Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.
1. Two years
Two years ago, Clemson had me confused. The Tigers were regressing on paper, but they had managed to win the ACC anyway. The offense was beginning to show immense potential, and the defense was an unmitigated disaster. A 10-win 2011 campaign was a sign of a breakthrough, while a 70-33 loss to West Virginia in the Orange Bowl was a debacle in every possible way. Getting an accurate read on the program as a whole was nearly impossible.
Can you trend in the right and wrong directions at the same time? If so, it would make sense that Clemson would be the one to figure out how. [...]
On paper, Swinney has addressed his team's weaknesses and enhanced its strengths. But on paper, this defense shouldn't have been anywhere near this bad last year either, so why should we automatically think it will change [...]
It is difficult to ignore the magnitude of upside the team will possess in 2012 (and, probably, 2013 and beyond); but it is also difficult to ignore the wackiness that generally accompanies Clemson football.
Since I wrote that in summer 2012, Clemson has gone 22-4. The Tigers are undefeated against teams not named Florida State or South Carolina. They've taken down LSU, Ohio State, Auburn (in 2012, yes), and Georgia. They've gone 14-2 in the ACC. They've scored 1,055 points and allowed just 611. They have built one of the best defensive lines in the country. They have held onto ace offensive coordinator Chad Morris. They have all but defeated the notion of "Clemsoning."
(Orange Bowl conqueror West Virginia, by the way, has currently lost 14 of 20 games.)
Stereotypes exist until they don't. Clemson has destroyed pretty much everything you had come to believe about Clemson in two years.
2. When the stats have high expectations
Even a rather sophisticated projection system -- and I've never claimed mine is all that sophisticated -- has to lean on generalizations to project future success. It's not necessarily going to know which breakthrough freshman is going to change everything, and it's definitely not going to know which key injuries are going to shift the narrative and affect the national title race. But it's going to tell you who has and hasn't earned the benefit of the doubt. And according to my May S&P+ projections, Clemson has all sorts of benefit at the moment.
Now, I cannot necessarily justify placing Clemson in the top five, not with a new quarterback, not without Sammy Watkins and Martavis Bryant. But if you view projections as the best starting point for conversation, this projection hints at just how much Clemson returns and just how well Dabo Swinney and his staff have been recruiting. The Tigers are going to have an absolutely ferocious front six/seven on defense, and while they're replacing quite a few difference makers on offense, they're making replacements from a deep pool of former four- or five-star recruits.
With trips to Athens and Tallahassee on the docket before September 21, we won't have to wait long to find out if Clemson is indeed in better shape than we think. And even with losses in both of those games, this team has a pretty high floor and could very well be playing like a top-10 team by the end of the season.
We live in a college football world where Clemson is suddenly one of the country's most trustworthy commodities. I'm jinxing the hell out of this, aren't I...
2013 Schedule & Results
|Record: 11-2 | Adj. Record: 11-2 | Final F/+ Rk: 16|
|Date||Opponent||Opp. F/+ Rk||Score||W-L||Adj. Score||Adj. W-L||5-gm Adj. Avg.|
|31-Aug||Georgia||22||38-35||W||35.4 - 30.8||W|
|7-Sep||S.C. State||N/A||52-13||W||20.4 - 23.9||L|
|19-Sep||at N.C. State||92||26-14||W||23.1 - 26.6||L|
|28-Sep||Wake Forest||81||56-7||W||46.2 - 19.6||W|
|5-Oct||at Syracuse||75||49-14||W||47.4 - 18.6||W||10.6|
|12-Oct||Boston College||65||24-14||W||27.1 - 13.5||W||12.4|
|19-Oct||Florida State||1||14-51||L||32.7 - 27.3||W||14.2|
|26-Oct||at Maryland||63||40-27||W||38.6 - 23.0||W||18.0|
|2-Nov||at Virginia||79||59-10||W||39.9 - 16.7||W||17.3|
|14-Nov||Georgia Tech||34||55-31||W||49.2 - 22.2||W||16.9|
|23-Nov||The Citadel||N/A||52-6||W||35.0 - 14.7||W||18.3|
|30-Nov||at South Carolina||10||17-31||L||34.1 - 15.9||W||20.8|
|3-Jan||vs. Ohio State||9||40-35||W||52.2 - 21.9||W||23.8|
|Points Per Game||40.2||8||22.2||24|
|Adj. Points Per Game||37.0||13||21.1||13|
I'm talking a big game about Clemson here, considering the Tigers finished 2013 with an F/+ ranking of only 16th. But by the end of the season, this was one of the five or six best teams in the country.
