Rice

Profile vs. FBS, 2017

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−0.046th
  Defense+0.272nd
• 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.
  Offense39.5%17th
  Defense49.8%5th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1948th
  Defense+1.2530th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0652nd
  Defense+0.242nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.222nd
  Defense+0.3311th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.6%16th
  Defense52.9%8th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense31.9%35th
  Defense42.5%3rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9764th
  Defense3.392nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.4%44th
  Defense16.2%16th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense19.8%9th
  Defense14.3%22nd

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2017

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
   STAN
2. W
   UTEP
3. L
   HOU
4. L
   FIU
5. L
   PITT
6. L
   ARMY
7. L
   UTSA
8. L
   LT
9. L
   UAB
10. L
    USM
11. L
    ODU
12. L
    UNT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rice.

Players, 2017

1. Miklo SmallsQB101 plays · +0.169 pts/play · 151st of 226 QBs
   0.32WAR0.05 to 0.60
2. Nahshon EllerbeRB79 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 147th of 352 RBs
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.29
3. Jackson TynerQB53 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 183rd of 226 QBs
   0.17WAR0.08 to 0.26
4. Samuel StewartRB47 plays · +0.135 pts/play · 235th of 352 RBs
   0.12WAR0.09 to 0.15
5. Austin WalterRB76 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 236th of 352 RBs
   0.12WAR0.05 to 0.18
6. Emmanuel EsukpaRB37 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 256th of 352 RBs
   0.08WAR0.06 to 0.10
7. Jack FoxPK39 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 86th of 110 kickers
   0.07WAR−0.02 to 0.14
8. Jordan MyersTE50 plays · +0.061 pts/play · 3rd of 199 TEs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.10

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, 2017

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  346346100th of 130Roster talent: 346, 100th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  108108114th of 130Recruiting: 108, 114th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  38%38%104th of 128Returning production: 38%, 104th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −23.6−23.6126th of 128SP+ rating: −23.6, 126th of 128 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2017

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 0.05 of the 0.08 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. at UTSAQ4 6:04 4th & 15 at UTSA 22, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.5 pts
2. at ODUQ2 7:53 4th & 9 at RICE 26, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
3. vs UNTQ4 11:20 4th & 9 at UNT 23, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
4. at UTEPQ3 3:47 4th & 3 at RICE 47, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
5. at UTSAQ4 15:00 4th & 14 at UTSA 22, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−1.0 pts
6. at UTSAQ3 5:40 4th & 14 at UTSA 36, down 13Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at UTEPQ2 1:28 4th & 6 at UTEP 41, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. vs LTQ1 4:15 4th & 1 at RICE 33, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2017

116th of 130 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

   STAN
2. W

   UTEP
3. L

   HOU
4. L

   FIU
5. L

   PITT
6. L

   ARMY
7. L

   UTSA
8. L

   LT
9. L

   UAB
10. L

    USM
11. L

    ODU
12. L

    UNT

What moved it, 2017

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−2.03
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.09
• Timeouts+0.02
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.76

Game by game

• STANL 7-62 vs STAN2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• UTEPW 31-14 at UTEP49% → 98%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +52, Clock +1
• HOUL 3-38 at HOU6% → 0%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −6: Scoreboard −9
• FIUL 7-13 vs FIU46% → 7%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −39: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• PITTL 10-42 at PITT9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −11
• ARMYL 12-49 vs ARMY18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −24
• UTSAL 7-20 at UTSA7% → 2%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• LTL 28-42 vs LT22% → 2%Before kickoff −28 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −32, Clock −2
• UABL 21-52 at UAB26% → 0%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −28, Timeouts +1
• USML 34-43 vs USM20% → 4%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −31, Clock −2
• ODUL 21-24 at ODU30% → 9%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts +1
• UNTL 14-30 vs UNT20% → 2%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −19: Scoreboard −29, Clock −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.