Rice · Week 2 analysis

Where the team stands

Rice ranks No. 129 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -12.24 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 125; this update moves it -4 places and -1.23 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 2 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 1–1. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -1.946. Prior-season margin: -9.448.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0161; EPA/play net: +0.0147; success-rate net: +0.0186; explosiveness net: -0.0084. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 1 eligible games. Excluded games contribute no fabricated EP observation. Opponent results can move a rating even during a bye.

The result and the reconstructed expectation

Rice lost to Notre Dame by 52 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -33.56; the result was -18.44 points relative to that expectation.

This is a newly reconstructed forecast under the frozen EP model. It is not represented as a prediction published before the game, and it does not replace the original published grade.

Next scheduled test

The next scheduled opponent at this snapshot is Western Michigan on 2026-09-19. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 128 versus 478; Net passing yards: 64 versus 360; Rushing yards: 64 versus 118; First downs: 7 versus 24

Completions–attempts: 8-12 versus 25-33; Rush attempts: 34 versus 32; Yards per pass: 5.3 versus 10.9; Yards per rush: 1.9 versus 3.7

Read production alongside workload: more attempts can raise a yardage total without raising efficiency. The model uses opponent-adjusted rate signals, not this box score alone.

Defense and possession

The opponent scored 52 points and recorded 478 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 0 versus 1; Tackles for loss: 3 versus 8; Third downs: 2-12 versus 7-12; Fourth downs: 2-2 versus 1-2

Turnovers: 4 versus 0; Fumbles lost: 4 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 4-37 versus 2-20; Possession time: 27:42 versus 32:18

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 1–1. The expected final record is 3.6–8.4 over 12 scheduled games.

Expected wins add recorded results to the estimated win probabilities of remaining games. They are not a list of certain winners. Probabilities use a symmetric approximation from historical development residuals; independent calibration has not been established.

The comparison around the ranking

Nearby in this same snapshot: No. 128 Kent State (-11.78); No. 130 Eastern Michigan (-12.75).

PSR compares predictive strength rather than sorting teams by wins. A team can win and move down, or lose and move up, as its performance and opponents change the adjusted evidence.

How to read this assessment

This is a fresh assessment under the frozen EP model, using this period's eligible inputs. Earlier published releases remain preserved separately; the reconstructed archive is not presented as a prediction published before those games.

Scoring margin, prior-season margin, first-down efficiency, EPA per play, success rate and explosiveness contribute together. Correlated signals should not be interpreted as independent proof of an advantage, and a model disagreement with a betting line is not proof of profit.