Temple

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.0311th
  Defense+0.2419th
• 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.
  Offense36.0%6th
  Defense46.0%22nd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2852nd
  Defense+1.2464th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.1043rd
  Defense+0.2120th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.029th
  Defense+0.3020th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense39.7%3rd
  Defense51.4%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense29.3%33rd
  Defense33.2%29th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8319th
  Defense3.1833rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%51st
  Defense15.4%31st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.4%45th
  Defense16.0%36th

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, 2021

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
   RUTG
2. W
   AKR
3. L
   BC
4. W
   WAG
5. W
   MEM
6. L
   CIN
7. L
   USF
8. L
   UCF
9. L
   ECU
10. L
    HOU
11. L
    TLSA
12. L
    NAVY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Temple.

Players, 2021

1. Edward SaydeeRB62 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 236th of 387 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.23
2. Randle JonesWR32 plays · +0.195 pts/play · 193rd of 474 WRs
   0.12WAR0.08 to 0.16
3. Tayvon RuleyRB29 plays · +0.184 pts/play · 291st of 387 RBs
   0.10WAR0.08 to 0.12
4. Jose BarbonWR24 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 335th of 474 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
5. Jadan BlueWR33 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 335th of 474 WRs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.10
6. Adam BarryP37 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 76th of 101 punters
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.13
7. Rory BellPK10 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 114th of 128 kickers
   0.03WAR0.01 to 0.06
8. D'Wan MathisWR23 plays · +0.047 pts/play · 431st of 474 WRs
   0.02WAR−0.01 to 0.05

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  50150179th of 130Roster talent: 501, 79th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14314394th of 130Recruiting: 143, 94th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  45%45%113th of 128Returning production: 45%, 113th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −19.1−19.1121st of 130SP+ rating: −19.1, 121st 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, 2021

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.02 of the 0.05 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 USFQ3 6:40 4th & 1 at TEM 34, down 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
2. at AKRQ3 14:52 4th & 3 at TEM 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
3. vs MEMQ4 11:47 4th & 4 at TEM 38, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
4. vs BCQ2 12:58 4th & 1 at TEM 34, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. vs NAVYQ1 2:20 4th & 1 at TEM 31, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at CINQ3 13:13 4th & 1 at TEM 34, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs BCQ2 3:10 4th & 2 at TEM 19, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs MEMQ3 11:55 4th & 6 at MEM 31, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

71st 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

   RUTG
2. W

   AKR
3. L

   BC
4. W

   WAG
5. W

   MEM
6. L

   CIN
7. L

   USF
8. L

   UCF
9. L

   ECU
10. L

    HOU
11. L

    TLSA
12. L

    NAVY

What moved it, 2021

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−1.09
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.03
• Timeouts+0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.65

Game by game

• RUTGL 14-61 at RUTG13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −17
• AKRW 45-24 at AKR66% → 100%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +39, Clock +2
• BCL 3-28 vs BC12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −18
• WAGW 41-7 vs WAG98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• MEMW 34-31 vs MEM22% → 77%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +19, Possession & field position −5
• CINL 3-52 at CIN3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• USFL 14-34 at USF39% → 0%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −42, Timeouts +2
• UCFL 7-49 vs UCF20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −26
• ECUL 3-45 at ECU12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −15
• HOUL 8-37 vs HOU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• TLSAL 10-44 at TLSA8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• NAVYL 14-38 vs NAVY20% → 0%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −27, 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.