- Adj. Points Per Game (first 3 games): Opponent 27.1, Clemson 26.3 (minus-0.8)
- Adj. Points Per Game (next 5 games): Clemson 38.4, Opponent 20.4 (plus-18.0)
- Adj. Points Per Game (last 5 games): Clemson 42.1, Opponent 18.3 (plus-23.8)
Clemson's ratings got penalized a bit by the fact that Georgia got destroyed by injuries (the Tigers were actually the only team to face the full-strength Dawgs all year, and one Georgia starter had already fallen by the end of the first quarter) and NC State collapsed after September. They faced the strongest version of both of those teams and played just well enough to survive.
But both the offense and defense found their respective grooves against Wake Forest, and things just escalated from there. The Tigers weren't good enough to keep up with Florida State, but nobody was. They whipped mediocre teams, and they fared as well as just about anybody in taking on two top-10 teams away from home to finish the season. This wasn't an elite team in September, but it almost certainly was in January.
So now we get to find out who was most responsible for last year's breakthrough. If Brent Venables' defense was the primary catalyst, that's very good news for 2014 -- Clemson returns most of a dominant unit and all of its defensive line. If the offense was still carrying most of the weight here, that could be problematic, at least at the start of the season. Morris' offense is going to be raw, inexperienced, and full of upside it might not realize until later in the year.
Youth is often a reason for September-to-November improvement, and while that doesn't explain 2013, it might explain 2014.
|FIVE FACTORS -- OFFENSE|
|Raw Category||Rk||Opp. Adj. Category||Rk|
|EFFICIENCY||Succ. Rt.||49.2%||14||Succ. Rt. +||118.0||12|
|FIELD POSITION||Def. Avg. FP||27.2||16||Def. FP+||103.4||21|
|FINISHING DRIVES||Pts. Per Trip in 40||4.7||27||Redzone S&P+||97.7||72|
|Q1 Rk||17||1st Down Rk||16|
|Q2 Rk||13||2nd Down Rk||29|
|Q3 Rk||24||3rd Down Rk||13|
4. A new, old identity
The Clemson plan
The Clemson plan
When you look at the above numbers and forget what you know about Clemson's 2013 personnel, you see what is kind of a straight-forward spread attack. Efficiency-based passing. Passing to set up the run. Super-duper pace. Great efficiency and shaky red zone production. These sound pretty normal, which makes sense -- Chad Morris cut his teeth in Texas high school coaching, where the spread was first to emerge and take hold. He knows those principles well, and he teaches them even better.
At Clemson, however, this nearly generic vision of the spread took on a new identity when handed over to Tajh Boyd and Sammy Watkins. With Boyd, Clemson had a quarterback who was half Cam Newton and half Brett Favre, an efficient runner with a stubborn streak, a passer willing to take a hit in the name of getting the ball downfield. And in Watkins, they had one of the best all-around play-makers in the country, a receiver with strong hands and route-running and an athlete capable of taking a short pass a long way.
Without these two (and Martavis Bryant, a less unique weapon but a lovely post-up target downfield), the Morris offense became something distinguishable from other spreads. Without them, it will just be a spread.
Now, because of Morris' own abilities, and because of the blue-chip prospects around him, "less unique" doesn't equal "bad." There is enough depth at both running back and receiver to spread the ball around in a both effective and unpredictable fashion. It just won't be the same, is all.
Note: players in bold below are 2014 returnees. Players in italics are questionable with injury/suspension.
|Cole Stoudt||6'4, 210||Sr.||3 stars (5.6)||46||58||413||5||0||79.3%||2||3.3%||6.8|
|Deshaun Watson||6'3, 190||Fr.||5 stars (6.1)|
5. Stock up on bubble wrap
For all intents and purposes, Clemson currently has two quarterbacks on the roster. Granted, they're pretty damn good -- Cole Stoudt is a longtime backup who was nearly flawless in scrub time against S.C. State and Wake Forest last year and was at least competent against Florida State and Virginia, while freshman Deshaun Watson is a five-star, no-ceiling talent who was in for spring ball.
