Temple · Week 6 analysis

Where the team stands

Temple ranks No. 106 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -7.13 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 87; this update moves it -19 places and -3.51 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 6 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 2–4. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -1.574. Prior-season margin: +1.229.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0149; EPA/play net: -0.2542; success-rate net: -0.0601; explosiveness net: -0.1152. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 3 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 UConn by 14 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of +0.46; the result was -14.46 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 Charlotte on 2026-10-17. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 437 versus 505; Net passing yards: 289 versus 257; Rushing yards: 148 versus 248; First downs: 21 versus 23

Completions–attempts: 20-26 versus 17-24; Rush attempts: 34 versus 39; Yards per pass: 11.1 versus 10.7; Yards per rush: 4.4 versus 6.4

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 34 points and recorded 505 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 4 versus 4; Tackles for loss: 4 versus 6; Third downs: 5-12 versus 5-12; Fourth downs: 0-0 versus 1-2

Turnovers: 2 versus 0; Fumbles lost: 2 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 4-29 versus 8-65; Possession time: 31:02 versus 28:58

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 2–4. 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. 105 Western Kentucky (-7.02); No. 107 Boston College (-7.30).

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.