Skip to content
Rice

Rice Owls

American Athletic·1-1·
Compare
Elo
1196#129
SP+
-10.4#105
FPI
-12.1
AP
NR
Nextvs Western Michigan · Wk 3Win prob 25%Model +10.4
Talent #100 (589.9)Recruiting class #10439% production returning

Team Leaders

Latest on Rice

All news →

Rice's pass defense is Notre Dame's only real obstacle

Matchup · 4d ago

Rice rolls past Houston Christian, 31-3

Matchup · 6d ago

Roster · 103 players

FR 45SO 22JR 15SR 21
#PlayerPosClHtWt
2Lucas ScheerhornQBSO6'0"200
4Gael OchoaQBSO6'2"197
11Jacurri BrownQBSR6'4"227
14Ayden WilhelmQBFR6'1"188
15Patrick Crayton Jr.QBFR6'0"201
10Quinton JacksonRBSR5'7"175
26Tyvonn ByarsRBSO5'10"217
27Dionne SimsRBFR5'10"160
28D'Andre Hardeman Jr.RBSO5'8"197
30Carson MorganRBJR6'0"215
33Justin PowellRBFR6'0"210
0Payton MatthewsWRSO5'11"185
5Davis LaneWRSR6'1"201
6Ben GriceWRSO6'0"194
7Barry Jackson Jr.WRJR5'11"198
8Colin LeaheyWRFR6'0"192
13Max MoseyWRSR6'0"200
18Owen CarterWRSO6'2"215
19Jordan ClarkWRFR5'10"187
20Fisher LeftwichWRFR6'1"185
21Sawyer RiceWRFR6'1"198
22Michael SiffordWRFR5'11"164
24Larry DeBose IVWRSO5'9"168
29Jai Jacobs-FordWRFR5'11"170
43Chris BruceWRJR6'3"201
81Braylen WalkerWRSR5'10"181
83Jackson RanucciWRSO5'11"185
88Keenan Arcega-WhitesideWRFR6'4"209
89Preston JacksonWRFR5'11"175
9Preston ZinterTEJR6'2"254
17Jake RendaTESR6'5"225
25Rhys PhillipsTESO6'2"234
82Colten ColeTEFR6'3"242
84Will SwartzTEFR6'5"255
86James FalkTEJR6'6"250
87Jackson DeAtleyTEFR6'0"258
50Patrick ValentOLJR6'3"330
53Luke MillerOLSO6'5"304
56Nate BledsoeOLJR6'4"315
57Leyonte ChandlerOLFR6'4"265
58Peyton FarmerOLJR6'6"300
59Colter AlberdingOLFR6'4"315
60Leo BluhmOLSR6'4"315
62Cullen WittOLSO6'2"291
67Luke NeedhamOLJR6'5"320
68Scott BeckerOLSR6'2"309
70Bennett EivensOLFR6'4"275
71Cole PrincipeOLSO6'4"310
73Justin MichaelisOLFR6'4"321
74Clay MitchellOLFR6'4"308
76Marcus Page Jr.OLFR6'6"307
77Ian BothwellOLFR6'5"325
78Erben BirkhoffOLFR6'3"321
2Jo ChavezDEJR6'0"194
7AJ BrownDESR6'0"188
25Caden VerMaasDEFR6'0"190
8Joseph MutomboDLJR6'5"271
11Christopher Clark-JolivetDLJR6'1"295
15Matthew AribisalaDLSR6'2"308
16Chibby NwajuakuDLSR6'2"246
21JD SingletaryDLFR6'2"221
43Ian HarrellDLFR6'2"315
57Aquantis ClemmonsDLJR5'10"286
88Tyler LavallierDLFR6'1"295
91DD OliverDLFR6'3"280
92Luca AkirtavaDLFR6'2"267
93Quincy TchikouDLFR6'3"253
94Braden BaysDLFR6'3"269
95Brock ReddicDLSO6'4"320
96Dillan BottsDLSR6'1"286
97Chris KnaulsDLFR6'4"272
98Robert RooksDLFR6'1"291
14Beau BartonLBJR6'2"205
33Stone CombsLBSR6'1"227
34Kaleb BlantonLBSO6'1"226
40Jayden CupittLBFR6'1"224
44Cooper KingLBJR5'10"211
54Austin HarnetiauxLBSR6'2"228
55CJ WittenLBFR6'1"225
1Zach CodyCBSO6'0"172
4Tariq WatsonCBSR5'10"181
5Jerrick HarperCBSR6'0"191
10Kyren CondollCBSO6'2"186
12Jamir BenjaminCBSO5'10"185
24Jordan MitchellCBFR5'10"165
35Elijah BrownCBFR5'10"165
13Tariq MayDBSR6'4"244
41Preston HealyDBFR6'2"236
42DeReyon JenkinsDBFR6'4"224
56Seth ClarkeDBFR6'2"215
0Daveon HookSSR5'11"190
3Koa AkuiSSR5'10"193
6Dylan StephensSSO6'0"185
18Ahran OgborSSO5'10"205
20Bailey FletcherSSO5'11"190
23Michael Amey IIISFR6'0"195
32Seth BrownSFR6'0"180
36Austin LeeSFR5'11"165
28Enock GotaPKSR6'0"209
49Tommy BauchieroPKFR5'11"197
29Charlie DurkinPSR6'0"190
51Phoenix DerichsweilerLSFR6'2"216
52Morrow EvansLSSO6'1"227