You could do much worse than having Stoudt and Watson on your two-deep. But to fill out a three-deep, you need to add a walk-on. Chad Kelly is gone, leaving CU with two and no more.
Watson suffered a broken collarbone this spring, and while he is expected to be fine in August, it was a scary reminder that the threat of injury is always lingering. And if Clemson suffers two of them in short succession this year, all bets are off. For all we know, former walk-ons Austin McCaskill and Nick Schuessler would fare just fine. But Swinney and Morris probably don't want to find out for sure.
(Through this lens, the thought of the line replacing three starters, including all-conference tackle Brandon Thomas, is a bit scary. Still, two full-time starters return, as do three others with starting experience. Recruiting hasn't been as high-caliber up front as it has in other units, but this was a good line last year and should be at least decent this year.)
|D.J. Howard||RB||6'0, 195||Sr.||3 stars (5.7)||57||213||2||3.7||4.2||28.1%|
|Zac Brooks||RB||6'1, 190||Jr.||4 stars (5.8)||48||246||2||5.1||3.3||41.7%|
|C.J. Davidson||RB||5'10, 190||Jr.||NR||34||155||4||4.6||3.2||35.3%|
|Cole Stoudt||QB||6'4, 210||Sr.||3 stars (5.6)||12||62||2||5.2||2.4||58.3%|
|Jay Jay McCullough||TE||6'3, 235||So.||3 stars (5.5)||6||43||0||7.2||2.5||66.7%|
|Tyshon Dye||RB||5'11, 215||RSFr.||4 stars (5.8)|
|Wayne Gallman||RB||6'1, 200||RSFr.||3 stars (5.7)|
|Adam Choice||RB||5'10, 200||Fr.||4 stars (5.9)|
|Jae'lon Oglesby||RB||5'11, 175||Fr.||4 stars (5.8)|
|Adam Humphries||WR||5'11, 190||Sr.||2 stars (5.4)||52||41||483||78.8%||10.9%||77.1%||9.3||32||8.4||72.8|
|Germone Hopper||WR||6'0, 180||So.||4 stars (5.9)||36||22||147||61.1%||7.6%||100.0%||4.1||-127||2.2||22.2|
|Mike Williams||WR||6'3, 205||So.||4 stars (5.8)||30||20||316||66.7%||6.3%||55.0%||10.5||78||9.4||47.6|
|Stanton Seckinger||TE||6'4, 230||Jr.||3 stars (5.5)||30||21||244||70.0%||6.3%||65.4%||8.1||0||8.2||36.8|
|Jordan Leggett||TE||6'5, 240||So.||3 stars (5.7)||21||12||176||57.1%||4.4%||50.0%||8.4||21||13.0||26.5|
|Sam Cooper||TE||6'6, 250||Sr.||2 stars (5.4)||13||6||50||46.2%||2.7%||33.3%||3.8||-37||5.4||7.5|
|Charone Peake||WR||6'2, 205||Jr.||4 stars (5.9)||11||8||84||72.7%||2.3%||63.6%||7.6||-7||7.9||12.7|
|D.J. Howard||RB||6'0, 195||Sr.||3 stars (5.7)||9||8||123||88.9%||1.9%||20.0%||13.7||40||11.9||18.5|
|Daniel Rodriguez||WR||5'8, 175||Jr.||NR||8||7||20||87.5%||1.7%||N/A||2.5||-53||0.0||3.0|
|Jay Jay McCullough||TE||6'3, 235||So.||3 stars (5.5)||5||4||17||80.0%||1.1%||N/A||3.4||-27||0.0||2.6|
|Artavis Scott||WR||5'11, 185||Fr.||4 stars (6.0)|
|Kyrin Priester||WR||6'1, 185||Fr.||3 stars (5.7)|
|Demarre Kitt||WR||6'1, 195||Fr.||4 stars (5.9)|
|Trevion Thompson||WR||6'3, 185||Fr.||4 stars (5.8)|
|Milan Richard||TE||6'3, 235||Fr.||4 stars (5.8)|
6. New blood, for better or worse
A well-executed spread run by a strong quarterback can overcome a lack of standout skill-position talent, as long as there is plenty of competence. We really don't know about standouts at this point, but there are options.
