Rice

Profile vs. FBS, 2023

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+0.1764th
  Defense+0.0766th
• 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.
  Offense43.8%63rd
  Defense41.4%58th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3483rd
  Defense+1.2073rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0949th
  Defense+0.1234th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3170th
  Defense+0.1285th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.3%67th
  Defense47.6%48th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense32.0%55th
  Defense28.8%66th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0339th
  Defense3.1637th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.1%47th
  Defense14.4%23rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.8%27th
  Defense14.5%14th

Percentiles among the 133 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, 2023

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
   TEX
2. W
   HOU
3. W
   TXSO
4. L
   USF
5. W
   ECU
6. L
   CONN
7. W
   TLSA
8. L
   TULN
9. L
   SMU
10. L
    UTSA
11. W
    CLT
12. W
    FAU
13. L
    TXST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rice.

Players, 2023

1. JT DanielsQB261 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 71st of 250 QBs
   1.26WAR0.56 to 1.91
2. Luke McCaffreyWR92 plays · +0.222 pts/play · 5th of 457 WRs
   0.38WAR0.20 to 0.59
3. Dean ConnorsRB131 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 68th of 383 RBs
   0.32WAR0.17 to 0.44
4. AJ PadgettQB120 plays · +0.084 pts/play · 191st of 250 QBs
   0.19WAR−0.10 to 0.52
5. Juma OtovianoRB89 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 162nd of 383 RBs
   0.17WAR0.10 to 0.24
6. Boden GroenTE37 plays · +0.166 pts/play · 44th of 212 TEs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.19
7. Landon Ransom-GoelzWR34 plays · +0.114 pts/play · 231st of 457 WRs
   0.07WAR0.01 to 0.14
8. Rawson MacNeillWR42 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 260th of 457 WRs
   0.06WAR−0.02 to 0.15

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, 2023

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  467467100th of 130Roster talent: 467, 100th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13813895th of 130Recruiting: 138, 95th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  43%43%82nd of 128Returning production: 43%, 82nd of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.2−10.2101st of 130SP+ rating: −10.2, 101st 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, 2023

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 0.06 of the 0.09 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 FAUQ2 0:02 4th & 1 at FAU 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−3.2 pts
2. vs SMUQ2 4:25 4th & 1 at RICE 45, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
3. vs CONNQ4 11:33 4th & 16 at CONN 36, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.6 pts
4. at USFQ2 0:25 4th & 4 at USF 31, down 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs CONNQ3 5:14 4th & 5 at CONN 16, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.6 pts
6. vs TXSTQ2 12:40 4th & 2 at RICE 44, down 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
7. at UTSAQ4 2:58 4th & 2 at UTSA 32, down 27Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.2 pts
8. vs HOUQ4 5:50 4th & 2 at RICE 44, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.2 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2023

61st of 133 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

   TEX
2. W

   HOU
3. W

   TXSO
4. L

   USF
5. W

   ECU
6. L

   CONN
7. W

   TLSA
8. L

   TULN
9. L

   SMU
10. L

    UTSA
11. W

    CLT
12. W

    FAU
13. L

    TXST

What moved it, 2023

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−0.55
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts−0.24
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.54

Game by game

• TEXL 10-37 at TEX2% → 0%Before kickoff −48 · On the field −2: Scoreboard −3
• HOUW 43-41 vs HOU31% → 66%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +34: Timeouts −25, Clock +16
• TXSOW 59-7 vs TXSO98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• USFL 29-42 at USF57% → 1%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −44, Timeouts −2
• ECUW 24-17 vs ECU63% → 98%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +35, Possession & field position +1
• CONNL 31-38 vs CONN76% → 4%Before kickoff +26 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −56, Clock −3
• TLSAW 42-10 at TLSA47% → 100%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +55, Clock +2
• TULNL 28-30 vs TULN25% → 13%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −31, Clock −3
• SMUL 31-36 vs SMU20% → 5%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −33, Clock −2
• UTSAL 14-34 at UTSA16% → 0%Before kickoff −34 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −22, Timeouts +1
• CLTW 28-7 at CLT60% → 100%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +40: Scoreboard +45, Clock +2
• FAUW 24-21 vs FAU61% → 97%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +32, Timeouts +2
• TXSTL 21-45 vs TXST42% → 0%Before kickoff −8 · On the field −41: Scoreboard −45, 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.