← College Football slate
Temple Owls
1-0 · #100 Elo
at
Fri, Nov 27, 12:00 AM ET
Simmons Bank Liberty Stadium
Memphis Tigers
2-0 · #36 Elo
Spread —Total —Moneyline —
The read
On rating alone Memphis Tigers are 10.3 points better (#36 vs #100 of 240), and MEM add 0.0 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the rushing game: MEM rushing ranks #5, TEM defends it at #127; the other way TEM #82 into MEM's #33.
Who has the edge
Rating
Clear edge
MEM
MEM rated 10.3 points better on Elo (#36 vs #100).
Home & rest
Even
—
MEM gets 0.0 points for home field.
Passing game
Slight edge
TEM
TEM passing ranks #36, MEM defends it at #117; the other way MEM #79 into TEM's #122.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Clear edge
MEM
MEM rushing ranks #5, TEM defends it at #127; the other way TEM #82 into MEM's #33.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Slight edge
MEM
MEM third-down conversion ranks #47, TEM defends it at #72; the other way TEM #91 into MEM's #77.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Clear edge
TEM
MEM +12.0 per game over the last five, TEM +24.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
not priced
—
No line yet.
context · not in the margin
The margin, factor by factor
Temple OwlsMemphis Tigers
1460 Elo · #100
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
MEM +10.3 pts
1646 Elo · #36
road
Home field
not priced
home
—
Rest
even
—
−5.0 pts vs MEM 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.
MEM +7.5 pts
+2.5 pts vs TEM D
W · +24.0
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.
TEM +6.0 pts
W W · +12.0
−5.1
SP+ (last season)Bill Connelly's SP+ from last season, the prior the college model starts each season from.
MEM +12.7 pts
+7.6
—
MarketThe consensus spread, read as points. Compare with the model margin above it.
not priced
—
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
- ▸MEM rushing ppa / play (#5) against a TEM defense ranked #127 at stopping it
- ▸MEM line yards / rush (#11) against a TEM defense ranked #132 at stopping it
- ▸MEM rush success rate (#12) against a TEM defense ranked #129 at stopping it
- ▸MEM points / scoring opportunity (#23) against a TEM defense ranked #135 at stopping it
- ▸MEM standard-down ppa (#23) against a TEM defense ranked #127 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.
Temple Owls offense vs Memphis Tigers defense
ranks of 135| TEM off | MEM def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 49% | 49% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 69% | 68% | · |
| Plays / game | 51 | 62 | · |
| Possession / game | 30:08 | 28:22 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.35#36 | +0.37#117 | TEM |
| Pass success rate | 45%#37 | 45%#111 | TEM |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.52#86 | 1.63#104 | · |
| Yards / pass attempt | 6.8#89 | 7.5#96 | · |
| Completion % | 62%#70 | 61%#53 | · |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 2.0%#50 | 2.3%#76 | · |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.09#82 | +0.04#33 | MEM |
| Rush success rate | 44%#60 | 39%#32 | MEM |
| Rush explosiveness | 0.86#116 | 0.98#80 | MEM |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 2.80#96 | 2.57#13 | MEM |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 20%#86 | 22%#29 | MEM |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 60%#129 | 73%#87 | MEM |
| Yards / rush | 4.5#64 | 3.7#36 | MEM |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.20#25 | +0.11#75 | TEM |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.20#106 | +0.37#104 | · |
| Third-down conversion | 38%#91 | 40%#77 | · |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.58#13 | 4.00#101 | TEM |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 14.4%#53 | 17.4%#32 | · |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 0.33#2 | 1.46#44 | TEM |
Memphis Tigers offense vs Temple Owls defense
ranks of 135| MEM off | TEM def | Edge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity | |||
| Pass rate / Pass rate faced | 50% | 42% | · |
| Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains). | 68% | 72% | · |
| Plays / game | 64 | 54 | · |
| Possession / game | 31:38 | 29:52 | · |
| Passing | |||
| Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD). | +0.23#79 | +0.39#122 | MEM |
| Pass success rate | 42%#69 | 43%#88 | · |
| Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are. | 1.50#94 | 1.68#113 | · |
| Yards / pass attempt | 7.2#66 | 7.7#110 | MEM |
| Completion % | 67%#16 | 61%#60 | MEM |
| Interception rate / Interceptions forced | 2.9%#80 | 0.6%#134 | MEM |
| Rushing | |||
| Rushing PPA / play | +0.30#5 | +0.22#127 | MEM |
| Rush success rate | 49%#12 | 49%#129 | MEM |
| Rush explosiveness | 1.17#7 | 0.97#74 | MEM |
| Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed. | 3.33#11 | 3.37#132 | MEM |
| Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line. | 19%#74 | 14%#130 | MEM |
| Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2. | 75%#51 | 74%#89 | MEM |
| Yards / rush | 5.1#27 | 5.0#121 | MEM |
| Situational | |||
| Standard-down PPA | +0.22#23 | +0.23#127 | MEM |
| Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+). | +0.34#55 | +0.42#117 | MEM |
| Third-down conversion | 42%#47 | 40%#72 | · |
| Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 4.41#23 | 4.77#135 | MEM |
| Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play. | 14.1%#50 | 14.6%#95 | MEM |
| Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game | 0.92#21 | 1.25#72 | MEM |
Season
| TEM | MEM | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-0 | Record | 2-0 |
| 38.0 | Points for / game | 34.5 |
| 14.0 | Points against / game | 22.5 |
| 1-0 / 0-0 | Home / road | 1-0 / 1-0 |
| 1-0 | Against the spread | 2-0 |
| 1-0 | Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean. | 1-1 |
| W | Last 5 | W W |
Power ratings
| TEM | MEM | |
|---|---|---|
| 1460 | Elo | 1646 |
| #100 of 240 | Rank | #36 of 240 |
| +0.1 | Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted. | +3.3 |
| +0.8 | Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good. | +5.0 |
| 1398 | Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season. | 1480 |
Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.
Advanced
| TEM | MEM | |
|---|---|---|
| −9.1 | SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average. | +0.3 |
| 0.203 | Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD). | 0.256 |
| 0.283 | Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better. | 0.193 |
| 44% / 46% | Success rate (off / def) | 45% / 42% |
| 1.18 / 1.26 | Explosiveness (off / def) | 1.33 / 1.31 |
| 631 | Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster. | 670 |
| 37% | Returning production | 6% |
Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.
Head to head
| 2023 | MEM 45 at TEM 21 | MEM · MEM covered |
How the margin was built
- Rating gap
- MEM +10.3 pts
- Home field
- MEM +— pts
- Rest
- Even
- Weather / roof
- — pts on the total
- Model margin
- —
- Model total
- —
Market
- Spread
- —
- Total
- —
- Moneyline
- —
Per-book prices appear once the multi-book feed has this game (about a week out).
Informational only. Winner probabilities are backtested and calibrated; spread and total calls are tracked leans. 21+, 1-800-GAMBLER.