It's an interesting mix of limited veterans and high-upside youngsters. At running back, you've got senior D.J. Howard and juniors Zac Brooks and C.J. Davidson, who combined to average 4.4 yards per carry (decent efficiency, no explosiveness) backing up Hot Rod McDowell. You've also got two four-star true freshmen and two high-caliber redshirt freshmen.
At receiver, you've got veteran possession receivers Adam Humphries and Charone Peake (combined: 11.6 yards per catch, 78 percent catch rate in 2013), four-star sophomores Germone Hopper and Mike Williams, four four-star true freshmen, and three nearly interchangeable tight ends. I'm excited about Williams as a Bryant-type of downfield threat, but this unit's strength will be in its numbers, not its singular upside.
Of course, you'd still like to have the go-to star to go to in crunch time, and there's a good chance that if one emerges, he won't truly become the clear No. 1 until after the Georgia and FSU games.
|Brandon Thomas||LT||36||2nd All-ACC|
|David Beasley||LG||6'4, 320||Sr.||3 stars (5.7)||19|
|Ryan Norton||C||6'3, 280||Jr.||3 stars (5.6)||13|
|Kalon Davis||RG||6'5, 340||Sr.||3 stars (5.6)||8|
|Shaq Anthony||RT||6'4, 280||Jr.||3 stars (5.7)||5|
|Isaiah Battle||LT||6'7, 275||Jr.||3 stars (5.7)||4|
|Reid Webster||LG||6'3, 300||Sr.||3 stars (5.7)||0|
|Joe Gore||RT||6'5, 300||Jr.||3 stars (5.7)||0|
|Eric MacLain||LG||6'4, 295||Jr.||4 stars (5.9)||0|
|Jay Guillermo||C||6'3, 315||So.||3 stars (5.6)||0|
|Tyrone Crowder||RG||6'2, 345||RSFr.||4 stars (5.8)|
|FIVE FACTORS -- DEFENSE|
|Raw Category||Rk||Opp. Adj. Category||Rk|
|EFFICIENCY||Succ. Rt.||34.0%||5||Succ. Rt. +||125.8||5|
|FIELD POSITION||Off. Avg. FP||31.6||33||Off. FP+||100.5||55|
|FINISHING DRIVES||Pts. Per Trip in 40||4.5||96||Redzone S&P+||121.4||11|
|Q1 Rk||12||1st Down Rk||15|
|Q2 Rk||23||2nd Down Rk||5|
|Q3 Rk||17||3rd Down Rk||27|
Some defenses master the art of the bend-don't-break, handing you four to six yards but never allowing big plays.
But in 2013, a set of defenses brought back the art of the killing-machine defense. Michigan State, Clemson, Baylor, and Oklahoma State all packed the line of scrimmage and risked big plays in the name of minimal efficiency, and it worked quite well. Michigan State led the way, but Clemson did just fine as well, ranking 13th in Def. F/+ for the season.
Third-year defensive coordinator Brent Venables didn't need much time to craft a defense that works a lot like his 2007-08 Oklahoma defenses, which had a deep roster of attacking options of the line and allowed him to go to a semi-permanent nickel formation. Four linemen up front can almost create blitz pressure themselves, allowing seven super-fast defenders to sink into coverage.
Clemson leveraged offenses into short gains and mistakes. When the Tigers allowed a big play, it was a huge one -- they ranked 44th in allowing 175 10+ yard gains but ranked 81st in allowing 28 30+ yard gains -- but you can allow occasional big gains when you're forcing countless three-and-outs and 30+ turnovers. Clemson was fun and aggressive on defense in 2013, and while there may be a few more glitches in the secondary this year, the overall identity probably won't change much.
