Rice

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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+0.0522nd
  Defense+0.0954th
• 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.
  Offense37.1%8th
  Defense35.9%96th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.4095th
  Defense+1.3715th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0429th
  Defense+0.1236th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0824th
  Defense+0.0776th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense43.4%14th
  Defense42.9%86th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense26.2%16th
  Defense23.2%99th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8324th
  Defense2.9654th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.9%57th
  Defense15.6%27th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense20.5%6th
  Defense18.3%73rd

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   SHSU
2. W
   TXSO
3. L
   HOU
4. L
   ARMY
5. L
   CLT
6. W
   UTSA
7. L
   TULN
8. L
   CONN
9. W
   NAVY
10. L
    MEM
11. L
    UAB
12. W
    USF

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rice.

Players, 2024

1. E.J. WarnerQB338 plays · +0.229 pts/play · 60th of 232 QBs
   1.45WAR0.87 to 2.03
2. Dean ConnorsRB161 plays · +0.147 pts/play · 38th of 373 RBs
   0.44WAR0.29 to 0.61
3. Quinton JacksonRB52 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 251st of 373 RBs
   0.09WAR0.06 to 0.12
4. Matt SykesWR59 plays · +0.082 pts/play · 157th of 452 WRs
   0.09WAR−0.02 to 0.21
5. Kobie CampbellWR27 plays · +0.175 pts/play · 159th of 452 WRs
   0.09WAR0.03 to 0.14
6. Elijah MojarroTE20 plays · +0.138 pts/play · 52nd of 221 TEs
   0.05WAR−0.01 to 0.11
7. Graham WalkerTE19 plays · +0.111 pts/play · 86th of 221 TEs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07
8. Tim HornPK10 plays · +0.209 pts/play · 96th of 114 kickers
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.06

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  538538100th of 131Roster talent: 538, 100th of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  131131101st of 131Recruiting: 131, 101st of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  47%47%63rd of 130Returning production: 47%, 63rd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −11.4−11.4107th of 131SP+ rating: −11.4, 107th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.20 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 UTSAQ4 14:39 4th & 1 at RICE 19, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. at CONNQ4 14:14 4th & 1 at RICE 32, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
3. at CONNQ3 7:20 4th & 2 at RICE 46, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at CONNQ3 13:40 4th & 1 at RICE 34, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. vs NAVYQ2 4:04 4th & 2 at RICE 49, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
6. vs UTSAQ2 0:06 4th & 7 at UTSA 38, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.1 pts
7. at TULNQ4 2:10 4th & 10 at RICE 20, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. vs CLTQ4 1:45 4th & 2 at RICE 39, up 6Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

106th of 134 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

   SHSU
2. W

   TXSO
3. L

   HOU
4. L

   ARMY
5. L

   CLT
6. W

   UTSA
7. L

   TULN
8. L

   CONN
9. W

   NAVY
10. L

    MEM
11. L

    UAB
12. W

    USF

What moved it, 2024

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−1.86
• Possession & field position+0.09
• Clock−0.08
• Timeouts+0.05
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.69

Game by game

• SHSUL 14-34 vs SHSU74% → 0%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −74: Scoreboard −65, Clock −4
• TXSOW 69-7 vs TXSO96% → 100%Before kickoff +46 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• HOUL 7-33 at HOU33% → 0%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −33: Scoreboard −35, Timeouts +1
• ARMYL 14-37 at ARMY32% → 1%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −31: Scoreboard −32, Clock −1
• CLTL 20-21 vs CLT59% → 34%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −25: Scoreboard −33, Possession & field position +5
• UTSAW 29-27 vs UTSA43% → 78%Before kickoff −7 · On the field +35: Scoreboard +13, Possession & field position +3
• TULNL 10-24 at TULN8% → 1%Before kickoff −42 · On the field −7: Scoreboard −13
• CONNL 10-17 at CONN33% → 5%Before kickoff −17 · On the field −28: Scoreboard −25, Possession & field position −3
• NAVYW 24-10 vs NAVY23% → 99%Before kickoff −27 · On the field +76: Scoreboard +56
• MEML 20-27 at MEM27% → 4%Before kickoff −23 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −27, Timeouts −1
• UABL 14-40 at UAB64% → 0%Before kickoff +14 · On the field −64: Scoreboard −57, Timeouts +2
• USFW 35-28 vs USF29% → 88%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +59: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position +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.