Probetrics — Sports Analytics
College Football slate
Rice Owls
1-0 · #189 Elo
at
Thu, Nov 19, 7:30 PM ET
Lincoln Financial Field
Temple Owls
1-0 · #100 Elo
Spread Total Moneyline

The read

On rating alone Temple Owls are 4.8 points better (#100 vs #189 of 240), and TEM add 0.0 for home field. The clearest mismatch is the passing game: TEM passing ranks #36, RICE defends it at #116; the other way RICE #121 into TEM's #122.

Who has the edge

Rating
Clear edge
TEM
TEM rated 4.8 points better on Elo (#100 vs #189).
Home & rest
Even
TEM gets 0.0 points for home field.
Passing game
Clear edge
TEM
TEM passing ranks #36, RICE defends it at #116; the other way RICE #121 into TEM's #122.
context · not in the margin
Rushing game
Even
RICE rushing ranks #101, TEM defends it at #127; the other way TEM #82 into RICE's #102.
context · not in the margin
Third down & red zone
Slight edge
TEM
TEM third-down conversion ranks #91, RICE defends it at #114; the other way RICE #116 into TEM's #72.
context · not in the margin
Form (last 5)
Slight edge
RICE
TEM +24.0 per game over the last five, RICE +28.0.
context · not in the margin
Market
not priced
No line yet.
context · not in the margin

The margin, factor by factor

Rice OwlsTemple Owls
1373 Elo · #189
RatingThe Elo gap in points — the model's core read on who is better, before the situational pieces below.
TEM +4.8 pts
1460 Elo · #100
road
Home field
not priced
home
Rest
even
−7.3 pts vs TEM D
Offense vs defenseEach offense's scoring rating against the other defense's — what drives the model total. Shown as an edge, though the winner call runs on Elo.
TEM +5.4 pts
−1.8 pts vs RICE D
W · +28.0
Form (last 5)Average margin over the last five games. Already inside the ratings — listed so you can see when recent form and the rating disagree.
RICE +2.0 pts
W · +24.0
−14.8
SP+ (last season)Bill Connelly's SP+ from last season, the prior the college model starts each season from.
TEM +9.7 pts
−5.1
MarketThe consensus spread, read as points. Compare with the model margin above it.
not priced

Bars are in points toward the favored side. Blue factors are inside the model's margin; grey ones are context it does not add on top (form and offense/defense are already in the ratings; injuries beyond the quarterback are not priced).

Dissect the matchup

CollegeFootballData, garbage time excluded · 2025 season (last season until three games are in)

Biggest mismatches

  • TEM turnovers / game (#2) against a RICE defense ranked #132 at stopping it
  • RICE interception rate (#19) against a TEM defense ranked #134 at stopping it
  • RICE defense (#23 power success allowed) against a TEM offense ranked #129
  • RICE pass explosiveness (#28) against a TEM defense ranked #113 at stopping it
  • TEM interception rate (#50) against a RICE defense ranked #131 at stopping it

A mismatch is a rank gap of at least a fifth of the league between an offense and the defense it faces on the same measure. Descriptive rows (pass rate, pace, direction) are shown for reading the game, not ranked. ▲▼ mark where the last three games sit clearly above or below the season number, in the direction that helps that side.

Rice Owls offense vs Temple Owls defense

ranks of 135
RICE offTEM defEdge
Identity
Pass rate / Pass rate faced28%42%·
Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains).68%72%·
Plays / game5754·
Possession / game32:4329:52·
Passing
Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD).+0.12#121+0.39#122·
Pass success rate33%#13143%#88TEM
Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are.1.67#281.68#113RICE
Yards / pass attempt5.7#1327.7#110·
Completion %66%#2861%#60RICE
Interception rate / Interceptions forced1.3%#190.6%#134RICE
Rushing
Rushing PPA / play+0.05#101+0.22#127·
Rush success rate38%#11249%#129·
Rush explosiveness1.00#530.97#74·
Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed.2.69#1133.37#132·
Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line.20%#10014%#130RICE
Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2.73%#6674%#89·
Yards / rush4.1#885.0#121RICE
Situational
Standard-down PPA+0.08#88+0.23#127RICE
Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+).+0.02#132+0.42#117·
Third-down conversion34%#11640%#72TEM
Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40.3.21#1144.77#135·
Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play.17.6%#10814.6%#95·
Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game0.85#121.25#72RICE

