Rice

Profile vs. FBS, 2015

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+0.1461st
  Defense+0.302nd
• 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.
  Offense44.4%64th
  Defense46.1%24th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1944th
  Defense+1.443rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0755th
  Defense+0.1512th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2366th
  Defense+0.501st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.9%54th
  Defense51.2%17th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.2%72nd
  Defense35.2%32nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0981st
  Defense3.287th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.2%81st
  Defense18.4%31st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense1.3%95th
  Defense1.7%33rd

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, 2015

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. W
   WAG
2. L
   TEX
3. W
   UNT
4. L
   BAY
5. L
   WKU
6. W
   FAU
7. W
   ARMY
8. L
   LT
9. L
   UTEP
10. L
    USM
11. L
    UTSA
12. W
    CLT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rice.

Players, 2015

1. Driphus JacksonQB265 plays · +0.291 pts/play · 62nd of 205 QBs
   1.44WAR1.01 to 1.93
2. Darik DillardRB95 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 104th of 333 RBs
   0.24WAR0.16 to 0.32
3. Zach WrightWR47 plays · +0.136 pts/play · 167th of 411 WRs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.19
4. Samuel StewartRB65 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 197th of 333 RBs
   0.11WAR0.05 to 0.16
5. Dennis ParksWR34 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 257th of 411 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13
6. James FarrimondPK29 plays · +0.126 pts/play · 98th of 115 kickers
   0.07WAR0.00 to 0.13
7. Nate GermanQB23 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 195th of 205 QBs
   0.05WAR0.01 to 0.09
8. Jowan DavisRB35 plays · +0.072 pts/play · 242nd of 333 RBs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07

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

What it had and what it did, 2015

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  40040091st of 128Roster talent: 400, 91st of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  11911994th of 128Recruiting: 119, 94th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  73%73%44th of 127Returning production: 73%, 44th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.6−14.6110th of 128SP+ rating: −14.6, 110th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 128 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2015

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.04 of the 0.07 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 CLTQ3 9:51 4th & 2 at CLT 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs ARMYQ3 10:43 4th & 3 at ARMY 46, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at FAUQ4 13:50 4th & 11 at FAU 32, down 12Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
4. vs CLTQ2 3:13 4th & 2 at RICE 28, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
5. at TEXQ3 4:33 4th & 1 at RICE 17, down 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
6. at UTSAQ4 7:28 4th & 10 at UTSA 49, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
7. vs WKUQ3 15:00 4th & 7 at WKU 39, down 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
8. vs WKUQ3 7:12 4th & 2 at RICE 36, down 25Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2015

45th 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. Based on 11 of 12 games; one has no play-by-play to score.

1. W

   WAG
2. L

   TEX
3. W

   UNT
4. L

   BAY
5. L

   WKU
6. W

   FAU
7. W

   ARMY
8. L

   LT
9. L

   UTEP
10. L

    USM
11. L

    UTSA
12. W

    CLT

What moved it, 2015

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−0.01
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.01
• Timeouts+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.36

Game by game

• WAGW 56-16 vs WAG69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32
• TEXL 28-42 at TEX15% → 2%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −20, Possession & field position +1
• UNTW 38-24 at UNT68% → 98%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +30: Scoreboard +40, Clock +1
• BAYL 17-70 at BAY2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• WKUL 10-49 vs WKU36% → 0%Before kickoff −14 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −40, Clock −1
• FAUW 27-26 at FAU45% → 83%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +38, Clock +5
• ARMYW 38-31 vs ARMY24% → 89%Before kickoff −26 · On the field +65: Scoreboard +32, Possession & field position −2
• LTL 17-42 vs LT27% → 0%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −33, Clock −1
• USML 10-65 vs USM30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −38, Clock −2
• UTSAL 24-34 at UTSA45% → 4%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −1
• CLTW 27-7 vs CLT75% → 100%Before kickoff +25 · On the field +25: Scoreboard +28

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.