|Rivals||GP||Tackles||% of Team||TFL||Sacks||Int||PBU||FF||FR|
|Grady Jarrett||DT||6'1, 295||Sr.||3 stars (5.5)||13||45.0||6.1%||10.5||2.0||0||0||0||0|
|Vic Beasley||DE||6'2, 235||Sr.||3 stars (5.7)||13||36.0||4.9%||23.0||13.0||0||6||4||1|
|Corey Crawford||DE||6'5, 270||Sr.||4 stars (5.8)||13||35.0||4.7%||10.5||2.5||1||4||1||0|
|Shaq Lawson||DE||6'3, 270||So.||4 stars (5.8)||13||23.5||3.2%||10.0||4.0||0||1||0||0|
|D.J. Reader||DT||6'2, 325||Jr.||3 stars (5.7)||13||17.0||2.3%||5.0||3.0||0||0||0||0|
|Josh Watson||DT||6'4, 290||Sr.||4 stars (6.0)||13||16.0||2.2%||3.0||1.0||0||0||0||0|
|DeShawn Williams||DT||6'1, 295||Sr.||3 stars (5.6)||13||15.5||2.1%||1.5||0.0||0||1||0||0|
|Tavaris Barnes||DT||6'3, 270||Sr.||4 stars (5.8)||13||7.5||1.0%||2.0||1.0||0||1||0||0|
|Roderick Byers||DE||6'3, 290||Jr.||3 stars (5.6)||6||5.5||0.7%||1.0||0.0||0||0||0||0|
|Martin Aiken||DE||6'2, 230||So.||3 stars (5.7)||12||5.0||0.7%||0.5||0.0||0||0||0||0|
|Kevin Dodd||DT||6'5, 275||Jr.||3 stars (5.6)||4||4.5||0.6%||0.5||0.0||0||0||0||0|
|Carlos Watkins||DT||6'3, 295||Jr.||4 stars (5.9)||3||3.5||0.5%||1.5||0.0||0||0||0||0|
|Scott Pagano||DT||6'2, 290||RSFr.||4 stars (5.8)|
|Ebenezer Ogundeko||DE||6'2, 255||RSFr.||4 stars (5.8)|
|Dane Rogers||DE||6'3, 270||RSFr.||3 stars (5.7)|
8. If this isn't the best defensive line in the country ...
... it's in the top three or four. Clemson's was one of only three defenses to rank in the top 10 in both Adj. Line Yards and Adj. Sack Rate (the others: Virginia Tech and Tulane), and the entire two-deep returns in 2014. Senior end Vic Beasley is one of the best pure pass rushers in college football, and while he takes some risks and falls out of position from time to time, the rest of the defense is adept at covering for him. The tackles position is loaded and deep, and in Shaq Lawson, Corey Crawford, and others, Clemson has quite a few ends capable of standing up to run blocking. This is a nearly flawless unit; it's amazing to think of how much this line struggled barely two years ago.
|Rivals||GP||Tackles||% of Team||TFL||Sacks||Int||PBU||FF||FR|
|Stephone Anthony||MLB||6'2, 245||Sr.||5 stars (6.1)||13||70.5||9.5%||15.0||4.5||1||3||2||0|
|Tony Steward||WLB||6'1, 230||Sr.||5 stars (6.1)||13||16.5||2.2%||2.5||1.0||0||0||1||0|
|Ben Boulware||WLB||5'11, 230||So.||4 stars (5.8)||11||16.5||2.2%||1.5||0.0||1||0||0||0|
|Kellen Jones||LB||6'1, 225||Jr.||3 stars (5.7)||3||6.5||0.9%||2.0||1.0||0||0||0||0|
|T.J. Burrell||SLB||5'11, 215||So.||3 stars (5.5)||13||3.5||0.5%||0.0||0.0||0||0||0||0|
|B.J. Goodson||MLB||6'1, 235||Jr.||3 stars (5.6)||7||2.0||0.3%||0.0||0.0||0||0||0||0|
|Dorian O'Daniel||SLB||6'2, 210||RSFr.||4 stars (5.9)|
|Korie Rogers||LB||6'2, 220||Fr.||4 stars (6.0)|
|Rivals||GP||Tackles||% of Team||TFL||Sacks||Int||PBU||FF||FR|
|Robert Smith||S||5'10, 210||Sr.||3 stars (5.6)||13||59.5||8.0%||2.5||1||1||4||0||0|
|Jayron Kearse||S||6'4, 205||So.||4 stars (5.8)||12||35.5||4.8%||0.5||0||4||0||1||0|
|Travis Blanks||NB||6'0, 200||Jr.||4 stars (6.0)||11||28.0||3.8%||0||0||0||0||2||0|
|Martin Jenkins||CB||5'9, 185||Sr.||3 stars (5.5)||13||23.5||3.2%||1||0||1||1||0||0|
|Garry Peters||CB||6'0, 185||Sr.||4 stars (5.8)||10||18.5||2.5%||4.5||0||0||4||1||0|
|Korrin Wiggins||NB||5'11, 190||So.||3 stars (5.7)||12||13.0||1.8%||0.5||0||2||2||0||0|
|Jadar Johnson||S||6'1, 195||So.||3 stars (5.7)||11||6.0||0.8%||0||0||0||0||0||0|
|Taylor Watson||S||5'10, 210||Sr.||NR||11||5.5||0.7%||0||0||0||0||0||0|
|Cordrea Tankersley||CB||6'0, 195||So.||3 stars (5.7)||12||4.5||0.6%||0.5||0||0||0||0||0|
|T.J. Green||S||6'3, 195||So.||2 stars (5.4)|
|Mackensie Alexander||CB||5'11, 185||RSFr.||4 stars (6.0)|
|Adrian Baker||CB||5'11, 165||RSFr.||3 stars (5.7)|
9. An impeachable back seven
As good as the line was, it got plenty of help from the rest of the defense. Linebackers Spencer Shuey, Stephone Anthony, and Quandon Christian were spectacular in run support (24 non-sack tackles for loss between them), and corners Bashaud Breeland and Darius Robinson were aggressive on the outside, combining for seven interceptions and 11 break-ups.
