Temple

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.0521st
  Defense+0.0281st
• 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.
  Offense42.2%36th
  Defense39.2%79th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2053rd
  Defense+1.2917th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0119th
  Defense−0.0171st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1229th
  Defense+0.0582nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.4%43rd
  Defense44.2%81st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.2%29th
  Defense30.0%79th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7731st
  Defense2.7566th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.4%40th
  Defense21.0%66th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.5%72nd
  Defense19.7%47th

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, 2019

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
   BUCK
2. W
   MD
3. L
   BUF
4. W
   GT
5. W
   ECU
6. W
   MEM
7. L
   SMU
8. L
   UCF
9. W
   USF
10. W
    TULN
11. L
    CIN
12. W
    CONN
13. L
    UNC

Bars above the line: better than expected for Temple.

Players, 2019

1. Anthony RussoQB345 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 84th of 228 QBs
   0.95WAR0.28 to 1.54
2. Ray DavisRB168 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 43rd of 349 RBs
   0.55WAR0.41 to 0.68
3. Jager GardnerRB127 plays · +0.124 pts/play · 146th of 349 RBs
   0.30WAR0.19 to 0.41
4. Todd CenteioQB78 plays · +0.181 pts/play · 168th of 228 QBs
   0.26WAR0.10 to 0.42
5. Jadan BlueWR111 plays · +0.115 pts/play · 42nd of 439 WRs
   0.24WAR0.12 to 0.37
6. Branden MackWR87 plays · +0.119 pts/play · 72nd of 439 WRs
   0.19WAR0.07 to 0.31
7. Will MobleyPK12 plays · +0.317 pts/play · 95th of 114 kickers
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
8. Kenny YeboahTE27 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 34th of 207 TEs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.09

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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  48948980th of 130Roster talent: 489, 80th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14214286th of 130Recruiting: 142, 86th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  57%57%72nd of 130Returning production: 57%, 72nd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +3.2+3.251st of 130SP+ rating: +3.2, 51st 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, 2019

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 0.06 of the 0.14 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 14:04 4th & 1 at USF 27, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
2. vs TULNQ3 6:24 4th & 3 at TULN 3, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. vs MDQ2 11:05 4th & 1 at TEM 29, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
4. vs MDQ2 1:43 4th & 4 at MD 45, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
5. at ECUQ4 10:37 4th & 2 at ECU 21, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
6. vs MEMQ2 12:43 4th & 3 at MEM 27, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. at CINQ2 2:02 4th & 6 at TEM 19, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.6 pts
8. at BUFQ4 8:29 4th & 11 at BUF 19, down 22Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

31st 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. W

   BUCK
2. W

   MD
3. L

   BUF
4. W

   GT
5. W

   ECU
6. W

   MEM
7. L

   SMU
8. L

   UCF
9. W

   USF
10. W

    TULN
11. L

    CIN
12. W

    CONN
13. L

    UNC

What moved it, 2019

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+0.70
• Possession & field position+0.06
• Clock+0.05
• Timeouts+0.01
• Other−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.30

Game by game

• BUCKW 56-12 vs BUCK99% → 97%Before kickoff +49 · On the field −2: Scoreboard +4
• MDW 20-17 vs MD34% → 93%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +41, Possession & field position −2
• BUFL 22-38 at BUF84% → 1%Before kickoff +34 · On the field −83: Scoreboard −52, Timeouts −3
• GTW 24-2 vs GT75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +28, Timeouts −1
• ECUW 27-17 at ECU76% → 97%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +22: Scoreboard +32, Clock +1
• MEMW 30-28 vs MEM36% → 84%Before kickoff −14 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +22, Possession & field position +3
• SMUL 21-45 at SMU24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −24: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +1
• UCFL 21-63 vs UCF18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −24
• USFW 17-7 at USF44% → 96%Before kickoff −6 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +51, Clock +3
• TULNW 29-21 vs TULN32% → 97%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +45, Timeouts +2
• CINL 13-15 at CIN24% → 16%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −20, Possession & field position +2
• CONNW 49-17 vs CONN96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• UNCL 13-55 vs UNC31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −36

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.