So with this game as important as it is and having some free time I decided to take an in depth look at just how this game matches up. I know some of you are going to ask me why I did this or even make a snide remark or two. Well I love football and I love stats. So this was just me satisfying my own curiosity leading up to this game and wanting to share the numbers with you too.

*Note: UTSA's stats are not tracked by the NCAA and given a national rank so for the purposes of this discussion until they will be excluded. At least not on the NCAA's website where I found all of this data. The same rule applies to Gardner-Webb as they are an FCS team an do not register in the FBS rankings.

Total Offense vs Total Defense: Marshall > Rice
Marshall's total offense - #9 (513.3)
vs
Rice's total defense - #19 (349.4)

Rice's total offense - #61 (420.5)
vs
Marshall's total defense - #32 (356.8)

How did they get there?

Marshall has faced the and average ranked total defense of 68.3 (Miami #113, OHIO #53, VT #3, FAU #12, MTSU #66, USM #98, UAB #116, Tulsa #94, FIU #95, ECU #33) While Rice has faced an average pass defense of 78.45 (Texas A&M #105, Kansas #96, Houston #85, New Mexico St. #123, FAU #12, UAB #116, Tulsa #94, UTEP #108, North Texas #28, LaTech #70, Tulane #26)

Marshall has faced an average total offense of 89.9 (Miami #122, OHIO #87, VT #98, FAU #83, MTSU #64, USM #114, UAB #78, Tulsa #100, FIU #123, ECU #30) while Rice has faced an average total offense of 81.82 (Texas A&M #5, Kansas #117, Houston #57, New Mexico St. #81, FAU #83, UAB #78, Tulsa #100, UTEP #103, North Texas #66, LaTech #95, Tulane #115)



Passing Offense vs Passing Defense: Marshall > Rice
Marshall Passing Offense - #21 (293.3)
vs
Rice's Passing Defense - #12 (189.89)

Rice's Passing Offense - #102 (181.0)
vs
Marshall Passing Defense - #22 (206.4)

How did they get there?

Marshall has faced the and average ranked pass defense of 52.8 (Miami #104, OHIO #28, VT #5, FAU #3, MTSU#43, USM #25, UAB #115, Tulsa #65, FIU #53, ECU #87) While Rice has faced an average pass defense of 69.36(Texas A&M #80, Kansas #83, Houston #114, New Mexico St. #92, FAU #3, UAB #115, Tulsa #65, UTEP #45, North Texas #64, LaTech #30 Tulane #72)

Marshall's Pass defense an average passing offense of 76.6 (Miami #119, OHIO #60, VT #54, FAU #92, MTSU #86, USM #51, UAB #79, Tulsa #97, FIU #115, ECU #10) while Rice's pass defense has faced an average pass offense of 77 (Texas A&M #8, Kansas #117, Houston #26, New Mexico St. #58, FAU #92, UAB #79, Tulsa #97, UTEP #110, North Texas #68, LaTech #88 Tulane #104)


Completion Percentage: Marshall > Rice
Marshall - #55 (.602)
Rice - #115 (.508)


Passing Efficiency Offense vs Passing Efficiency Defense: Marshall > Rice
Marshall Passing Efficiency Offense - #24 (151.67)
vs
Rice's Passing Efficiency Defense - #22 (114.15)

Rice's Passing Efficiency Offense - #88 (121.26)
vs
Marshall Passing Efficiency Defense - #6 (103.88)

How did they get there?

Marshall has faced the and average ranked pass efficiency defense of 72 (Miami #108, OHIO #79, VT #3, FAU #4, MTSU #68, USM #107, UAB #121, Tulsa #69, FIU #115, ECU #46) while Rice has faced an average pass efficiency offense of 84.91 (Texas A&M #5, Kansas #122, Houston #48, New Mexico St. #57, FAU #89, UAB #73, Tulsa #120, UTEP #84, North Texas #61, LaTech #115, Tulane #160)

Marshall's passing efficiency defense an average passing efficiency offense of 86.8 (Miami #123, OHIO #51, VT #78, FAU #89, MTSU #82, USM #114, UAB #73, Tulsa #120, FIU #116, ECU #22) while Rice's pass efficiency offense has faced an average pass efficiency defense of 59 (Texas A&M #82, Kansas #67, Houston #39, New Mexico St. #110, FAU #4, UAB #68, Tulsa #69, UTEP #120, North Texas #31, LaTech #34 Tulane #25)


Rushing Offense vs Rushing Defense: Marshall = Rice
Marshall's rushing offense - #21 (219.9)
vs
Rice's rushing defense - #57 (159.5)

Rice's rushing offense - #17(239.5)
vs
Marshall's rushing defense - #46 (150.4)

How did they get there?

