Temple

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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+0.1043rd
  Defense+0.0662nd
• 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.
  Offense44.0%53rd
  Defense42.0%55th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2567th
  Defense+1.2340th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0953rd
  Defense+0.1036th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1340th
  Defense+0.0381st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.2%50th
  Defense46.5%57th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.8%60th
  Defense32.7%50th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7526th
  Defense2.8260th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%60th
  Defense20.2%59th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.3%18th
  Defense17.0%65th

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, 2018

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
   VILL
2. L
   BUF
3. W
   MD
4. W
   TLSA
5. L
   BC
6. W
   ECU
7. W
   NAVY
8. W
   CIN
9. L
   UCF
10. W
    HOU
11. W
    USF
12. W
    CONN
13. L
    DUKE

Bars above the line: better than expected for Temple.

Players, 2018

1. Anthony RussoQB354 plays · +0.228 pts/play · 51st of 225 QBs
   1.51WAR0.94 to 2.15
2. Ryquell ArmsteadRB193 plays · +0.208 pts/play · 16th of 351 RBs
   0.75WAR0.59 to 0.93
3. Rob RitrovatoFB59 plays · +0.190 pts/play · 204th of 351 RBs
   0.21WAR0.17 to 0.25
4. Frank NutileQB40 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 195th of 225 QBs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
5. Jager GardnerRB63 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 242nd of 351 RBs
   0.16WAR0.12 to 0.19
6. Branden MackWR52 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 129th of 434 WRs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
7. Randle JonesWR35 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 174th of 434 WRs
   0.10WAR0.06 to 0.15
8. Isaiah WrightWR67 plays · +0.044 pts/play · 299th of 434 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.02 to 0.13

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  47847876th of 130Roster talent: 478, 76th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14414479th of 130Recruiting: 144, 79th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  52%52%88th of 129Returning production: 52%, 88th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.9+2.960th of 130SP+ rating: +2.9, 60th of 130 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, 2018

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.19 of the 0.25 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 USFQ4 1:49 4th & 4 at USF 31, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−7.7 pts
2. at MDQ4 8:21 4th & 2 at TEM 45, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
3. at MDQ3 9:37 4th & 13 at MD 29, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.0 pts
4. at UCFQ4 4:57 4th & 20 at UCF 30, down 9Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.9 pts
5. at MDQ4 5:27 4th & 7 at MD 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. vs CINQ3 11:06 4th & 2 at TEM 30, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. at NAVYQ3 10:47 4th & 2 at NAVY 14, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. vs USFQ3 3:59 4th & 3 at USF 16, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

41st 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

   VILL
2. L

   BUF
3. W

   MD
4. W

   TLSA
5. L

   BC
6. W

   ECU
7. W

   NAVY
8. W

   CIN
9. L

   UCF
10. W

    HOU
11. W

    USF
12. W

    CONN
13. L

    DUKE

What moved it, 2018

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+0.27
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock+0.15
• Timeouts−0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.17

Game by game

• VILLL 17-19 vs VILL87% → 15%Before kickoff +37 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −41, Clock −4
• BUFL 29-36 vs BUF60% → 4%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −52, Clock −3
• MDW 35-14 at MD12% → 39%Before kickoff −38 · On the field +27: Clock +1, Timeouts −1
• TLSAW 31-17 vs TLSA66% → 98%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +33, Timeouts +1
• BCL 35-45 at BC17% → 3%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Timeouts −1
• ECUW 49-6 vs ECU77% → 100%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +26
• NAVYW 24-17 at NAVY66% → 95%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +40, Clock +2
• CINW 24-17 vs CIN52% → 89%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts −19
• UCFL 40-52 at UCF20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• HOUW 59-49 at HOU42% → 96%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• USFW 27-17 vs USF84% → 96%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +21, Timeouts +1
• CONNW 57-7 at CONN97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +7
• DUKEL 27-56 at DUKE56% → 0%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −50, Possession & field position −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.