Rice

Profile vs. FBS, 2016

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+0.0523rd
  Defense+0.291st
• 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.
  Offense41.1%27th
  Defense44.7%35th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1117th
  Defense+1.442nd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0847th
  Defense+0.233rd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0626th
  Defense+0.394th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.3%31st
  Defense48.9%40th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.4%24th
  Defense36.4%20th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0256th
  Defense3.1123rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.5%86th
  Defense17.8%34th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.6%26th
  Defense15.1%30th

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, 2016

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

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rice.

Players, 2016

1. Tyler StehlingQB309 plays · +0.163 pts/play · 87th of 218 QBs
   0.94WAR0.44 to 1.44
2. Jack FoxPK47 plays · +0.249 pts/play · 12th of 116 kickers
   0.22WAR0.14 to 0.30
3. Darik DillardRB52 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 182nd of 347 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.24
4. Jowan DavisRB51 plays · +0.140 pts/play · 223rd of 347 RBs
   0.13WAR0.09 to 0.17
5. Samuel StewartRB48 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 228th of 347 RBs
   0.13WAR0.08 to 0.17
6. Austin WalterRB57 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 231st of 347 RBs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17
7. Zach WrightWR41 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 252nd of 417 WRs
   0.09WAR0.04 to 0.14
8. Temi AlakaWR27 plays · +0.158 pts/play · 271st of 417 WRs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11

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, 2016

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  39539597th of 128Roster talent: 395, 97th of 128 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  111111111th of 128Recruiting: 111, 111th of 128 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  45%45%102nd of 128Returning production: 45%, 102nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −16.5−16.5121st of 128SP+ rating: −16.5, 121st 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, 2016

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 3 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 UTSAQ4 14:13 4th & 1 at RICE 31, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. vs UNTQ3 12:47 4th & 1 at RICE 30, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. at CLTQ4 1:33 4th & 4 at CLT 24, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.0 pts
4. vs UTSAQ3 3:05 4th & 8 at UTSA 41, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts
5. at ARMYQ4 8:23 4th & 8 at RICE 41, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at ARMYQ3 11:20 4th & 6 at ARMY 42, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
7. at CLTQ2 3:55 4th & 10 at CLT 32, down 18Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. vs UNTQ3 7:35 4th & 4 at UNT 19, up 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2016

92nd 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

   WKU
2. L

   ARMY
3. L

   BAY
4. L

   UNT
5. L

   USM
6. L

   UTSA
7. W

   PV
8. L

   LT
9. L

   FAU
10. W

    CLT
11. W

    UTEP
12. L

    STAN

What moved it, 2016

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−1.08
• Possession & field position+0.04
• Clock+0.15
• Timeouts−0.16
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.51

Game by game

• WKUL 14-46 at WKU16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −19
• ARMYL 14-31 at ARMY25% → 1%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −31, Clock +1
• BAYL 10-38 vs BAY3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −7
• UNTL 35-42 vs UNT71% → 23%Before kickoff +21 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −36, Timeouts −20
• USML 28-44 at USM7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −12
• UTSAL 13-14 vs UTSA49% → 38%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −23, Clock −4
• PVW 65-44 vs PV93% → 100%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +7: Scoreboard +11
• LTL 16-61 at LT7% → 0%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −10
• FAUL 25-42 vs FAU55% → 2%Before kickoff +5 · On the field −53: Scoreboard −55, Clock −2
• CLTW 22-21 at CLT21% → 73%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +29, Clock +5
• UTEPW 44-24 vs UTEP40% → 100%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +60: Scoreboard +49, Timeouts +1
• STANL 17-41 at STAN2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −5

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.