← College Football slate
Penn State Nittany Lions
1-0 · #14 Elo
at
Sat, Sep 12, 12:00 PM ET
Lincoln Financial Field · 78° · Mostly sunny
Temple Owls
1-0 · #100 Elo
Spread PSU -22.5 (opened PSU -21.5)Total 50.5Moneyline PSU -2100 · TEM +11003 books · best PSU -1600 hardrockbet · TEM +1280 fanduel
WinnerProbability the picked team wins, from a normal on the model's predicted margin. Backtested and calibrated: when it says 65%, it has been right about 63–65% of the time.Strong
PSU -2100
80%
model margin PSU by 14.7
SpreadWhich side the model's margin lands on versus the spread. A lean, not a proven edge: against closing NFL lines the model covers about 49% in backtest, so this is tracked in public rather than sold.Lean +
TEM +22.5
53%
7.8 pts from the number
TotalModel total (scoring ratings + weather + roof) versus the posted total. Same caveat as the spread: a lean, tracked in public.Lean
Over 50.5
51%
model total 52.2
The read
On rating alone Penn State Nittany Lions are 17.7 points better (#14 vs #100 of 240), and TEM add 3.1 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the rushing game: PSU rushing ranks #25, TEM defends it at #127; the other way TEM #82 into PSU's #74. The model lands on PSU by 14.7 against a market PSU by 22.5, so the spread lean is TEM by 7.8 points — a lean, not an edge: against closing lines this model covers about 49%.
Who has the edge
Model: PSU by 14.7 · market PSU by 22.5
Rating
Clear edge
PSU
PSU rated 17.7 points better on Elo (#100 vs #14).
Home & rest
Clear edge
TEM
TEM gets 3.1 points for home field.
Passing game
Clear edge
PSU
PSU passing ranks #53, TEM defends it at #122; the other way TEM #36 into PSU's #40.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Clear edge
PSU
PSU rushing ranks #25, TEM defends it at #127; the other way TEM #82 into PSU's #74.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Clear edge
PSU
PSU third-down conversion ranks #33, TEM defends it at #72; the other way TEM #91 into PSU's #93.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
PSU
TEM +24.0 per game over the last five, PSU +45.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
Clear edge
PSU
Consensus has PSU by 22.5; the model says PSU by 14.7.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
Model: PSU by 14.7 · market PSU by 22.5
Penn State Nittany LionsTemple Owls
1780 Elo · #14
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
PSU +17.7 pts
1460 Elo · #100
road
Home field
TEM +3.1 pts
home
7d
Rest
even
7d
+8.5 pts vs TEM D
Offense vs defenseEach offense's scoring rating against the other defense's — what drives the model total. Shown as an edge, though the winner call runs on Elo.
PSU +21.8 pts
−13.3 pts vs PSU D
W · +45.0
Form (last 5)Average margin over the last five games. Already inside the ratings — listed so you can see when recent form and the rating disagree.
PSU +10.5 pts
W · +24.0
+18.1
SP+ (last season)Bill Connelly's SP+ from last season, the prior the college model starts each season from.
PSU +23.2 pts
−5.1
PSU -22.5
MarketThe consensus spread, read as points. Compare with the model margin above it.
PSU +22.5 pts
TEM +22.5
Bars are in points toward the favored side. Blue factors are inside the model's margin; grey ones are context it does not add on top (form and offense/defense are already in the ratings; injuries beyond the quarterback are not priced).
Dissect the matchup
CollegeFootballData, garbage time excluded · 2025 season (last season until three games are in)Biggest mismatches
- ▸PSU points / scoring opportunity (#25) against a TEM defense ranked #135 at stopping it
- ▸TEM turnovers / game (#2) against a PSU defense ranked #107 at stopping it
- ▸PSU rushing ppa / play (#25) against a TEM defense ranked #127 at stopping it
- ▸PSU standard-down ppa (#29) against a TEM defense ranked #127 at stopping it
- ▸PSU interception rate (#37) against a TEM defense ranked #134 at stopping it
A mismatch is a rank gap of at least a fifth of the league between an offense and the defense it faces on the same measure. Descriptive rows (pass rate, pace, direction) are shown for reading the game, not ranked. ▲▼ mark where the last three games sit clearly above or below the season number, in the direction that helps that side.
