Rice

Profile vs. FBS, 2022

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+0.0528th
  Defense+0.2015th
• 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.
  Offense41.4%42nd
  Defense42.9%41st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2654th
  Defense+1.433rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0641st
  Defense+0.1419th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.2144th
  Defense+0.3810th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.6%42nd
  Defense47.2%52nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense30.5%44th
  Defense34.0%19th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9832nd
  Defense3.3017th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense15.4%70th
  Defense17.8%56th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.4%11th
  Defense14.2%22nd

Percentiles among the 131 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, 2022

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
   USC
2. W
   MCN
3. W
   UL
4. L
   HOU
5. W
   UAB
6. L
   FAU
7. W
   LT
8. L
   CLT
9. W
   UTEP
10. L
    WKU
11. L
    UTSA
12. L
    UNT
13. L
    USM

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rice.

Players, 2022

1. TJ McMahonQB237 plays · +0.219 pts/play · 77th of 234 QBs
   0.97WAR0.45 to 1.49
2. Luke McCaffreyWR65 plays · +0.220 pts/play · 28th of 455 WRs
   0.27WAR0.18 to 0.36
3. AJ PadgettQB78 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 165th of 234 QBs
   0.25WAR0.11 to 0.41
4. Cameron MontgomeryRB83 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 136th of 384 RBs
   0.22WAR0.15 to 0.30
5. Isaiah EsdaleWR36 plays · +0.215 pts/play · 126th of 455 WRs
   0.15WAR0.09 to 0.20
6. Juma OtovianoRB54 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 217th of 384 RBs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.18
7. Bradley RoznerWR46 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 227th of 455 WRs
   0.09WAR−0.01 to 0.18
8. Ari BroussardRB44 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 276th of 384 RBs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.12

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, 2022

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  44244299th of 129Roster talent: 442, 99th of 129 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  131131105th of 129Recruiting: 131, 105th of 129 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  36%36%98th of 128Returning production: 36%, 98th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −15.2−15.2113th of 129SP+ rating: −15.2, 113th of 129 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 129 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, 2022

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 2 clear-cut ones account for 0.13 of the 0.14 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 MCNQ4 0:00 4th & 5 at MCN 31, up 1Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−9.7 pts
2. at USMQ4 10:05 4th & 6 at USM 9, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.9 pts
3. at UNTQ3 11:09 4th & 4 at UNT 46, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
4. at FAUQ3 5:47 4th & 4 at RICE 44, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts
5. at UNTQ4 1:12 4th & 23 at RICE 29, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.2 pts
6. vs UTSAQ1 9:42 4th & 1 at RICE 22, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs ULQ1 7:17 4th & 4 at UL 5, up 1Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. at LTQ1 15:00 4th & 7 at RICE 28, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2022

34th of 131 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

   USC
2. W

   MCN
3. W

   UL
4. L

   HOU
5. W

   UAB
6. L

   FAU
7. W

   LT
8. L

   CLT
9. W

   UTEP
10. L

    WKU
11. L

    UTSA
12. L

    UNT
13. L

    USM

What moved it, 2022

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−0.30
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock−0.18
• Timeouts+0.15
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.84

Game by game

• USCL 14-66 at USC3% → 0%Before kickoff −47 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −5
• MCNW 52-10 vs MCN70% → 89%Before kickoff +20 · On the field +19: Scoreboard +27, Timeouts −2
• ULW 33-21 vs UL22% → 98%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +50, Possession & field position +1
• HOUL 27-34 at HOU10% → 15%Before kickoff −40 · On the field +6: Scoreboard −15, Possession & field position +2
• UABW 28-24 vs UAB20% → 86%Before kickoff −30 · On the field +66: Scoreboard +24, Possession & field position +2
• FAUL 14-17 at FAU34% → 23%Before kickoff −16 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −11, Possession & field position −2
• LTW 42-41 at LT57% → 66%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +25, Timeouts +20
• CLTL 23-56 vs CLT81% → 0%Before kickoff +31 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −69, Other −1
• UTEPW 37-30 vs UTEP57% → 93%Before kickoff +7 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +29, Possession & field position +2
• WKUL 10-45 at WKU18% → 0%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −18: Scoreboard −22
• UTSAL 7-41 vs UTSA14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −19, Clock −1
• UNTL 17-21 at UNT15% → 7%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −8: Scoreboard −17, Timeouts −3
• USML 24-38 at USM26% → 1%Before kickoff −24 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −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.