Temple

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0527th
  Defense+0.1146th
• 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.
  Offense38.0%15th
  Defense42.4%45th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3383rd
  Defense+1.1484th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.161st
  Defense+0.1128th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2868th
  Defense+0.1569th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.8%7th
  Defense50.5%18th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.8%46th
  Defense26.2%82nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.492nd
  Defense3.1933rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%24th
  Defense15.3%34th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.7%13th
  Defense17.5%68th

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   DUKE
2. W
   LAF
3. L
   RUTG
4. W
   MASS
5. L
   MEM
6. L
   UCF
7. L
   TLSA
8. L
   NAVY
9. W
   USF
10. L
    HOU
11. L
    CIN
12. L
    ECU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Temple.

Players, 2022

1. E.J. WarnerQB381 plays · +0.230 pts/play · 38th of 234 QBs
   1.64WAR0.81 to 2.55
2. Jose BarbonWR66 plays · +0.148 pts/play · 75th of 455 WRs
   0.18WAR0.05 to 0.32
3. Edward SaydeeRB143 plays · +0.056 pts/play · 206th of 384 RBs
   0.15WAR0.02 to 0.30
4. Adonicas SandersWR45 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 116th of 455 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.21
5. David Martin-RobinsonTE29 plays · +0.243 pts/play · 17th of 214 TEs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.18
6. Amad Anderson Jr.WR31 plays · +0.207 pts/play · 177th of 455 WRs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
7. Jordan SmithTE30 plays · +0.164 pts/play · 41st of 214 TEs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
8. Mackenzie MorganP42 plays · +0.057 pts/play · 78th of 102 punters
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.10

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  50550576th of 129Roster talent: 505, 76th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13613696th of 129Recruiting: 136, 96th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%36th of 128Returning production: 71%, 36th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −12.9−12.9103rd of 129SP+ rating: −12.9, 103rd of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 0.13 of the 0.19 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 ECUQ4 3:07 4th & 1 at midfield, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−6.2 pts
2. at HOUQ4 8:47 4th & 4 at HOU 4, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.7 pts
3. vs LAFQ4 13:44 4th & 1 at TEM 39, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
4. at MEMQ3 5:46 4th & 2 at TEM 20, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
5. vs LAFQ3 3:48 4th & 3 at LAF 27, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs LAFQ3 8:09 4th & 5 at LAF 41, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at HOUQ2 5:59 4th & 10 at HOU 10, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at MEMQ1 0:39 4th & 1 at TEM 29, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

81st of 131 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

   DUKE
2. W

   LAF
3. L

   RUTG
4. W

   MASS
5. L

   MEM
6. L

   UCF
7. L

   TLSA
8. L

   NAVY
9. W

   USF
10. L

    HOU
11. L

    CIN
12. L

    ECU

What moved it, 2022

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−0.95
• Possession & field position−0.02
• Clock−0.10
• Timeouts−0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.92

Game by game

• DUKEL 0-30 at DUKE27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29
• LAFW 30-14 vs LAF81% → 99%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +18: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts +1
• RUTGL 14-16 vs RUTG11% → 5%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• MASSW 28-0 vs MASS76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +24: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −1
• MEML 3-24 at MEM11% → 1%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −15
• UCFL 13-70 at UCF7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −9
• TLSAL 16-27 vs TLSA20% → 3%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −30, Clock −2
• NAVYL 20-27 at NAVY23% → 8%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −19, Clock −2
• USFW 54-28 vs USF45% → 100%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +55: Scoreboard +50, Timeouts +1
• HOUL 36-43 at HOU9% → 14%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +6: Scoreboard −14, Possession & field position +2
• CINL 3-23 vs CIN15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −22, Clock −1
• ECUL 46-49 vs ECU25% → 5%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2

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.