Rice

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

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+0.0216th
  Defense+0.2111th
• 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.
  Offense36.8%10th
  Defense40.0%64th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1721st
  Defense+1.551st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0232nd
  Defense+0.1421st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0410th
  Defense+0.3115th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.6%22nd
  Defense44.3%76th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense20.2%1st
  Defense30.8%39th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.6916th
  Defense3.0228th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense20.5%26th
  Defense17.4%32nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.6%20th
  Defense13.5%18th

Percentiles among the 136 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, 2025

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. W
   UL
2. L
   HOU
3. W
   PV
4. W
   CLT
5. L
   NAVY
6. L
   FAU
7. L
   UTSA
8. W
   CONN
9. L
   MEM
10. W
    UAB
11. L
    UNT
12. L
    USF
13. L
    TXST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rice.

Players, 2025

1. Chase JenkinsQB203 plays · +0.094 pts/play · 148th of 231 QBs
   0.36WAR−0.14 to 0.83
2. Quinton JacksonRB150 plays · +0.093 pts/play · 68th of 365 RBs
   0.26WAR0.18 to 0.35
3. Daelen AlexanderRB51 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 239th of 365 RBs
   0.09WAR0.07 to 0.12
4. Aaron TurnerWR71 plays · +0.058 pts/play · 242nd of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR0.00 to 0.14
5. Drayden DickmannWR42 plays · +0.077 pts/play · 281st of 451 WRs
   0.06WAR0.02 to 0.11
6. Alex BacchettaP50 plays · +0.024 pts/play · 60th of 100 punters
   0.02WAR−0.07 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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  530530106th of 134Roster talent: 530, 106th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  133133105th of 134Recruiting: 133, 105th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  11%11%123rd of 132Returning production: 11%, 123rd of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −14.8−14.8118th of 134SP+ rating: −14.8, 118th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 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, 2025

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 0.04 of the 0.07 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 CONNQ4 0:52 4th & 1 at RICE 37, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−3.4 pts
2. at CLTQ2 12:53 4th & 1 at RICE 17, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
3. at ULQ3 6:54 4th & 7 at UL 41, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
4. at CLTQ4 1:46 4th & 2 at RICE 47, up 11Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. at NAVYQ2 0:12 4th & 6 at NAVY 40, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.4 pts
6. vs UABQ4 2:32 4th & 5 at RICE 40, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
7. at TXSTQ4 14:53 4th & 15 at TXST 37, down 20Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.3 pts
8. at UTSAQ1 7:53 4th & 1 at UTSA 18, down 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

46th of 136 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. W

   UL
2. L

   HOU
3. W

   PV
4. W

   CLT
5. L

   NAVY
6. L

   FAU
7. L

   UTSA
8. W

   CONN
9. L

   MEM
10. W

    UAB
11. L

    UNT
12. L

    USF
13. L

    TXST

What moved it, 2025

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+0.01
• Possession & field position+0.02
• Clock+0.09
• Timeouts−0.23
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.83

Game by game

• ULW 14-12 at UL22% → 95%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +73: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• HOUL 9-35 vs HOU14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −20
• PVW 38-17 vs PV97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +6
• CLTW 28-17 at CLT60% → 94%Before kickoff +10 · On the field +34: Scoreboard +47, Possession & field position −2
• NAVYL 13-21 at NAVY15% → 2%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −1
• FAUL 21-27 vs FAU60% → 4%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −56: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• UTSAL 13-61 at UTSA21% → 0%Before kickoff −29 · On the field −21: Scoreboard −24, Clock +1
• CONNW 37-34 vs CONN21% → 85%Before kickoff −29 · On the field +64: Scoreboard +40, Timeouts −24
• MEML 14-38 vs MEM17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• UABW 24-17 vs UAB51% → 93%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +42: Scoreboard +31, Timeouts +2
• UNTL 24-56 vs UNT11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −17, Clock −1
• USFL 3-52 at USF4% → 0%Before kickoff −46 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −6
• TXSTL 10-41 at TXST10% → 0%Before kickoff −40 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −13

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.