Penn State Nittany Lions offense vs Temple Owls defense
ranks of 135| PSU off | TEM def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 43% | 42% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 74% | 72% | · |
| Plays / game | 58 | 54 | · |
| Possession / game | 29:30 | 29:52 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.28#53 | +0.39#122 | PSU |
| Pass success rate | 45%#32 | 43%#88 | PSU |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.44#110 | 1.68#113 | · |
| Yards / pass attempt | 7.2#67 | 7.7#110 | PSU |
| Completion % | 67%#22 | 61%#60 | PSU |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 1.8%#37 | 0.6%#134 | PSU |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.21#25 | +0.22#127 | PSU |
| Rush success rate | 47%#33 | 49%#129 | PSU |
| Rush explosiveness | 1.00#52 | 0.97#74 | · |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.12#38 | 3.37#132 | PSU |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 16%#34 | 14%#130 | PSU |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 76%#43 | 74%#89 | PSU |
| Yards / rush | 4.8#36 | 5.0#121 | PSU |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.19#29 | +0.23#127 | PSU |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.35#52 | +0.42#117 | PSU |
| Third-down conversion | 44%#33 | 40%#72 | PSU |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.32#25 | 4.77#135 | PSU |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 13.5%#41 | 14.6%#95 | PSU |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 0.77#7 | 1.25#72 | PSU |
Temple Owls offense vs Penn State Nittany Lions defense
ranks of 135| TEM off | PSU def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 49% | 48% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 69% | 70% | · |
| Plays / game | 51 | 54 | · |
| Possession / game | 30:08 | 30:30 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.35#36 | +0.18#40 | · |
| Pass success rate | 45%#37 | 38%#36 | · |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.52#86 | 1.46#26 | PSU |
| Yards / pass attempt | 6.8#89 | 6.5#38 | PSU |
| Completion % | 62%#70 | 63%#80 | · |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 2.0%#50 | 1.9%#95 | TEM |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.09#82 | +0.11#74 | · |
| Rush success rate | 44%#60 | 44%#94 | TEM |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.86#116 | 0.93#54 | PSU |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 2.80#96 | 2.97#83 | · |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 20%#86 | 18%#77 | · |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 60%#129 | 69%#54 | PSU |
| Yards / rush | 4.5#64 | 4.1#60 | · |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.20#25 | +0.07#57 | TEM |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.20#106 | +0.23#49 | PSU |
| Third-down conversion | 38%#91 | 41%#93 | · |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.58#13 | 3.33#37 | · |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 14.4%#53 | 15.9%#63 | · |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 0.33#2 | 1.00#107 | TEM |
Season
| PSU | TEM | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-0 | Record | 1-0 |
| 45.0 | Points for / game | 38.0 |
| 0.0 | Points against / game | 14.0 |
| 1-0 / 0-0 | Home / road | 1-0 / 0-0 |
| 1-0 | Against the spread | 1-0 |
| 0-1 | Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean. | 1-0 |
| W | Last 5 | W |
Power ratings
| PSU | TEM | |
|---|---|---|
| 1780 | Elo | 1460 |
| #14 of 240 | Rank | #100 of 240 |
| +9.3 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | +0.1 |
| +13.4 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | +0.8 |
| 1442 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1398 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| PSU | TEM | |
|---|---|---|
| +16.2 | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | −9.1 |
| 0.230 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | 0.203 |
| 0.118 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | 0.283 |
| 46% / 41% | Success rate (off / def) | 44% / 46% |
| 1.20 / 1.17 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.18 / 1.26 |
| 774 | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | 631 |
| 8% | Returning production | 37% |
Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.
Head to head
No meetings in our history.
How the margin was built
- Rating gap
- PSU +17.7 pts
- Home field
- TEM +3.1 pts
- Rest
- Even
- Weather / roof
- 0.0 pts on the total
- Model margin
- PSU by 14.7
- Model total
- 52.2 vs 50.5
Market · 3 books
- Spread
- PSU -22.5 · opened PSU -21.5
- Total
- 50.5 · opened 51.5
- Moneyline
- PSU -2100 · TEM +1100
- Best price
- PSU -1600 hardrockbet · TEM +1280 fanduel
| Book | TEM spread | Total | PSU ML | TEM ML |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| draftkings | +21.5 (-112) | 51.5 (-105/-115) | -2100 | +1100 |
| fanduel | +23.5 (-105) | 49.5 (-110/-110) | -3500 | +1280 |
| hardrockbet | — | — | -1600 | +850 |
Spreadopened PSU -26 · now PSU -22.5 ▲ 3.5
Totalopened 51.5 · now 50.5 ▼ 1.0
Consensus of the books we track, hourly, since we first priced the game. The arrow on the spread is from the home side: ▲ means the home side is laying more.
Informational only. Winner probabilities are backtested and calibrated; spread and total calls are tracked leans. 21+, 1-800-GAMBLER.