Rice

Profile vs. FBS, 2014

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+0.2066th
  Defense+0.1643rd
• 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.
  Offense41.4%34th
  Defense41.7%54th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3187th
  Defense+1.3111th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0635th
  Defense+0.1527th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.4292nd
  Defense+0.1859th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.3%17th
  Defense44.8%71st
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.6%81st
  Defense35.6%27th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.7333rd
  Defense2.9243rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.3%29th
  Defense20.0%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense2.4%25th
  Defense1.9%47th

Percentiles among the 128 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, 2014

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 Rice 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. L
   ND
2. L
   TA&M
3. L
   ODU
4. W
   USM
5. W
   HAW
6. W
   ARMY
7. W
   UNT
8. W
   FIU
9. W
   UTSA
10. L
    MRSH
11. W
    UTEP
12. L
    LT
13. W
    FRES

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rice.

Players, 2014

1. Driphus JacksonQB353 plays · +0.252 pts/play · 49th of 199 QBs
   1.67WAR1.07 to 2.30
2. Darik DillardRB119 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 72nd of 350 RBs
   0.29WAR0.20 to 0.38
3. Jowan DavisRB191 plays · +0.076 pts/play · 83rd of 350 RBs
   0.27WAR0.12 to 0.41
4. Mario HullWR41 plays · +0.239 pts/play · 81st of 469 WRs
   0.18WAR0.12 to 0.25
5. Jordan TaylorWR59 plays · +0.154 pts/play · 96th of 469 WRs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.26
6. James FarrimondPK52 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 39th of 114 kickers
   0.12WAR0.00 to 0.23
7. Dennis ParksWR43 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 200th of 469 WRs
   0.10WAR0.04 to 0.17
8. Zach WrightWR28 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 275th of 469 WRs
   0.07WAR0.03 to 0.12

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 Rice'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

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2014

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 Rice's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.10 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. vs HAWQ2 0:03 4th & 19 at HAW 40, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting−2.0 pts
2. vs UNTQ3 12:42 4th & 2 at UNT 10, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs HAWQ4 0:12 4th & 13 at HAW 31, up 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.3 pts
4. at ARMYQ2 7:17 4th & 2 at ARMY 6, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
5. vs ODUQ2 1:49 4th & 4 at ODU 29, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs FRESQ4 11:27 4th & 2 at RICE 27, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
7. at NDQ3 9:57 4th & 4 at ND 28, down 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at TA&MQ2 6:12 4th & 5 at TA&M 40, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2014

20th of 128 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Rice's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. L

   ND
2. L

   TA&M
3. L

   ODU
4. W

   USM
5. W

   HAW
6. W

   ARMY
7. W

   UNT
8. W

   FIU
9. W

   UTSA
10. L

    MRSH
11. W

    UTEP
12. L

    LT
13. W

    FRES

What moved it, 2014

Every game starts at Rice'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+1.72
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.32

Game by game

• NDL 17-48 at ND8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• TA&ML 10-38 at TA&M2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• ODUL 42-45 vs ODU73% → 4%Before kickoff +23 · On the field −69: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• USMW 41-23 at USM74% → 97%Before kickoff +24 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +1
• HAWW 28-14 vs HAW67% → 99%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2
• ARMYW 41-21 at ARMY42% → 100%Before kickoff −8 · On the field +57: Scoreboard +56, Clock +1
• UNTW 41-21 vs UNT82% → 100%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +21
• FIUW 31-17 at FIU66% → 99%Before kickoff +16 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +41, Clock +1
• UTSAW 17-7 vs UTSA72% → 97%Before kickoff +22 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +29, Timeouts +1
• MRSHL 14-41 at MRSH8% → 0%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −11
• UTEPW 31-13 vs UTEP76% → 100%Before kickoff +26 · On the field +23: Scoreboard +24, Timeouts +1
• LTL 31-76 at LT33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −33, Timeouts −1
• FRESW 30-6 vs FRES46% → 100%Before kickoff −4 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts −1

Points of win probability, from Rice's side.

Closest call

RICE 30-24 UAB (2021) - Rice dropped to a 4.6% win probability before pulling it out.