Rice

Profile vs. FBS, 2019

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+0.1533rd
• 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.
  Offense37.0%5th
  Defense42.8%51st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1422nd
  Defense+1.1957th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.089th
  Defense−0.0277th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0320th
  Defense+0.355th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense41.8%5th
  Defense46.9%56th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.2%10th
  Defense34.0%43rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6316th
  Defense2.5884th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.2%29th
  Defense22.1%74th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense23.1%17th
  Defense21.9%75th

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, 2019

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
   ARMY
2. L
   WAKE
3. L
   TEX
4. L
   BAY
5. L
   LT
6. L
   UAB
7. L
   UTSA
8. L
   USM
9. L
   MRSH
10. W
    MTSU
11. W
    UNT
12. W
    UTEP

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rice.

Players, 2019

1. Tom StewartQB154 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 127th of 228 QBs
   0.49WAR0.24 to 0.75
2. Aston WalterRB136 plays · +0.187 pts/play · 68th of 349 RBs
   0.48WAR0.36 to 0.62
3. Wiley GreenQB154 plays · +0.134 pts/play · 144th of 228 QBs
   0.39WAR0.12 to 0.63
4. Bradley RoznerWR81 plays · +0.149 pts/play · 50th of 439 WRs
   0.23WAR0.13 to 0.32
5. Charlie BookerRB81 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 179th of 349 RBs
   0.22WAR0.16 to 0.29
6. Juma OtovianoRB37 plays · +0.161 pts/play · 255th of 349 RBs
   0.11WAR0.09 to 0.14
7. Austin TrammellWR91 plays · +0.044 pts/play · 280th of 439 WRs
   0.08WAR−0.06 to 0.20
8. JoVoni Johnson-McCrayWR23 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 289th of 439 WRs
   0.07WAR0.05 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, 2019

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  397397107th of 130Roster talent: 397, 107th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  112112121st of 130Recruiting: 112, 121st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  45%45%95th of 130Returning production: 45%, 95th of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −18.0−18.0121st of 130SP+ rating: −18.0, 121st 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, 2019

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 9 clear-cut ones account for 0.18 of the 0.23 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 MTSUQ4 0:24 4th & 3 at MTSU 39, up 3Punted; the numbers favored a field goal−4.7 pts
2. at UTEPQ3 7:16 4th & 2 at UTEP 2, down 2Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. vs UNTQ3 15:00 4th & 1 at RICE 36, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.1 pts
4. vs UNTQ2 8:03 4th & 3 at UNT 3, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. vs MRSHQ2 9:33 4th & 1 at RICE 47, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
6. at MTSUQ3 14:56 4th & 2 at RICE 44, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. at MTSUQ3 7:19 4th & 2 at RICE 9, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts
8. at MTSUQ4 15:00 4th & 6 at MTSU 41, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2019

61st 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

   ARMY
2. L

   WAKE
3. L

   TEX
4. L

   BAY
5. L

   LT
6. L

   UAB
7. L

   UTSA
8. L

   USM
9. L

   MRSH
10. W

    MTSU
11. W

    UNT
12. W

    UTEP

What moved it, 2019

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−0.67
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock+0.12
• Timeouts−0.14
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+1.03

Game by game

• ARMYL 7-14 at ARMY7% → 4%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −13, Timeouts −1
• WAKEL 21-41 vs WAKE9% → 1%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −16, Clock −1
• TEXL 13-48 vs TEX2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −4
• BAYL 13-21 vs BAY4% → 2%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −12
• LTL 20-23 vs LT23% → 12%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −13
• UABL 20-35 at UAB23% → 1%Before kickoff −27 · On the field −22: Scoreboard −26, Timeouts −1
• UTSAL 27-31 at UTSA64% → 3%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −61: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −3
• USML 6-20 vs USM20% → 2%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −30, Clock −1
• MRSHL 7-20 vs MRSH19% → 2%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −28, Clock −2
• MTSUW 31-28 at MTSU18% → 94%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +54, Clock +4
• UNTW 20-14 vs UNT27% → 95%Before kickoff −23 · On the field +68: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +3
• UTEPW 30-16 at UTEP67% → 98%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +39, Clock +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.