Marshall's rushing offense faced an average rush defense of 78 (Miami #111, OHIO #80, VT #8, FAU #65, MTSU #85, USM #113, UAB #109, Tulsa #97, FIU #100, ECU #12) while Rice's rushing offense faced an average rush defense of 79.3 (Texas A&M #108, Kansas #89, Houston #36, New Mexico State #123, FAU #65, UAB #109, Tulsa #97, UTEP #117, North Texas #19, LaTech #94, Tulane #15)

Marshall's rushing defense faced an average rush offense of 86.8 (Miami #114, OHIO #96, VT #110, FAU #51, MTSU #27, USM #121, UAB #57, Tulsa #70, FIU #120, ECU #102) while Rice's rushing defense faced an average rush offense of 69 (Texas A&M #46, Kansas #78, Houston #94, New Mexico State #90, FAU #51, UAB #57, Tulsa #70, UTEP #49, North Texas #50, LaTech #73, Tulane #101)


Red Zone Offense vs Red Zone Defense: Marshall > Rice
Marshall's Red Zone Offense - #9 (.912)
vs
Rice's Red Zone Defense - #102 (.879)

Rice's Red Zone Offense - #19 (.891)
vs
Marshall's Red Zone Defense - #41 (.804)

How did they get there?

Marshall's red zone offense faced an average red zone defense of 70.6 (Miami #37, OHIO #22, VT #64, FAU #87, MTSU #34, USM #121, UAB #115, Tulsa #104, FIU #105, ECU #17) while Rice's red zone defense faced an average red zone offense of 73.36 (Texas A&M #80, Kansas #89, Houston #120, New Mexico State #54, FAU #8, UAB #40, Tulsa #89, UTEP #121, North Texas #52, LaTech #87, Tulane #67)

Marshall's red zone defense faced an average red zone offense of 87 (Miami #123, OHIO #75, VT #113, FAU #82, MTSU #98, USM #110, UAB #40, Tulsa #89, FIU #115, ECU #25) while Rice's red zone offense faced an average red zone defense of 65.55 (Texas A&M #94, Kansas #83, Houston #14, New Mexico State #43, FAU #87, UAB #115, Tulsa #104, UTEP #112, North Texas #2, LaTech #54, Tulane #13)



Scoring Offense vs Scoring Defense: Marshall > Rice
Marshall's Scoring Offense - #6 (44.6)
vs
Rice's Scoring Defense - ##35 (22.8)

Marshall's Scoring Defense - #26 (21.7)
vs
Rice's Scoring Offense - #58 (30.6)

How did they get there?

Marshall's scoring offense faced an average scoring defense of 76.7 (Miami #106, OHIO #64, VT #8, FAU #28, MTSU #61, USM #117, UAB #119, Tulsa #100, FIU #110, ECU #54) while Rice's scoring defense faced an average scoring offense of 78.82 (Texas A&M #7, Kansas #118, Houston #38, New Mexico State #103, FAU #79, UAB #55, Tulsa #117, UTEP #101, North Texas #51, LaTech #110, Tulane #88)

Marshall's scoring defense faced an average red zone scoring of 85.8 (Miami #122, OHIO #71, VT #95, FAU #79, MTSU #55, USM #117, UAB #83, Tulsa #102, FIU #123, ECU #11) while Rice's scoring offense faced an average scoring defense of 69.72 (Texas A&M #86, Kansas #92, Houston #16, New Mexico State #120, FAU #28, UAB #119, Tulsa #100, UTEP #115, North Texas #9, LaTech #60, Tulane #22)


First Down Offense vs First Down Defense: Marshall = Rice
Marshall's first down offense - #5
vs
Rice's first down defense - #12

Marshall's first down defense - #44
vs
Rice's first down offense - #43

How did they get there?