Team Statistics · per game, with national FBS rank

Points / game
15.5
scoring offense
Points allowed
27.5
scoring defense
Differential
-12.0
per game
Offense
Total yards / game
310.5#113
Yards / play
4.9#114
Passing yards / game
46.0#135
Rushing yards / game
264.5#20
First downs / game
17.0#111
3rd down %
44.8%#60
4th down %
60.0%#59
Time of possession
33:37#29
Defense
Yards allowed / game
361.0#85
Yards / play allowed
5.9#105
Pass yards allowed / game
228.0#96
Rush yards allowed / game
133.0#86
3rd down % allowed
44.0%#102
Sacks
3#58
Tackles for loss
10#51
Turnovers & Discipline
Turnover margin
-3#127
Takeaways
1#88
Giveaways
4#118
Penalties / game
3.5#15
Penalty yards / game
33.5#22

Rank is national among all FBS teams (#1 = best), oriented so higher rank = better even for defensive and discipline metrics. Bars show percentile.

Scouting Report · 2026 projection

Rice is in year 2 under Scott Abell. The way in is 138th at keeping everything in front of them, and they are 133rd at staying on schedule through the air.

Rice has not played an FBS opponent yet, so this is the projection: last season regressed toward the mean, plus returning production, recruiting, talent and whether the staff is the same one.

Projected soft spots

  • Defensehitting chunk plays
    #138
    projected
  • Offensestaying on schedule through the air
    #133
    projected
  • Offensesurviving second and twelve
    #133
    projected

Each bar is where this team sits in the country. Before the season has produced enough football these are PROJECTIONS — last season regressed to the mean, plus talent, returning production, recruiting and whether the staff is the same one — and the season replaces them as it is played. Head coaches only — there is no free feed for coordinators, so on a program where the head coach does not call the offense this describes the staff he hired. Play-calling identity is a style, not a grade: throwing more than the situations warrant is not better than throwing less than they warrant.

2026 Season Projection

model win prob · 10 to play
3.6 – 8.4
projected final record (now 1–1)
Exp. wins left
2.6
of 10 games
Bowl odds
9%
reach 6 wins
Best odds
42%
vs Tulsa
Toughest
16%
vs Fresno State

How the season could finish · 2026 · chance of each final win total · 10 games left

Every remaining game simulated from the model's win probability for it. Tallest bar is the single likeliest finish, not a prediction that it happens.

1234567891011
final winstallest bar = 28% chance
Likeliest finish 3-9 (28%)Bowl eligible 9% · marked on the axis at 6

Player Value

EPA contribution by position group + estimated NIL market value (derived from position rates and on-field production — not actual deal figures).

Unit Value — Total EPA
RBQuinton Jackson, Carson Morgan +2
+17.0 EPA
QBJacurri Brown, Gael Ochoa
+7.8 EPA
WRDavis Lane, Braylen Walker +3
+1.3 EPA
TEWill Swartz
-0.7 EPA

Total EPA produced by each positional group this season. OL value is captured via the rush/pass efficiency of skill players; OL-specific EPA isn't separately reported.

The Five Factors

ranked vs. FBS · bar = better
Efficiency (PPA)
Off0.0618th#114
Def0.2320th#111
Explosiveness
Off1.0110th#124
Def1.2162nd#53
Field position
Off73.679th#30
Def69.677th#32
Finishing (pts/opp)
Off3.8839th#84
Def3.4345th#76
Turnovers
Won 1Lost 0
Margin +1

Opponent-adjusted efficiency

EPA/play vs. schedule
Offense
—
Defense
—
Off · pass
-0.116th#130
Off · rush
0.1550th#69

Pass vs. rush (PPA)

Rushing
Off0.1550th#70
Def0.2215th#118
Passing
Off-0.116th#130
Def0.2641st#82

Trenches & disruption

Line yards (off)
3.54#35
2nd-level / open-field
1.30 / 1.09
Power / stuff (off)
71.4% / 12.3%
Havoc — total (def)
15.1%#82
Havoc — front 7 / DB
9.5% / 5.6%

Standard vs. passing downs

Pro
Std downs
Off0.06
Def0.23
Pass downs
Off0.06
Def0.23

PPA on each down type (off vs. def).

