Rice · Week 3 analysis

Where the team stands

Rice ranks No. 133 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -13.28 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 129; this update moves it -4 places and -1.04 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 3 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 1–2. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -4.001. Prior-season margin: -9.448.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0164; EPA/play net: -0.0521; success-rate net: +0.0006; explosiveness net: -0.0646. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 2 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 Western Michigan by 7 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -9.68; the result was +2.68 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 Fresno State on 2026-09-27. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 330 versus 333; Net passing yards: 121 versus 116; Rushing yards: 209 versus 217; First downs: 20 versus 17

Completions–attempts: 11-18 versus 14-21; Rush attempts: 44 versus 42; Yards per pass: 6.7 versus 5.5; Yards per rush: 4.8 versus 5.2

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 28 points and recorded 333 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 2 versus 1; Tackles for loss: 5 versus 4; Third downs: 1-10 versus 7-14; Fourth downs: 1-2 versus 1-2

Turnovers: 0 versus 1; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 1; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 5-60 versus 4-45; Possession time: 27:07 versus 32:53

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 1–2. The expected final record is 3.0–9.0 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. 132 Massachusetts (-12.99); No. 134 Eastern Michigan (-14.06).

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.