Rice

Profile vs. FBS, 2018

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−0.064th
  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.
  Offense34.1%2nd
  Defense46.6%19th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3084th
  Defense+1.394th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.095th
  Defense+0.1522nd
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.029th
  Defense+0.462nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense38.7%2nd
  Defense49.8%28th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.7%4th
  Defense39.1%4th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.455th
  Defense3.0822nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%33rd
  Defense18.7%41st
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense18.5%16th
  Defense13.9%12th

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, 2018

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
   PV
2. L
   HOU
3. L
   HAW
4. L
   USM
5. L
   WAKE
6. L
   UTSA
7. L
   UAB
8. L
   FIU
9. L
   UNT
10. L
    UTEP
11. L
    LT
12. L
    LSU
13. W
    ODU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rice.

Players, 2018

1. Shawn StankavageQB158 plays · +0.201 pts/play · 130th of 225 QBs
   0.60WAR0.36 to 0.83
2. Wiley GreenQB74 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 166th of 225 QBs
   0.29WAR0.18 to 0.41
3. Austin WalterRB134 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 191st of 351 RBs
   0.23WAR0.10 to 0.36
4. Emmanuel EsukpaRB77 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 233rd of 351 RBs
   0.17WAR0.12 to 0.23
5. Aaron CephusWR48 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 77th of 434 WRs
   0.16WAR0.09 to 0.23
6. Evan MarshmanQB29 plays · +0.226 pts/play · 201st of 225 QBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.18
7. Austin TrammellWR69 plays · +0.090 pts/play · 150th of 434 WRs
   0.12WAR0.03 to 0.20
8. Jack FoxPK51 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 50th of 112 kickers
   0.11WAR0.04 to 0.18

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, 2018

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  375375105th of 130Roster talent: 375, 105th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  109109118th of 130Recruiting: 109, 118th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  60%60%76th of 129Returning production: 60%, 76th of 129 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −26.4−26.4128th of 130SP+ rating: −26.4, 128th of 130 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, 2018

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 0.08 of the 0.16 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 PVQ4 7:56 4th & 3 at PV 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.4 pts
2. at UNTQ4 15:00 4th & 2 at RICE 49, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. vs PVQ3 2:00 4th & 5 at PV 33, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs ODUQ4 4:11 4th & 1 at ODU 48, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
5. vs UTEPQ4 2:29 4th & 20 at RICE 10, down 8Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−1.0 pts
6. vs ODUQ3 5:38 4th & 4 at ODU 48, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
7. vs PVQ3 15:00 4th & 3 at PV 46, down 2Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
8. vs UTSAQ3 8:28 4th & 3 at UTSA 10, down 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2018

103rd 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. W

   PV
2. L

   HOU
3. L

   HAW
4. L

   USM
5. L

   WAKE
6. L

   UTSA
7. L

   UAB
8. L

   FIU
9. L

   UNT
10. L

    UTEP
11. L

    LT
12. L

    LSU
13. W

    ODU

What moved it, 2018

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−1.54
• Clock−0.07
• Timeouts+0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.65

Game by game

• PVW 31-28 vs PV93% → 95%Before kickoff +43 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +14
• HOUL 27-45 vs HOU6% → 1%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −13, Clock −1
• HAWL 29-43 at HAW14% → 5%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −20, Possession & field position +1
• USML 22-40 at USM18% → 1%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −22
• WAKEL 24-56 at WAKE4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −7
• UTSAL 3-20 vs UTSA57% → 1%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −56, Clock −2
• UABL 0-42 vs UAB12% → 0%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −17
• FIUL 17-36 at FIU7% → 1%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13
• UNTL 17-41 at UNT3% → 1%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −7
• UTEPL 26-34 vs UTEP49% → 4%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −46: Scoreboard −48, Clock −3
• LTL 13-28 at LT6% → 1%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −11
• LSUL 10-42 at LSU1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −2
• ODUW 27-13 vs ODU31% → 99%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +48, Timeouts +2

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.