Rice

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1234th
  Defense+0.308th
• 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.
  Offense40.3%25th
  Defense47.8%9th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2540th
  Defense+1.3424th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0833rd
  Defense+0.305th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3072nd
  Defense+0.415th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.5%32nd
  Defense50.7%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.
  Offense27.2%13th
  Defense40.6%1st
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9533rd
  Defense3.2819th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense12.8%87th
  Defense12.3%9th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.3%47th
  Defense16.4%44th

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, 2021

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
   ARK
2. L
   HOU
3. L
   TEX
4. W
   TXSO
5. W
   USM
6. L
   UTSA
7. W
   UAB
8. L
   UNT
9. L
   CLT
10. L
    WKU
11. L
    UTEP
12. W
    LT

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rice.

Players, 2021

1. Jake ConstantineQB164 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 114th of 219 QBs
   0.64WAR0.33 to 0.98
2. Ari BroussardRB100 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 158th of 387 RBs
   0.29WAR0.20 to 0.38
3. Wiley GreenQB34 plays · +0.260 pts/play · 183rd of 219 QBs
   0.17WAR0.09 to 0.23
4. Jake BaileyWR49 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 114th of 474 WRs
   0.16WAR0.10 to 0.22
5. Cedric Patterson IIIWR42 plays · +0.179 pts/play · 155th of 474 WRs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.19
6. Khalan GriffinRB63 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 268th of 387 RBs
   0.13WAR0.07 to 0.19
7. Charlie MendesP38 plays · +0.112 pts/play · 68th of 101 punters
   0.08WAR0.01 to 0.15
8. August PitreWR29 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 296th of 474 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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  42042099th of 130Roster talent: 420, 99th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  135135101st of 130Recruiting: 135, 101st of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  34%34%120th of 128Returning production: 34%, 120th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −22.9−22.9126th of 130SP+ rating: −22.9, 126th 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, 2021

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.31 of the 0.37 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 LTQ4 2:32 4th & 6 at LT 23, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−10.0 pts
2. vs UNTQ4 1:58 4th & 10 at RICE 11, up 3Went for it; the numbers favored punting−9.3 pts
3. vs USMQ4 3:11 4th & 3 at USM 47, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−5.0 pts
4. at UTEPQ4 14:12 4th & 2 at midfield, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
5. vs LTQ4 7:54 4th & 11 at RICE 29, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
6. vs LTQ4 11:07 4th & 2 at RICE 39, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
7. at UABQ4 2:10 4th & 12 at RICE 28, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts
8. at UABQ4 2:10 4th & 12 at RICE 28, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

64th 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

   ARK
2. L

   HOU
3. L

   TEX
4. W

   TXSO
5. W

   USM
6. L

   UTSA
7. W

   UAB
8. L

   UNT
9. L

   CLT
10. L

    WKU
11. L

    UTEP
12. W

    LT

What moved it, 2021

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−1.63
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts+0.18
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.86

Game by game

• ARKL 17-38 at ARK9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −14
• HOUL 7-44 vs HOU30% → 0%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −36
• TEXL 0-58 at TEX5% → 0%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −5: Scoreboard −7
• TXSOW 48-34 vs TXSO99% → 99%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +4
• USMW 24-19 vs USM57% → 50%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −11, Clock −3
• UTSAL 0-45 at UTSA10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13
• UABW 30-24 at UAB7% → 6%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −14, Possession & field position +1
• UNTL 24-30 vs UNT52% → 51%Before kickoff +2 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −11, Clock −3
• CLTL 24-31 at CLT30% → 13%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts +20
• WKUL 21-42 vs WKU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −21, Clock −1
• UTEPL 28-38 at UTEP24% → 13%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17, Possession & field position −3
• LTW 35-31 vs LT39% → 71%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +32: Scoreboard +13, 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.