Temple

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.1877th
  Defense+0.229th
• 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.
  Offense44.4%67th
  Defense46.3%8th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1823rd
  Defense+1.2259th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0748th
  Defense+0.1516th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3383rd
  Defense+0.3310th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense52.2%85th
  Defense51.4%12th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense27.4%28th
  Defense33.0%19th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8029th
  Defense3.372nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.8%36th
  Defense13.6%4th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.4%62nd
  Defense14.6%30th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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
   MASS
2. W
   HOW
3. L
   OU
4. L
   GT
5. W
   UTSA
6. L
   NAVY
7. W
   CLT
8. W
   TLSA
9. L
   ECU
10. L
    ARMY
11. L
    TULN
12. L
    UNT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Temple.

Players, 2025

1. Evan SimonQB269 plays · +0.235 pts/play · 71st of 231 QBs
   1.19WAR0.62 to 1.63
2. Jay DuckerRB144 plays · +0.086 pts/play · 89th of 365 RBs
   0.23WAR0.15 to 0.32
3. JoJo BermudezWR39 plays · +0.212 pts/play · 115th of 451 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.23
4. Peter ClarkeTE27 plays · +0.216 pts/play · 25th of 213 TEs
   0.11WAR0.06 to 0.15
5. Dante AttonP42 plays · +0.122 pts/play · 13th of 100 punters
   0.10WAR0.02 to 0.17
6. Colin ChaseWR56 plays · +0.073 pts/play · 242nd of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR0.02 to 0.16
7. Kajiya HollawayneWR53 plays · +0.069 pts/play · 259th of 451 WRs
   0.07WAR−0.02 to 0.16
8. Gevani McCoyQB6 plays · +0.191 pts/play · 219th of 231 QBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.04

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  508508113th of 134Roster talent: 508, 113th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  132132106th of 134Recruiting: 132, 106th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  41%41%57th of 132Returning production: 41%, 57th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.1−5.186th of 134SP+ rating: −5.1, 86th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.01 of the 0.04 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 MASSQ3 9:37 4th & 4 at MASS 41, up 18Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
2. at TLSAQ4 6:05 4th & 7 at TLSA 34, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
3. vs UTSAQ2 0:50 4th & 1 at TEM 43, down 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
4. at GTQ2 0:00 4th & 10 at GT 43, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at GTQ2 0:00 4th & 10 at GT 43, down 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at CLTQ2 13:32 4th & 2 at TEM 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. vs TULNQ4 14:33 4th & 10 at TULN 43, down 19Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
8. at CLTQ1 12:37 4th & 1 at TEM 43, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

59th of 136 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

   MASS
2. W

   HOW
3. L

   OU
4. L

   GT
5. W

   UTSA
6. L

   NAVY
7. W

   CLT
8. W

   TLSA
9. L

   ECU
10. L

    ARMY
11. L

    TULN
12. L

    UNT

What moved it, 2025

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−0.85
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock−0.22
• Timeouts+0.18
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.52

Game by game

• MASSW 42-10 at MASS61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +43, Clock +1
• HOWW 55-7 vs HOW96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +4: Scoreboard +6
• OUL 3-42 vs OU5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −9
• GTL 24-45 at GT4% → 1%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −8
• UTSAW 27-21 vs UTSA28% → 27%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −30, Clock −3
• NAVYL 31-32 vs NAVY21% → 19%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −29, Clock −3
• CLTW 49-14 at CLT79% → 100%Before kickoff +29 · On the field +21: Scoreboard +28, Possession & field position −1
• TLSAW 38-37 at TLSA61% → 78%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +19
• ECUL 14-45 vs ECU32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −36, Clock −1
• ARMYL 13-14 at ARMY35% → 4%Before kickoff −15 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −2
• TULNL 13-37 vs TULN31% → 0%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −37, Clock −2
• UNTL 25-52 at UNT9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −13

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.