Opponent-adjusted by down

Pro
1st2nd3rd
Offense0.11#60-0.27#1270.63#63
Defense0.15#1140.52#1270.28#56

Elo Trajectory

Houston ChristianFinal
Elo rating 1196 → 1107-89 over season

Team Fingerprint · 2026 · 31 opponent-adjusted metrics · percentile vs 138 FBS teams

Plot these →
worst in FBSbest

Efficiency

  • Offense EPA/play0.2349th
  • Defense EPA/play allowed-0.1281st
  • Offense success rate54%74th
  • Defense success rate allowed31%72nd

Downs

  • Offense success — standard downs63%89th
  • Offense success — passing downs25%26th
  • Defense success allowed — standard downs39%63rd
  • Defense success allowed — passing downs19%74th

Explosiveness

  • Offense explosiveness0.949th
  • Defense explosiveness allowed1.259th
  • Offense explosiveness — standard downs0.769th
  • Offense explosiveness — passing downs2.378th

Trenches

  • Offense line yards4.189th
  • Defense line yards allowed2.845th
  • Offense highlight yards1.464th
  • Defense highlight yards allowed1.524th
  • Offense power success0.7141st
  • Defense power success allowed0.3385th
  • Offense stuff rate0.0790th
  • Defense stuff rate0.1842nd

Third down

  • Third down conversion65%91st
  • Third down distance faced4.893rd
  • Third down conversion allowed31%66th
  • Third down distance forced8.880th

Halves

  • Net success rate — first half0.2777th
  • Net success rate — second half0.2176th

Roster

  • Returning usage32%41st
  • Returning EPA32.716th
  • Team talent composite59028th
  • Recruiting class rank10425th
  • Recruiting class points17625th

Every metric is opponent-adjusted and ranked so that higher is always better — a defensive rate that is good when low is ranked accordingly. Sack and tackle-for-loss composition are deliberately absent: their relationship to team quality is a measured null, so they carry a style rather than a rank, and they appear in the pressure signature instead.

Intelligence Report

⚡

Offensive DNA

Run-first offense — below average EPA/play nationally
EPA/play
+0.060#114 · bottom 20%
Pass EPA/play
-0.106#130
Rush EPA/play
+0.150#70
Explosiveness
1.012#124
Pts/opportunity
3.88#84
Success rate
41.4%

Rush efficiency edge: 0.256 EPA/play

🛡

Defensive Identity

Disruptive defense — allowing above-average EPA/play
EPA/play allowed
+0.229#111 · bottom 20%
Havoc rate (total)
15.1%#82
Front-7 havoc
9.5%
DB havoc
5.6%
Big play rate allowed
1.206#53
Success rate allowed
45.8%

Disruption comes evenly from front and secondary.

📊

Season Signature

15.5 PPG offense, 27.5 allowed — -12.0 margin/game
Points per game
15.5
Points allowed/game
27.5
Scoring margin/game
-12.0
Turnover margin
+1won 1 · lost 0
Production returning
39%
Talent rank (247)
#100

1-1 record through 2 games.

Team Shape · percentile vs. FBS · dashed = 50th

OFFENSE18thEXPLOSIVENESS10thFINISHING39thFIELD POS79thDEFENSE20thHAVOC41th50th100th
Offense
18th
Explosiveness
10th
Finishing
39th
Field Pos
79th
Defense
20th
Havoc
41th

Each axis = national percentile rank. 100th = best in FBS, 0th = worst. Defense and Havoc are oriented so higher = better.

CORE efficiency · situation and opponent removed

Points per 100 plays above average, after the game state is regressed out of every snap and the schedule is solved out across the whole league. The version of this team’s efficiency that can be compared to a team it never played.

Overall
-12.6
#120
Offense
-9.8
#122
Defense
+2.9
#93
Full CORE ratings →

National Landscape · 2026 FBS · offense vs. defense EPA/play

Each dot = one FBS team. Rice is highlighted. Tap or hover a dot for details.

