Temple

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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+0.0636th
  Defense+0.0851st
• 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.
  Offense40.7%28th
  Defense41.5%53rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2259th
  Defense+1.2050th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.079th
  Defense+0.0650th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1958th
  Defense+0.1157th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.2%40th
  Defense46.1%55th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.6%19th
  Defense32.7%52nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.5913th
  Defense2.8650th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense24.4%5th
  Defense21.4%67th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.5%41st
  Defense18.4%74th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   ND
2. W
   VILL
3. W
   MASS
4. L
   USF
5. L
   HOU
6. W
   ECU
7. L
   CONN
8. L
   ARMY
9. W
   NAVY
10. W
    CIN
11. L
    UCF
12. W
    TLSA
13. W
    FIU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Temple.

Players, 2017

1. Frank NutileQB180 plays · +0.225 pts/play · 102nd of 226 QBs
   0.76WAR0.44 to 1.11
2. Logan MarchiQB212 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 125th of 226 QBs
   0.47WAR0.12 to 0.83
3. Ryquell ArmsteadRB135 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 46th of 352 RBs
   0.42WAR0.30 to 0.52
4. David HoodRB126 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 90th of 352 RBs
   0.31WAR0.23 to 0.39
5. Keith KirkwoodWR50 plays · +0.188 pts/play · 55th of 426 WRs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.23
6. Adonis JenningsWR63 plays · +0.133 pts/play · 75th of 426 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.22
7. Isaiah WrightWR82 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 90th of 426 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.20
8. Aaron BoumerhiPK15 plays · +0.497 pts/play · 27th of 110 kickers
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  46846876th of 130Roster talent: 468, 76th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14414476th of 130Recruiting: 144, 76th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%69th of 128Returning production: 60%, 69th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +0.5+0.571st of 128SP+ rating: +0.5, 71st of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 0.07 of the 0.13 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. vs CONNQ4 4:59 4th & 7 at CONN 24, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.9 pts
2. vs CONNQ4 11:14 4th & 4 at CONN 4, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs VILLQ4 1:00 4th & 3 at VILL 32, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
4. vs NAVYQ4 10:27 4th & 1 at NAVY 16, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. vs CONNQ2 5:17 4th & 3 at TEM 45, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs HOUQ2 7:49 4th & 3 at HOU 40, down 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at CINQ2 2:55 4th & 7 at CIN 46, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at TLSAQ2 1:09 4th & 1 at TEM 34, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

29th of 130 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

   ND
2. W

   VILL
3. W

   MASS
4. L

   USF
5. L

   HOU
6. W

   ECU
7. L

   CONN
8. L

   ARMY
9. W

   NAVY
10. W

    CIN
11. L

    UCF
12. W

    TLSA
13. W

    FIU

What moved it, 2017

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+1.14
• Clock−0.15
• Timeouts+0.19
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.02

Game by game

• NDL 16-49 at ND8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• VILLW 16-13 vs VILL87% → 95%Before kickoff +37 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +18, Timeouts +1
• MASSW 29-21 vs MASS80% → 95%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +22, Timeouts +1
• USFL 7-43 at USF10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −12
• HOUL 13-20 vs HOU21% → 9%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• ECUW 34-10 at ECU58% → 99%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +41: Scoreboard +46, Clock +1
• CONNL 24-28 vs CONN74% → 5%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −55, Clock −3
• ARMYL 28-31 at ARMY29% → 18%Before kickoff −21 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts +17
• NAVYW 34-26 vs NAVY35% → 99%Before kickoff −15 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +49
• CINW 35-24 at CIN53% → 95%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +43: Scoreboard +48, Clock +1
• UCFL 19-45 vs UCF17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23
• TLSAW 43-22 at TLSA64% → 100%Before kickoff +14 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +41, Clock +2
• FIUW 28-3 at FIU63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +41, Clock +1

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.