Temple

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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.
  Offense0.0014th
  Defense+0.2314th
• 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.
  Offense37.7%13th
  Defense47.2%16th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2650th
  Defense+1.2162nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.106th
  Defense+0.1235th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1036th
  Defense+0.416th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.2%8th
  Defense52.8%13th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.0%46th
  Defense34.4%29th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6524th
  Defense3.368th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.4%68th
  Defense15.6%16th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.0%40th
  Defense16.5%49th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   NAVY
2. W
   USF
3. L
   MEM
4. L
   TULN
5. L
   SMU
6. L
   UCF
7. L
   ECU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Temple.

Players, 2020

1. Ray DavisRB88 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 113th of 338 RBs
   0.28WAR0.21 to 0.34
2. Anthony RussoQB142 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 126th of 212 QBs
   0.21WAR−0.07 to 0.48
3. Tayvon RuleyRB46 plays · +0.177 pts/play · 213th of 338 RBs
   0.15WAR0.12 to 0.18
4. Randle JonesWR34 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 102nd of 409 WRs
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.15
5. Jadan BlueWR41 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 147th of 409 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
6. Branden MackWR46 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 194th of 409 WRs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.13
7. Trad BeattyQB36 plays · +0.107 pts/play · 176th of 212 QBs
   0.07WAR0.02 to 0.12
8. Re-al MitchellQB37 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 191st of 212 QBs
   0.05WAR−0.02 to 0.12

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  48248277th of 127Roster talent: 482, 77th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13613696th of 127Recruiting: 136, 96th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  78%78%33rd of 127Returning production: 78%, 33rd of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.0−10.0107th of 127SP+ rating: −10.0, 107th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 0.12 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. vs USFQ4 0:07 4th & 7 at USF 46, up 2Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−5.3 pts
2. at MEMQ4 8:55 4th & 4 at TEM 45, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
3. at MEMQ4 5:52 4th & 9 at MEM 45, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.8 pts
4. vs USFQ4 13:20 4th & 7 at USF 41, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
5. at MEMQ4 2:15 4th & 10 at MEM 11, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.4 pts
6. vs ECUQ2 11:36 4th & 3 at ECU 11, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. at MEMQ2 14:51 4th & 21 at MEM 31, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs ECUQ1 2:11 4th & 1 at TEM 16, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

115th of 127 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

   NAVY
2. W

   USF
3. L

   MEM
4. L

   TULN
5. L

   SMU
6. L

   UCF
7. L

   ECU

What moved it, 2020

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−1.34
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.06

Game by game

• NAVYL 29-31 at NAVY64% → 10%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −2
• USFW 39-37 vs USF84% → 94%Before kickoff +34 · On the field +9: Scoreboard +20, Timeouts +1
• MEML 29-41 at MEM19% → 2%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −23, Timeouts −1
• TULNL 3-38 at TULN37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −37
• SMUL 23-47 vs SMU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• UCFL 13-38 at UCF4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• ECUL 3-28 vs ECU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −29: Scoreboard −36, 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.