Temple · Week 2 analysis

Where the team stands

Temple ranks No. 115 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -8.17 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 97; this update moves it -18 places and -3.41 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 2 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 1–1. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -3.782. Prior-season margin: +1.229.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0411; EPA/play net: -0.1749; success-rate net: -0.0360; explosiveness net: -0.1140. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 1 eligible games. Excluded games contribute no fabricated EP observation. Opponent results can move a rating even during a bye.

The result and the reconstructed expectation

Temple lost to Penn State by 18 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -12.13; the result was -5.87 points relative to that expectation.

This is a newly reconstructed forecast under the frozen EP model. It is not represented as a prediction published before the game, and it does not replace the original published grade.

Next scheduled test

The next scheduled opponent at this snapshot is Toledo on 2026-09-19. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 283 versus 416; Net passing yards: 107 versus 268; Rushing yards: 176 versus 148; First downs: 14 versus 23

Completions–attempts: 13-22 versus 21-27; Rush attempts: 33 versus 34; Yards per pass: 4.9 versus 9.9; Yards per rush: 5.3 versus 4.4

Read production alongside workload: more attempts can raise a yardage total without raising efficiency. The model uses opponent-adjusted rate signals, not this box score alone.

Defense and possession

The opponent scored 27 points and recorded 416 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 1 versus 1; Tackles for loss: 1 versus 2; Third downs: 4-12 versus 6-12; Fourth downs: 2-2 versus 0-1

Turnovers: 1 versus 0; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 1 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 5-60 versus 4-20; Possession time: 31:11 versus 28:49

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 1–1. The expected final record is 4.7–7.3 over 12 scheduled games.

Expected wins add recorded results to the estimated win probabilities of remaining games. They are not a list of certain winners. Probabilities use a symmetric approximation from historical development residuals; independent calibration has not been established.

The comparison around the ranking

Nearby in this same snapshot: No. 114 Purdue (-7.85); No. 116 Marshall (-8.21).

PSR compares predictive strength rather than sorting teams by wins. A team can win and move down, or lose and move up, as its performance and opponents change the adjusted evidence.

How to read this assessment

This is a fresh assessment under the frozen EP model, using this period's eligible inputs. Earlier published releases remain preserved separately; the reconstructed archive is not presented as a prediction published before those games.

Scoring margin, prior-season margin, first-down efficiency, EPA per play, success rate and explosiveness contribute together. Correlated signals should not be interpreted as independent proof of an advantage, and a model disagreement with a betting line is not proof of profit.