Temple

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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−0.044th
  Defense+0.1726th
• 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.
  Offense32.4%2nd
  Defense41.2%54th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3171st
  Defense+1.3422nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.094th
  Defense+0.1912th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0315th
  Defense+0.1938th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense38.5%2nd
  Defense46.4%57th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense22.7%4th
  Defense29.3%66th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.585th
  Defense3.1830th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.9%18th
  Defense14.7%17th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.1%8th
  Defense12.4%6th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   OU
2. L
   NAVY
3. L
   CCU
4. W
   USU
5. L
   ARMY
6. L
   CONN
7. W
   TLSA
8. L
   ECU
9. L
   TULN
10. W
    FAU
11. L
    UTSA
12. L
    UNT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Temple.

Players, 2024

1. Evan SimonQB306 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 75th of 232 QBs
   1.26WAR0.69 to 1.82
2. Dante WrightWR56 plays · +0.290 pts/play · 11th of 452 WRs
   0.30WAR0.16 to 0.47
3. Antwain Littleton Jr.RB90 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 178th of 373 RBs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.22
4. Terrez WorthyRB79 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 186th of 373 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.20
5. Dante AttonP61 plays · +0.123 pts/play · 12th of 106 punters
   0.14WAR0.03 to 0.26
6. Forrest BrockQB64 plays · +0.095 pts/play · 202nd of 232 QBs
   0.11WAR0.03 to 0.22
7. Maddux TrujilloPK18 plays · +0.331 pts/play · 24th of 114 kickers
   0.11WAR0.07 to 0.16
8. John AdamsWR14 plays · +0.186 pts/play · 247th of 452 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.07

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  532532104th of 131Roster talent: 532, 104th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14014093rd of 131Recruiting: 140, 93rd of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  24%24%110th of 130Returning production: 24%, 110th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −20.3−20.3124th of 131SP+ rating: −20.3, 124th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.08 of the 0.15 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 CONNQ4 1:52 4th & 1 at CONN 10, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−7.0 pts
2. vs TLSAQ2 0:00 4th & 10 at TEM 48, up 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.3 pts
3. at CONNQ3 11:08 4th & 11 at CONN 42, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs UNTQ3 10:50 4th & 5 at UNT 42, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. at CONNQ4 7:22 4th & 4 at TEM 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
6. vs TLSAQ4 6:28 4th & 4 at midfield, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
7. vs CCUQ4 0:23 4th & 14 at CCU 40, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs USUQ3 7:41 4th & 3 at TEM 27, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

57th of 134 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

   OU
2. L

   NAVY
3. L

   CCU
4. W

   USU
5. L

   ARMY
6. L

   CONN
7. W

   TLSA
8. L

   ECU
9. L

   TULN
10. W

    FAU
11. L

    UTSA
12. L

    UNT

What moved it, 2024

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−0.91
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.04
• Other+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.94

Game by game

• OUL 3-51 at OU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −1
• NAVYL 11-38 at NAVY21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −23
• CCUL 20-28 vs CCU12% → 3%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• USUW 45-29 vs USU34% → 99%Before kickoff −16 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +53, Timeouts −1
• ARMYL 14-42 vs ARMY17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −23, Clock −1
• CONNL 20-29 at CONN12% → 5%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• TLSAW 20-10 vs TLSA50% → 97%Before kickoff 0 · On the field +47: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +3
• ECUL 34-56 at ECU27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29
• TULNL 6-52 at TULN5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −8
• FAUW 18-15 vs FAU57% → 56%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −3, Clock −2
• UTSAL 27-51 at UTSA13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18, Clock +1
• UNTL 17-24 vs UNT23% → 12%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −35, 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.