is seventh, by the way. All the “The Knights were so good last year, but this year’s team obviously isn’t the same” talk is just people rationalizing why they’re punishing UCF and holding the Knights down in all the same ways that they did last year. It’s no fairer now than it was then. Funny how we give Clemson the benefit of the doubt in a way we don’t extend to the Knights.

That said ...

About two weeks ago, I wrote that the 2018 Alabama team might be Nick Saban’s best ever. I wrote a similar piece in 2016. In both instances, the Tide almost immediately began to slide just a hair. (You’re welcome.)

Alabama’s S&P+ rating has fallen from plus-31.4 adjusted points per game two weeks ago to plus-30.3 after wins over Mississippi State and The Citadel. Mind you, the Tide won these games by a combined 57 (and MSU ranks 11th in S&P+ at the moment), but the offense was lackluster against MSU, and the entire team sleep-walked through the first half of the Citadel game. And when you’re in the 99th percentile in the ratings, any glitches could bring you down a bit.

Clemson? Holding steady around plus-29.2. If that holds, they should have no trouble with South Carolina in Saturday’s Palmetto State game. They should also blow out Pitt in the ACC title game. (Granted, they should have in 2016, too.)

As we know, however, Clemson is a different team than it was at the start of the year. More specifically, it has a different quarterback. Blue-chip freshman Trevor Lawrence began behind veteran Kelly Bryant but was named the starter four games in. Lawrence immediately got injured against Syracuse. Previous third-stringer Chase Brice led a Tiger comeback.

Since then, however, Clemson has basically been Alabama’s equal.

Looking only at the last six games, Clemson’s S&P+ rating is plus-31.9. If you prefer the strength-of-record-style Résumé S&P+, the Tigers have in these six games done about 11.2 points per game better than the average top-five team would expect. Bama’s Résumé S&P+ rating: only plus-10.3.

In both cases, Clemson has been nearly two points per game better than Alabama’s full-season ratings since Lawrence took over for good.

A couple of weeks ago, SportsBook USA suggested Alabama would be about an 8.5-point favorite in a hypothetical CFP matchup against Clemson. Even adjusting for a strangely weak schedule, Clemson might have closed that gap and then some.

Theoretically, each team has to play three more games before meeting, and we’ll learn a lot in that span. But there’s a case that, both because of the weaker remaining path — Clemson gets South Carolina (No. 38 in S&P+) and Pitt (No. 54) first, while Bama has to beat Auburn (No. 15) and Georgia (No. 3) — and the potential evenness of the matchup, Clemson is your most likely national champion at this point (at least until Bama beats Auburn and Georgia by 31 each).