:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/26048191/20130906_gav_ab8_216.0.jpg)
| Clemson | Ohio State | |
| Total Offense (rank) | 502 (11) | 518.5 (7) |
| Rushing Offense | 172.7 (62) | 317.5 (3) |
| Passing Offense | 329.3 (11) | 200.9 (91) |
| Passing Eff. | 162.07 (8) | 158.78 (10) |
| Scoring Offense | 40.2 (8) | 46.3 (3) |
| 3rd down Conversions |
44.0 (40th) |
49.4 (12) |
| Total Defense | 350.8 (22) | 362.2 (30) |
| Run Defense | 152.6 (51) | 102.6 (6) |
| Pass Defense | 198.3 (17) | 259.5 (103) |
| Pass Eff. Defense | 111.14 (16) | 129.6 (74) |
| Scoring Defense | 21.1 (18) | 21.3 (22) |
| 3rd down Pct Defense | 31.8 (8th) | 34.4 (26) |
| TFL | 9.4 (1) | 6.8 (28) |
| TFL allowed | 7.4 (113) | 3.54 (3) |
| Sacks | 2.75 (22) | 3.08 (6) |
| Sacks allowed | 2.75 (104) | 1.31 (24) |
| Red Zone Offense | 85.7% (41) | 95.6 (4) |
| Red Zone Defense | 80% (37) | 79.5 (35) |
| Punting Net | 37.6 (45) | 40.0 (12) |
| Punt Return | 8.3 (60) | 8.86 (56) |
| Kickoff Return | 18.15 (114) | 22.96 (38) |
| PR defense | 6.57 (42) | 16.43 (119) |
| KR defense | 19.46 (25) | 18.14 (11) |
| Penalties | 4.8 (34) | 5.15 (45) |
| Turnover Margin | 0.3 (38) | 0.5 (27) |
The table shows where the problem with Clemson's offense lies and where the film reviews have pointed all season: offensive line. Our rushing numbers didn't pick up from last season. Its not why we lost the two games we lost, but the lack of a running game has been apparent all year. Sacks allowed has not improved here since Chad's offense came in, and TFL allowed shows the penetration they regularly allow. This, along with Ohio State's strength being their front 7, gives one pause. I doubt we have much success on the ground and it will be imperative to keep Tajh Boyd upright.
The film has shown Ohio State's strength to be the OL, Carlos Hyde, and Braxton Miller, and this bears out. They don't let many people touch Miller and most who get by just miss him. Their offense is very similar to our own and this is what our team should look like statistically. If we could run the ball as well as they do, nearly every lower mark on our offense would be equal to theirs. They lack talent and playmakers at WR to match us here.
I would have Sammy Watkins returning punts instead of Adam Humphries in this game.
Now the advanced statistical rankings.
| Clemson | Ohio State | |
| Defensive FEI Rank | 16 | 36 |
| Defensive Eff (unadjusted) Rank | 14 | 53 |
| First Down Rate | 3 | 36 |
| Available Yards | 6 | 31 |
| Explosive Drives | 48 | 63 |
| Methodical Drives | 10 | 80 |
| S&P+ Rank | 11 | 40 |
| Pass | 14 | 59 |
| Rushing | 14 | 37 |
| Drive Efficiency | 12 | 33 |
| Defensive F/+ | 13 | 35 |
Clemson's big black mark is the explosive plays, which we know to be due to the two safeties and underneath middle coverage. We rarely give up long drives and often hold opponents to 3 & outs.
Film on Ohio State shows their secondary to have one really good player and little else, they also don't tackle very well in the back end and the LBs don't do a great job either with their drops. They are tougher up front than this table indicates though, and though I'm not scared of this defense, they are capable of playing at a higher level in the front 7 and shutting our run game down.
| Clemson | Ohio State | |
| Offensive FEI Rank | 27 | 4 |
| Offensive Eff | 25 | 2 |
| First Down Rate | 48 | 2 |
| Available Yards | 26 | 4 |
| Explosive Drives | 29 | 3 |
| Methodical Drives | 64 | 94 |
| S&P Rank | 13 | 3 |
| Pass | 8 | 16 |
| Rush | 42 | 1 |
| Drive Efficiency | 13 | 3 |
| Offensive F/+ | 17 | 2 |
Clemson's deficiencies again point to OL and the running game overall. Neither team churns clock and both will hit you with big plays, but the ability to run the ball at will makes them a better offensive team overall.
But the real question in my mind, that can't be answered from this, is whether a mentally prepared Clemson team will show up in Miami or not.