Rice

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0937th
  Defense−0.0191st
• 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.
  Offense42.0%44th
  Defense40.8%63rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.117th
  Defense+1.1687th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.106th
  Defense−0.0485th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3380th
  Defense+0.0289th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense48.3%60th
  Defense44.6%74th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense25.5%16th
  Defense32.6%46th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8446th
  Defense2.9940th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%73rd
  Defense19.8%48th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.4%34th
  Defense14.8%30th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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
   MTSU
2. W
   USM
3. L
   UNT
4. W
   MRSH
5. L
   UAB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rice.

Players, 2020

1. Khalan GriffinRB66 plays · +0.150 pts/play · 176th of 338 RBs
   0.19WAR0.14 to 0.23
2. Mike CollinsQB98 plays · +0.099 pts/play · 135th of 212 QBs
   0.18WAR0.02 to 0.35
3. Juma OtovianoRB45 plays · +0.165 pts/play · 221st of 338 RBs
   0.14WAR0.11 to 0.16
4. Jake BaileyWR35 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 261st of 409 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.09
5. JoVoni Johnson-McCrayWR18 plays · +0.142 pts/play · 285th of 409 WRs
   0.05WAR0.02 to 0.07
6. Austin TrammellWR18 plays · +0.118 pts/play · 304th of 409 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
7. Jordan MyersTE32 plays · +0.066 pts/play · 23rd of 191 TEs
   0.04WAR0.00 to 0.08
8. Robert FrenchTE6 plays · +0.050 pts/play · 137th of 191 TEs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  359359103rd of 127Roster talent: 359, 103rd of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  125125115th of 127Recruiting: 125, 115th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  75%75%40th of 127Returning production: 75%, 40th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −9.2−9.2103rd of 127SP+ rating: −9.2, 103rd of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 6 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 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 UABQ4 10:16 4th & 3 at UAB 46, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.6 pts
2. vs MTSUQ4 9:02 4th & 3 at RICE 42, down 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
3. at UNTQ3 9:56 4th & 1 at RICE 38, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. at UNTQ2 5:18 4th & 1 at RICE 37, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. vs MTSUQ4 0:47 4th & 24 at RICE 27, down 5Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.6 pts
6. at MRSHQ3 6:59 4th & 6 at MRSH 42, up 20Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at UNTQ4 7:27 4th & 23 at UNT 44, down 17Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.8 pts
8. vs UABQ3 12:40 4th & 2 at RICE 36, down 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

54th of 127 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

   MTSU
2. W

   USM
3. L

   UNT
4. W

   MRSH
5. L

   UAB

What moved it, 2020

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+0.35
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.16
• Timeouts−0.25
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.41

Game by game

• MTSUL 34-40 vs MTSU58% → 41%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −18: Timeouts −25, Clock +14
• USMW 30-6 at USM53% → 99%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +46: Scoreboard +50, Clock +1
• UNTL 17-27 at UNT44% → 4%Before kickoff −6 · On the field −40: Scoreboard −37, Possession & field position +1
• MRSHW 20-0 at MRSH7% → 99%Before kickoff −43 · On the field +92: Scoreboard +65, Clock +2
• UABL 16-21 vs UAB31% → 13%Before kickoff −19 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −34, Possession & field position −3

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.