Temple

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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−0.013rd
  Defense0.0097th
• 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.
  Offense36.7%9th
  Defense39.5%78th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1535th
  Defense+1.0791st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0115th
  Defense−0.0698th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.021st
  Defense+0.1088th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.8%15th
  Defense45.2%63rd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.5%3rd
  Defense28.6%87th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.449th
  Defense2.4191st
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.3%12th
  Defense23.5%87th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense3.6%2nd
  Defense3.0%92nd

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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
   VAN
2. L
   NAVY
3. W
   DSU
4. W
   CONN
5. W
   TLSA
6. L
   HOU
7. L
   UCF
8. W
   ECU
9. L
   MEM
10. L
    PSU
11. L
    CIN
12. W
    TULN

Bars above the line: better than expected for Temple.

Players, 2014

1. P.J. WalkerQB427 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 73rd of 199 QBs
   1.37WAR0.69 to 2.02
2. Kenneth HarperRB107 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 105th of 350 RBs
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.31
3. Jalen FitzpatrickWR71 plays · +0.125 pts/play · 102nd of 469 WRs
   0.17WAR0.07 to 0.26
4. Jahad ThomasRB70 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 189th of 350 RBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.18
5. Austin JonesPK19 plays · +0.342 pts/play · 40th of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19
6. Brandon ShippenWR30 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 292nd of 469 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.10
7. Alex StarzykP57 plays · +0.057 pts/play · 60th of 94 punters
   0.06WAR−0.03 to 0.14
8. John ChristopherWR38 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 307th of 469 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11

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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.19 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 VANQ3 8:14 4th & 1 at VAN 1, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. vs CINQ3 5:12 4th & 1 at CIN 9, down 8Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
3. at VANQ2 10:18 4th & 21 at TEM 13, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored punting−2.3 pts
4. at PSUQ3 6:52 4th & 2 at PSU 8, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. vs ECUQ2 3:31 4th & 2 at ECU 46, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. vs MEMQ4 12:59 4th & 3 at MEM 19, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs ECUQ4 13:02 4th & 4 at ECU 43, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at VANQ4 9:40 4th & 4 at VAN 7, up 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

47th of 128 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

   VAN
2. L

   NAVY
3. W

   DSU
4. W

   CONN
5. W

   TLSA
6. L

   HOU
7. L

   UCF
8. W

   ECU
9. L

   MEM
10. L

    PSU
11. L

    CIN
12. W

    TULN

What moved it, 2014

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+0.05
• Timeouts−0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.49

Game by game

• VANW 37-7 at VAN31% → 97%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +59, Clock +4
• NAVYL 24-31 vs NAVY44% → 17%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −41, Possession & field position +2
• DSUW 59-0 vs DSU99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +2
• CONNW 36-10 at CONN61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +45
• TLSAW 35-24 vs TLSA84% → 99%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +21
• HOUL 10-31 at HOU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −1
• UCFL 14-34 at UCF25% → 0%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −1
• ECUW 20-10 vs ECU31% → 97%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +43, Timeouts +2
• MEML 13-16 vs MEM37% → 5%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −42, Clock −3
• PSUL 13-30 at PSU22% → 1%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −26
• CINL 6-14 vs CIN42% → 4%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −45, Clock −3
• TULNW 10-3 at TULN61% → 95%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +45, Clock +3

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.