Rice
Rice University · 2023 · American Athletic
Rice went 6-7 and was ranked 88th in the FanBoardHQ CFP Rankings (blended resume and efficiency). Their 82nd-ranked offense was the engine, backed by a 98th-ranked defense. They passed the ball on 59% of offensive plays with a 76th-ranked passing attack and ran the ball on the remaining 41% of plays with a 67th-ranked rushing attack.
Quadrant record
By opponent strength, adjusted for where the game was played.
Projected wins
Per-game win probabilities combined across the full schedule.
The resume
Every game on the schedule. Click a row for the game breakdown (played) or the matchup projection (upcoming).
| Wk | Opponent | Conf | Opp rank | Result | Exp. margin | Win prob | GameScore | Quad |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | @ Texas | Big 12 | #3 | L 10–37 | -33.0 | 0% | -1.5 | Q1 |
| 2 | vs Houston | Big 12 | #93 | W 43–41 | +0.7 | 100% | -5.7 | Q4 |
| 3 | vs Texas Southern | SWAC | — | W 59–7 | +31.0 | 100% | 4.7 | Q4 |
| 4 | @ South Florida | American Athletic | #82 | L 29–42 | -0.8 | 0% | -23.0 | Q4 |
| 5 | vs East Carolina | American Athletic | #128 | W 24–17 | +7.3 | 100% | -6.2 | Q4 |
| 6 | vs UConn | FBS Independents | #122 | L 31–38 | +12.4 | 0% | -27.1 | Q4 |
| 8 | @ Tulsa | American Athletic | #113 | W 42–10 | +5.9 | 100% | 13.8 | Q4 |
| 9 | vs Tulane | American Athletic | #37 | L 28–30 | -6.2 | 0% | -2.7 | Q3 |
| 10 | vs SMU | American Athletic | #31 | L 31–36 | -14.2 | 0% | 2.4 | Q2 |
| 11 | @ UTSA | American Athletic | #55 | L 14–34 | -9.9 | 0% | -25.0 | Q3 |
| 12 | @ Charlotte | American Athletic | #125 | W 28–7 | +8.8 | 100% | 10.6 | Q4 |
| 13 | vs Florida Atlantic | American Athletic | #111 | W 24–21 | +5.6 | 100% | -9.2 | Q4 |
| Postseason | ||||||||
| — | vs Texas State | Sun Belt | #71 | L 21–45 | -3.9 | 0% | -20.3 | Q3 |
13 played · 6-7. Expected margin and gamescore use the latest ratings — a completed game shows what the model would say now, not that week.
The season
The model’s read on Rice, recomputed after every week. Toggle between overall, offensive, and defensive efficiency (each with a dot for that week’s game) or the FanBoardHQ CFP rank.
Passing & rushing
Opponent-adjusted, FBS-only. The bar is the blended Eff rank — EPA/play (scoring value), success rate (staying on schedule), and yards/play (explosiveness), each standardized against the FBS field. The three ranks below each bar are those components, so you can see what's driving it.
Their offense vs. what their defense allows.
Scored vs. allowed, all regular-season games.
What kind of team is this?
Every team by offensive and defensive efficiency (points/game vs. an average team, higher is better on both). Click a dot for that team.
Field position 98th · Finishing 77th
Field position 101st · Finishing 94th
2.29 points per drive on offense, 2.10 allowed — starting, on average, at their own 29.
Play-calling & efficiency
What the offense did, by quarter and by down — raw, not opponent-adjusted.
| Quarter (att.) | Pass / rush | Success | Yd/play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1(194) | 58% / 42% | 49% | 7.2 |
| Q2(218) | 63% / 37% | 42% | 5.9 |
| Q3(190) | 55% / 45% | 42% | 6.1 |
| Q4(192) | 49% / 51% | 44% | 6.1 |
| Down (att.) | Avg. to go | Success | Yd/play |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st(186) | 10.0 | 51% | 7.5 |
| 2nd(147) | 8.7 | 41% | 6.5 |
| 3rd(103) | 8.7 | 42% | 8.2 |
| 4th(12) | 4.8 | 67% | 5.8 |
| All (448) | — | 46% | 7.3 |
| Down (att.) | Avg. to go | Success | Yd/play |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st(178) | 9.6 | 43% | 5.7 |
| 2nd(105) | 7.0 | 40% | 4.4 |
| 3rd(49) | 5.7 | 39% | 4.5 |
| 4th(12) | 3.1 | 67% | 4.6 |
| All (346) | — | 42% | 5.1 |
Rice, all games.