Rice

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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−0.048th
  Defense+0.1045th
• 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.
  Offense39.1%18th
  Defense39.7%58th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.107th
  Defense+1.3518th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0635th
  Defense+0.1817th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense−0.251st
  Defense+0.0183rd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.9%34th
  Defense45.2%57th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense21.3%5th
  Defense29.6%45th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9331st
  Defense2.9446th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.3%30th
  Defense18.9%49th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.0%20th
  Defense15.4%43rd

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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
   HCU
2. L
   ND
3. L
   WMU
4. L
   FRES
5. L
   UTSA
6. L
   ECU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Rice.

Players, 2026

1. Jacurri BrownQB120 plays · +0.171 pts/play · 37th of 192 QBs
   0.38WAR0.04 to 0.72
2. Tyvonn ByarsRB40 plays · +0.108 pts/play · 115th of 320 RBs
   0.08WAR0.05 to 0.11
3. D'Andre Hardeman Jr.RB32 plays · +0.098 pts/play · 170th of 320 RBs
   0.06WAR0.04 to 0.08
4. Charlie DurkinP18 plays · +0.067 pts/play · 26th of 84 punters
   0.02WAR0.00 to 0.05
5. Enock GotaPK4 plays · +0.129 pts/play · 71st of 82 kickers
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.02
6. Ben GriceWR8 plays · +0.038 pts/play · 331st of 364 WRs
   0.01WAR0.00 to 0.01
7. Max MoseyWR8 plays · +0.028 pts/play · 341st of 364 WRs
   0.00WAR0.00 to 0.01

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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  590590100th of 138Roster talent: 590, 100th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  151151101st of 138Recruiting: 151, 101st of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  39%39%69th of 136Returning production: 39%, 69th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −13.4−13.4120th of 138SP+ rating so far: −13.4, 120th of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 1 clear-cut ones account for 0.01 of the 0.04 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 WMUQ4 10:49 4th & 4 at RICE 37, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
2. vs WMUQ3 7:46 4th & 4 at WMU 28, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
3. vs WMUQ4 0:09 4th & 6 at WMU 22, down 14Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.7 pts
4. vs HCUQ2 0:04 4th & 4 at HCU 33, up 14Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
5. vs UTSAQ3 12:28 4th & 4 at UTSA 23, down 9Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.3 pts
6. at FRESQ1 2:29 4th & 3 at RICE 27, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs HCUQ1 11:11 4th & 6 at RICE 48, tiedWent for it; the numbers favored punting (close call)<0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

115th of 138 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

   HCU
2. L

   ND
3. L

   WMU
4. L

   FRES
5. L

   UTSA
6. L

   ECU

What moved it, 2026

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−1.09
• Possession & field position−0.01
• Clock−0.03
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.41

Game by game

• HCUW 31-3 vs HCU92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +10
• NDL 0-52 at ND1% → 0%Before kickoff −49 · On the field −1: Scoreboard −1
• WMUL 21-28 vs WMU25% → 5%Before kickoff −25 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −34, Clock −2
• FRESL 24-38 at FRES20% → 1%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −20: Scoreboard −24, Timeouts −1
• UTSAL 14-16 vs UTSA20% → 5%Before kickoff −30 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −30, Clock −1
• ECUL 12-28 at ECU28% → 1%Before kickoff −22 · On the field −27: Scoreboard −29, 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.