Temple

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.2166th
  Defense+0.2018th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense43.2%50th
  Defense45.6%15th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2342nd
  Defense+1.2255th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1664th
  Defense+0.1718th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3065th
  Defense+0.2728th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.3%53rd
  Defense49.4%26th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.4%45th
  Defense37.0%11th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.4585th
  Defense2.9150th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.5%70th
  Defense14.8%16th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense11.1%86th
  Defense10.3%1st

Percentiles among the 138 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2026

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Temple allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   URI
2. L
   PSU
3. L
   TOL
4. L
   ARMY
5. W
   USF
6. L
   CONN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Temple.

Players, 2026

1. Ajani SheppardQB125 plays · +0.120 pts/play · 67th of 192 QBs
   0.28WAR0.01 to 0.54
2. Keveun MasonRB67 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 46th of 320 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
3. JoJo BermudezWR24 plays · +0.153 pts/play · 102nd of 364 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
4. Peter ClarkeTE14 plays · +0.185 pts/play · 16th of 164 TEs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07
5. Samuel Brown VRB23 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 201st of 320 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.06
6. Hunter SmithRB25 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 205th of 320 RBs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.06
7. Jaxon SmolikQB25 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 171st of 192 QBs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
8. Colin ChaseWR19 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 195th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.02 to 0.06

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Temple's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  63163180th of 138Roster talent: 631, 80th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  148148107th of 138Recruiting: 148, 107th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  37%37%74th of 136Returning production: 37%, 74th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −6.5−6.599th of 138SP+ rating so far: −6.5, 99th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Temple's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.05 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at USFQ4 0:51 4th & 5 at USF 37, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.0 pts
2. at TOLQ3 5:09 4th & 4 at TOL 30, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
3. vs ARMYQ2 2:58 4th & 1 at TEM 12, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
4. vs PSUQ3 6:16 4th & 1 at TEM 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. vs ARMYQ2 8:20 4th & 4 at ARMY 24, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs URIQ2 11:16 4th & 3 at TEM 37, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at TOLQ1 13:12 4th & 2 at TEM 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

109th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Temple's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   URI
2. L

   PSU
3. L

   TOL
4. L

   ARMY
5. W

   USF
6. L

   CONN

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Temple's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−0.72
• Possession & field position+0.05
• Clock−0.20
• Timeouts+0.18
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.17

Game by game

• URIW 38-14 vs URI86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +18
• PSUL 9-27 vs PSU8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• TOLL 48-49 at TOL36% → 35%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −1: Timeouts +20, Clock −18
• ARMYL 17-21 vs ARMY43% → 5%Before kickoff −7 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• USFW 17-13 at USF38% → 81%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +42, Clock +4
• CONNL 20-34 vs CONN64% → 1%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −63: Scoreboard −59, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Temple's side.

Closest call

SMU 20-45 TEM (2016) - Temple dropped to a 2.0% win probability before pulling it out.