Rice vs. Navy: Final Score & Recap
Final score, recap & advanced stats
RICETeam statsNAVY
- Q4 0:24RICEEnock Gota 44 Yd Field Goal 13–21
- Q4 7:05RICEDrayden Dickmann 3 Yd pass from Chase Jenkins (Enock Gota Kick)10–21
- Q4 10:33NAVYBlake Horvath 2 Yd Run (Nathan Kirkwood Kick)3–21
- Q3 0:22RICEEnock Gota 35 Yd Field Goal 3–14
- Q2 14:56NAVYBlake Horvath 8 Yd Run (Nathan Kirkwood Kick)0–14
- Q1 7:04NAVYLuke Hutchison 2 Yd Run (Nathan Kirkwood Kick)0–7
How the model called it
What the numbers say
- RICE played behind the sticks — third downs that long convert rarely, and NAVY did not face the same ones. 3rd & 8.8 vs 3rd & 6.3
- PassChase Jenkins 12/21, 114 YDS, 1 TD
- RushQuinton Jackson 15 CAR, 60 YDS
- RecDrayden Dickmann 3 REC, 45 YDS, 1 TD
- PassBlake Horvath 8/13, 172 YDS, 1 INT
- RushBlake Horvath 21 CAR, 110 YDS, 2 TD
- RecAlex Tecza 3 REC, 53 YDS
This exact spot, historically
empirical, no ratingsNAVY up 11 entering the 4th quarter. Across 1,142 historically comparable game states (within ±2 pts and ±3 min, from 3,056 games):
- Q1 7:04NAVY +11%
Luke Hutchison run for 2 yds for a TD (Nathan Kirkwood KICK)
- Q2 14:56NAVY +7%
Blake Horvath run for 8 yds for a TD (Nathan Kirkwood KICK)
FAQ
What was the final score of Rice vs. Navy?
Rice 13, Navy 21.
Did Gridpex's model pick hit?
Yes — the model's pick (NAVY) was correct.
| RICE | NAVY | |
|---|---|---|
| 234 | Total yards | 455 |
| 114 | Passing yards | 172 |
| 120 | Rushing yards | 283 |
| 13 | First downs | 19 |
| 4-15 | 3rd down | 7-12 |
| 4-5 | 4th down | 1-2 |
| 12/21 | Comp/Att | 8/13 |
| 5.4 | Yards per pass | 13.2 |
| 3.1 | Yards per rush | 5.9 |
| 0 | Turnovers | 1 |
| 5-35 | Penalties | 10-85 |
| 26:31 | Possession | 33:29 |
Costliest call
Q2 7:22 NAVY punt on 4th & 12 at RICE 38. The model preferred field goal, a gap of 0.41 points.
Drive chart
every possession, start to finish- Q4 0:24RICEEnock Gota 44 Yd Field Goal 13–21
- Q4 7:05RICEDrayden Dickmann 3 Yd pass from Chase Jenkins (Enock Gota Kick)10–21
- Q4 10:33NAVYBlake Horvath 2 Yd Run (Nathan Kirkwood Kick)3–21
- Q3 0:22RICEEnock Gota 35 Yd Field Goal 3–14
- Q2 14:56NAVYBlake Horvath 8 Yd Run (Nathan Kirkwood Kick)0–14
- Q1 7:04NAVYLuke Hutchison 2 Yd Run (Nathan Kirkwood Kick)0–7
Model prediction
how the number is builtOur model simulates the game drive by drive from each side's opponent-adjusted efficiency (NAVY Elo 1550, RICE Elo 1288 for reference), with home-field advantage. That projects NAVY -12.9 (81% to win), essentially in line with the market.
Why that percentage is worth reading: across 604 graded in-season games, the calls this model put near 58% came in at 58.2%. The full calibration table is published, bin by bin. Early in the season the cold-start path runs instead and calibrates less well (Brier 0.2028 against 0.1889).
Model as of Sep 15 · through week 2 · drive simulation
Season form — 2025
nationally rankedThe matchup, in context
series history + adjusted profilesThe series is level at 7–7 · 50% have been one-possession games
| RICE | NAVY | |
|---|---|---|
| -26.8 (#132) | CORE overall | +9.3 (#43) |
| -20 / +7 | offense / defense | +13 / +3 |
| 1.40 | points / drive | 3.12 |
| 3.09 | allowed / drive | 2.74 |
| 38% | three-and-outs | 21% |
| -24 | pass over expected | -20 |
Bold is the side ahead. CORE strips the situation from every play and solves the schedule out across the league, so these compare two teams that never met.
Key matchups
The analyst read: each team's offense splits crossed against the opponent's defense, with the edges called out.
Create a free account →You get Pro free for 6 months. No card required.
Where this number comes from. Every projection on this page is produced by the same model, run before kickoff on opponent-adjusted efficiency, power ratings and situational data — walk-forward validated on eleven seasons and never adjusted after the fact. How the model works →