Temple Owls offense vs Rice Owls defense

ranks of 135
TEM offRICE defEdge
Identity
Pass rate / Pass rate faced49%50%·
Standard-down shareShare of plays on standard downs (staying ahead of the chains).69%68%·
Plays / game5158·
Possession / game30:0827:17·
Passing
Passing PPA / playPredicted points added per pass play (CFBD).+0.35#36+0.36#116TEM
Pass success rate45%#3739%#46·
Pass explosivenessPPA on successful pass plays — how big the wins are.1.52#861.93#133TEM
Yards / pass attempt6.8#898.3#123TEM
Completion %62%#7062%#65·
Interception rate / Interceptions forced2.0%#501.1%#131TEM
Rushing
Rushing PPA / play+0.09#82+0.16#102·
Rush success rate44%#6041%#55·
Rush explosiveness0.86#1161.17#131·
Line yards / rushYards credited to the offensive line (first 4 yards weighted). Defense column: allowed.2.80#963.02#97·
Stuff rate / Stuff rate forcedRushes stopped at or behind the line.20%#8617%#92·
Power successConversion rate on 3rd/4th and ≤2, or goal-to-go from the 2.60%#12964%#23RICE
Yards / rush4.5#644.7#96TEM
Situational
Standard-down PPA+0.20#25+0.16#105TEM
Passing-down PPAObvious passing situations (2nd & 8+, 3rd/4th & 5+).+0.20#106+0.43#122·
Third-down conversion38%#9144%#114·
Points / scoring opportunityPoints per drive that reaches the opponent's 40.4.58#133.71#74TEM
Havoc rate faced / Havoc rateTFLs, forced fumbles, interceptions and passes defensed per play.14.4%#5313.5%#111TEM
Turnovers / game / Takeaways / game0.33#20.54#132TEM

Season

RICETEM
1-0Record1-0
31.0Points for / game38.0
3.0Points against / game14.0
1-0 / 0-0Home / road1-0 / 0-0
1-0Against the spread1-0
0-1Over / underOvers–unders in this team's games. A tendency, not a lean.1-0
WLast 5W

Power ratings

RICETEM
1373Elo1460
#189 of 240Rank#100 of 240
−6.4Offense ratingPoints per game above league average scored, opponent-adjusted.+0.1
+1.9Defense ratingPoints per game below league average allowed, opponent-adjusted. Positive is good.+0.8
1425Strength of scheduleMean Elo of opponents faced this season.1398

Elo drives the winner call. Offense/defense ratings drive the total.

Advanced

RICETEM
−15.3SP+ (this season)Bill Connelly's SP+ rating, points above average.−9.1
0.062Offense PPA / playPredicted points added per play, garbage time excluded (CFBD).0.203
0.248Defense PPA / playPPA allowed per play — lower is better.0.283
37% / 40%Success rate (off / def)44% / 46%
1.17 / 1.55Explosiveness (off / def)1.18 / 1.26
590Talent composite247Sports team talent composite for the current roster.631
39%Returning production37%

Advanced stats are from 2025 until this season has about three games. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Head to head

No meetings in our history.

How the margin was built

Rating gap
TEM +4.8 pts
Home field
TEM +— pts
Rest
Even
Weather / roof
— pts on the total
Model margin
Model total

Market

Spread
Total
Moneyline

Per-book prices appear once the multi-book feed has this game (about a week out).

Informational only. Winner probabilities are backtested and calibrated; spread and total calls are tracked leans. 21+, 1-800-GAMBLER.