ELITEDEF. FORTRESSOFF. POWERHOUSEREBUILDING-0.100.00+0.10+0.20+0.30-0.050.00+0.10+0.20Offensive EPA/play← worsebetter →Defensive EPA allowed/play← worsebetter →

Similar Programs

Teams with the closest offense + defense efficiency profile to Rice in 2026

by EPA/play distance
UNLVSP+ +2.3
Off EPA/play +0.041Def EPA/play +0.186Elo 1589
Match
98%
RutgersSP+ -3.6
Off EPA/play +0.124Def EPA/play +0.234Elo 1372
Match
97%
CaliforniaSP+ -3.4
Off EPA/play +0.057Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1349
Match
97%
WyomingSP+ -15.2
Off EPA/play +0.071Def EPA/play +0.169Elo 1300
Match
97%
Hawai'iSP+ -7.0
Off EPA/play -0.007Def EPA/play +0.247Elo 1426
Match
97%
Boise StateSP+ +5.2
Off EPA/play +0.113Def EPA/play +0.277Elo 1569
Match
96%

Similarity = normalized Euclidean distance on season offensive and defensive EPA/play. Teams within ±0.02 EPA/play on both units score >90%.

Program Trajectory · CORE rating · 2015–2026 · points per game vs an average FBS team

2015: -19.3, #113 of 1282016: -24.4, #123 of 1282017: -28.1, #126 of 1302018: -34.1, #129 of 1302019: -17.8, #117 of 1302020: +1.0, #64 of 1242021: -19.4, #114 of 1302022: -17.3, #117 of 1312023: -6.0, #89 of 1332024: -2.8, #76 of 1342025: -26.8, #132 of 1362026: -12.6, #120 of 138
20152026
Now -12.6 · #120 of 138Best +1.0 in 2020Worst -34.1 in 2018

Program History

recent seasons
YearOverallConfWin %xWLuck
20261-00-0
100%
1.0+0.0
20255-82-6
38%
5.1-0.1
20244-83-5
33%
3.4+0.6
20236-74-4
46%
5.3+0.7
20225-83-5
38%
5.2-0.2
20214-83-5
33%
4.9-0.9
20202-32-3
40%
2.6-0.6
20193-93-5
25%
4.0-1.0
20182-111-7
15%
1.4+0.6
20171-111-7
8%
1.5-0.5

xW = expected wins from per-game dominance. Luck = actual − expected (positive = won close games).

0.1%of 50,000 simulated 2026 seasons end with them in the field

0-0 so far, projected to finish 3.9-8.1. Wins the American Athletic in 0.5%.

If they finish with…

6.1%
2 losses
0%
3 losses
0%
4 losses

Their chance of making it at each final loss count.

up 0.0 points since preseason.

  • At 2 losses they are 6.1% where the average American Athletic team is 5.4%.
  • The American Athletic takes 0.34 bids in an average season.
  • One bid goes to the best champion outside the P4. They take it in 0.1% of seasons, having won their league in 90% of those.

Rice’s own turning points

Points of playoff probability between winning and losing.

  • wk6at East Carolina0.2
  • wk4at Fresno State0.2
  • wk3vs Western Michigan0.2
  • wk5vs UTSA0.2
  • wk7vs Tulsa0.2
  • wk13vs Army0.2

Who to root for

Games Rice is not in that move its odds most. Same units, much smaller scale.

  • wk4Illinois over Ohio State0.1
  • wk2Oklahoma State over Oregon0.1
  • wk12Nebraska over Ohio State0.1
  • wk8Duke over Virginia0.1
  • wk7Boston College over Pittsburgh0.1
  • wk7Sacramento State over Ohio0.1
The full playoff picture →

American Athletic

0-0 in league play, projected 2.4-5.612 of 14 by title odds
0.5%
Wins the American Athletic
1.7%
Reaches the title game

The American Athletic sends its top two by conference winning percentage, head-to-head breaking a tie. The last berth is level on percentage in 33% of simulated seasons, so a tiebreaker decides it about that often.

  • wk2Rice at Notre Dame4.1
  • wk7Tulsa at Rice1.8
  • wk5UTSA at Rice1.7
  • wk6Rice at East Carolina1.7

Points of title probability riding on each result. The whole American Athletic race →

If not the playoff, then

21%
Bowl eligible
16%
Placed in a bowl
0.1%
In the playoff
84%
Season over in November

Rice is 1-0 and needs 5 more wins from 11 games to reach the six that make a team eligible — at most one of which may come against an FCS opponent. In 5.3% of seasons they get there and still go nowhere: there are more eligible teams than seats.

  • Armed Forces Bowl3.4%
  • Birmingham Bowl2.5%
  • Fenway Bowl2.4%
  • Myrtle Beach Bowl1.4%
  • Xbox Bowl1.3%
  • Military Bowl1.3%

Every bowl, and how each one picks →

✓/✗ = whether our pregame model picked the winner. Win % & projections from the Gridpex model. Data: CollegeFootballData.