Temple

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.1357th
  Defense−0.0189th
• 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.
  Offense43.8%51st
  Defense36.5%91st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2780th
  Defense+1.1851st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0953rd
  Defense−0.0281st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1957th
  Defense+0.0187th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.8%45th
  Defense41.8%90th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense36.0%69th
  Defense27.7%93rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9042nd
  Defense2.4689th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.6%31st
  Defense23.6%87th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.2%47th
  Defense20.4%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, 2016

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. L
   ARMY
2. W
   STBK
3. L
   PSU
4. W
   CLT
5. W
   SMU
6. L
   MEM
7. W
   UCF
8. W
   USF
9. W
   CIN
10. W
    CONN
11. W
    TULN
12. W
    ECU
13. W
    NAVY
14. L
    WAKE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Temple.

Players, 2016

1. Phillip WalkerQB395 plays · +0.205 pts/play · 47th of 218 QBs
   1.52WAR0.92 to 2.24
2. Ryquell ArmsteadRB125 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 63rd of 347 RBs
   0.45WAR0.30 to 0.61
3. Jahad ThomasRB205 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 68th of 347 RBs
   0.43WAR0.26 to 0.63
4. Ventell BryantWR82 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 31st of 417 WRs
   0.29WAR0.17 to 0.41
5. Keith KirkwoodWR56 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 92nd of 417 WRs
   0.18WAR0.11 to 0.24
6. Aaron BoumerhiPK16 plays · +0.452 pts/play · 33rd of 116 kickers
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
7. Alex StarzykP42 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 56th of 82 punters
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.19
8. Adonis JenningsWR37 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 208th of 417 WRs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.16

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  49349371st of 128Roster talent: 493, 71st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15615672nd of 128Recruiting: 156, 72nd of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  63%63%74th of 128Returning production: 63%, 74th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +11.9+11.928th of 128SP+ rating: +11.9, 28th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2016

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 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.12 of the 0.16 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 UCFQ4 4:19 4th & 18 at UCF 23, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−5.6 pts
2. at UCFQ4 6:21 4th & 15 at UCF 31, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.6 pts
3. vs USFQ4 5:00 4th & 3 at USF 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs ARMYQ2 0:05 4th & 8 at TEM 17, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.0 pts
5. at PSUQ4 2:10 4th & 6 at PSU 17, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs SMUQ3 9:17 4th & 3 at SMU 12, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at UCFQ4 15:00 4th & 4 at TEM 44, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs USFQ4 0:00 4th & 9 at USF 14, up 16Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

53rd 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. L

   ARMY
2. W

   STBK
3. L

   PSU
4. W

   CLT
5. W

   SMU
6. L

   MEM
7. W

   UCF
8. W

   USF
9. W

   CIN
10. W

    CONN
11. W

    TULN
12. W

    ECU
13. W

    NAVY
14. L

    WAKE

What moved it, 2016

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+0.29
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts−0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.86

Game by game

• ARMYL 13-28 vs ARMY92% → 2%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −90: Scoreboard −61, Clock −3
• STBKW 38-0 vs STBK94% → 100%Before kickoff +44 · On the field +6: Scoreboard +9
• PSUL 27-34 at PSU30% → 3%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts −2
• CLTW 48-20 vs CLT97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• SMUW 45-20 vs SMU81% → 2%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −78: Scoreboard −61, Clock −2
• MEML 27-34 at MEM36% → 3%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −2
• UCFW 26-25 at UCF45% → 92%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +51, Clock +2
• USFW 46-30 vs USF34% → 99%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +51, Timeouts +2
• CINW 34-13 vs CIN74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +26: Scoreboard +29
• CONNW 21-0 at CONN74% → 100%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• TULNW 31-0 at TULN86% → 100%Before kickoff +36 · On the field +14: Scoreboard +20
• ECUW 37-10 vs ECU91% → 100%Before kickoff +41 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +12
• NAVYW 34-10 at NAVY55% → 100%Before kickoff +5 · On the field +44: Scoreboard +48, Clock +3
• WAKEL 26-34 at WAKE79% → 3%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −76: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −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.