Four of the five players I just mentioned are gone. Anthony's back, as are last year's top three safeties (Robert Smith, Jayron Kearse, Travis Blanks), but there might be some holes to exploit. If you think of the line as a unit that doesn't have much room for growth, one that is already as good as it can be, then losses in the back seven could cause this defense to regress overall.
"Could." There's still upside. Either five-star senior Tony Steward or four-star sophomore Ben Boulware will replace Shuey. Super-aggressive senior corner Garry Peters could hold up while playing a larger role, and sophomore Cordrea Tankersley and redshirt freshman Mackensie Alexander both surpassed Peters on the post-spring depth chart. Clemson still has more speed and depth than most of its ACC brethren, so it's conceivable that the drop-off will be small or non-existent. Still, it's something to watch.
|Bradley Pinion||6'5, 230||Jr.||56||39.4||0||N/A||20||N/A|
|Bradley Pinion||6'5, 230||Jr.||79||60.6||38||3||48.1%|
|Ammon Lakip||5'10, 200||Jr.||11||60.4||1||1||9.1%|
|Ammon Lakip||5'10, 200||Jr.||5-5||0-1||0.0%||1-1||100.0%|
|Germone Hopper||KR||6'0, 180||So.||4||17.3||0|
|Adam Humphries||PR||5'11, 190||Sr.||20||10.6||0|
|Daniel Rodriguez||PR||5'8, 175||Jr.||5||6.2||0|
|Special Teams F/+||78|
|Field Goal Efficiency||24|
|Punt Return Efficiency||121|
|Kick Return Efficiency||73|
|Opponents' Field Goal Efficiency||78|
2014 Schedule & Projection Factors
|20-Sep||at Florida State||1|
|18-Oct||at Boston College||69|
|6-Nov||at Wake Forest||83|
|15-Nov||at Georgia Tech||44|
|Five-Year F/+ Rk||17.9% (19)|
|Two-Year Recruiting Rk||13|
|TO Margin/Adj. TO Margin*||6 / 2.0|
|Approx. Ret. Starters (Off. / Def.)||12 (4, 8)|
10. Welcome to the starting lineup, Cole (or Deshaun)
Now go on the road beat Georgia and Florida State.
Schedule will dictate perceptions for Clemson in 2014. Even if the Tigers indeed finish the season in the F/+ top 10, there's a good chance they won't be good enough right out of the gates to win at Georgia or Florida State. Hell, a certifiable top-10 team might go 0-2 in those games. A 1-2 start, followed by eight straight mostly non-noteworthy games, will likely create a "Clemson's rebuilding" narrative.
But if the Tigers play well at home (and therefore take down both UNC and Louisville), they could very well be 9-2 when South Carolina visits.
I like this team. Both Clemson and South Carolina this year could be examples of the power of depth over star power. Both are losing irreplaceable players, but both have tons of options in creating a new identity.
The offensive line and cornerback positions give me pause, but only Georgia and Florida State can fully exploit the former issue, and less than half the schedule can exploit the latter. This might not actually be the fifth-best team in the country, but I'll be shocked if a three-year streak of 10+ wins isn't four at the end of 2014.