Temple

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.0420th
  Defense+0.255th
• 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.
  Offense40.0%31st
  Defense45.0%18th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3482nd
  Defense+1.2742nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0016th
  Defense+0.1428th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1836th
  Defense+0.423rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense42.6%6th
  Defense50.7%16th
• 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%83rd
  Defense31.3%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8518th
  Defense3.1635th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense18.6%27th
  Defense15.4%34th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.2%20th
  Defense12.6%2nd

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   AKR
2. L
   RUTG
3. W
   NORF
4. L
   MIA
5. L
   TLSA
6. L
   UTSA
7. L
   UNT
8. L
   SMU
9. W
   NAVY
10. L
    USF
11. L
    UAB
12. L
    MEM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Temple.

Players, 2023

1. E.J. WarnerQB374 plays · +0.253 pts/play · 33rd of 250 QBs
   1.77WAR1.06 to 2.58
2. David Martin-RobinsonTE36 plays · +0.364 pts/play · 4th of 212 TEs
   0.25WAR0.17 to 0.33
3. Darvon HubbardRB95 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 140th of 383 RBs
   0.19WAR0.11 to 0.27
4. Dante WrightWR34 plays · +0.248 pts/play · 108th of 457 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
5. Jordan SmithTE30 plays · +0.256 pts/play · 29th of 212 TEs
   0.14WAR0.08 to 0.21
6. Quincy PattersonQB61 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 207th of 250 QBs
   0.13WAR0.00 to 0.26
7. Amad Anderson Jr.WR30 plays · +0.159 pts/play · 205th of 457 WRs
   0.09WAR0.00 to 0.17
8. Maurice ClarkTE15 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 99th of 212 TEs
   0.06WAR0.04 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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  55455480th of 130Roster talent: 554, 80th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14214289th of 130Recruiting: 142, 89th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  76%76%23rd of 128Returning production: 76%, 23rd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −21.0−21.0124th of 130SP+ rating: −21.0, 124th 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, 2023

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 0 clear-cut ones account for 0.00 of the 0.03 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 UABQ3 13:44 4th & 3 at TEM 30, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
2. vs UTSAQ4 2:42 4th & 9 at UTSA 9, down 15Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
3. vs NAVYQ1 3:18 4th & 2 at NAVY 24, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at RUTGQ4 14:51 4th & 5 at RUTG 9, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
5. vs UTSAQ3 9:15 4th & 10 at UTSA 33, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
6. vs NAVYQ2 8:43 4th & 9 at NAVY 41, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
7. at UNTQ3 9:11 4th & 5 at TEM 40, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs MIAQ2 4:33 4th & 12 at MIA 35, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

112th of 133 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

   AKR
2. L

   RUTG
3. W

   NORF
4. L

   MIA
5. L

   TLSA
6. L

   UTSA
7. L

   UNT
8. L

   SMU
9. W

   NAVY
10. L

    USF
11. L

    UAB
12. L

    MEM

What moved it, 2023

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−1.85
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts+0.03
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.35

Game by game

• AKRW 24-21 vs AKR77% → 96%Before kickoff +27 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +2
• RUTGL 7-36 at RUTG32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −33
• NORFW 41-9 vs NORF97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +5
• MIAL 7-41 vs MIA6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −10
• TLSAL 26-48 at TLSA52% → 0%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −47, Timeouts −1
• UTSAL 34-49 vs UTSA18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −28, Clock −1
• UNTL 14-45 at UNT37% → 0%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −37: Scoreboard −37
• SMUL 0-55 vs SMU9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −13
• NAVYW 32-18 vs NAVY38% → 99%Before kickoff −12 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +46, Timeouts +3
• USFL 23-27 at USF34% → 4%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −1
• UABL 24-34 at UAB34% → 2%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −34
• MEML 21-45 vs MEM21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −28, 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.