Marshall's first down offense faced an average first down defense of 66.1 (Miami #120, OHIO #49, VT #2, FAU #16, MTSU #85, USM #111, UAB #117, Tulsa #79, FIU #76, ECU #6) while Rice's first down defense faced an average first down offense of 73.72 (Texas A&M #3, Kansas #120, Houston #44, New Mexico State #82, FAU #16, UAB #117, Tulsa #79, UTEP #101, North Texas #53, LaTech #84, Tulane #112)

Marshall's first down defense faced an average first down offense of 83.6 (Miami #122, OHIO #86, VT #103, FAU #83, MTSU #50, USM #110, UAB #75, Tulsa #78, FIU #121, ECU #8) while Rice's first down offense faced an average first down defense of 78.18 (Texas A&M #101, Kansas #95, Houston #103, New Mexico State #112, FAU #16, UAB #85, Tulsa #111, UTEP #88, North Texas #20, LaTech #87, Tulane #42)


3rd Down Offense vs 3rd Down Defense: Marshall > Rice
Marshall's 3rd down offense - #5 (.534)
vs
Rice's 3rd down defense - #12 (.322)

Marshall's 3rd down defense - #16 (.333)
vs
Rice's 3rd down offense - #76 (.388)

How did they get there?

Marshall's 3rd down offense faced an average 3rd down defense of 83.5 (Miami #109, OHIO #98, VT #4, FAU #15, MTSU #116, USM #107, UAB #108, Tulsa #97, FIU #66, ECU #115) while Rice's 3rd down defense faced an average 3rd down offense of 74.91 (Texas A&M #11, Kansas #120, Houston #78, New Mexico State #91, FAU #65, UAB #87, Tulsa #97, UTEP #63, North Texas #29, LaTech #93, Tulane #90)

Marshall's 3rd down defense faced an average 3rd down offense of 82.1 (Miami #122, OHIO #71, VT #107, FAU #65, MTSU #20, USM #119, UAB #87, Tulsa #97, FIU #123, ECU #10) while Rice's 3rd down offense faced an average 3rd down defense of 73.82 (Texas A&M #62, Kansas #76, Houston #37, New Mexico State #102, FAU #15, UAB #108, Tulsa #97, UTEP #113, North Texas #34, LaTech #104, Tulane #64)


Sacks vs Sacks allowed: Marshall >> Rice
Marshall has gotten to the QB a total of 29 times for an average of 2.42 sacks per game which ranks them #38. Rice has allowed their QB to be sacked a total of 33 times for an average of 2.75 sacks per game which ranks #108 national.

Rice has gotten to the QB a total of 16 times for an average of 1.33 sacks per game which ranks them #110. Marshall has allowed their QB to be sacked a total of 22 times for an average of 1.83 sacks per game which ranks #53 national.


TFLs vs TFLs allowed: Marshall >> Rice
Marshall has made a total of 94 tackles for a loss for an average of 7.8 TFLs per game which ranks them #10 while Rice has allowed a total of 85 times for an average of 7.08 TFLs per game which ranks #105 nationally.

Rice has made a total of 63 tackles for a loss for an average of 5.3 TFLs per game which ranks them #97 while Marshall has allowed a total of 59 tackles for an average of 4.92 TFLs per game which ranks #29 nationally.

Turnovers: Marshall < Rice
Marshall:
Turnover Margin - #46 (+3)
Turnovers committed - #84 (22)
Turnovers caused -#25 (25)
Fumbles lost - #113 (13)
Fumbles recovered - #75 (8)
Interceptions thrown - #32 (9)
Interceptions forced - #12 (17)

Rice:
Turnover Margin - #31 (+6)
Turnovers committed - #51 (18)
Turnovers caused -#37 (24)
Fumbles lost - #75 (9)
Fumbles recovered - #31 (11)
Interceptions thrown - #40 (9)
Interceptions forced - #44 (13)

Punt Returns vs Punt Return Defense: Marshall > Marshall
Marshall's Punt Returns - #16 (13.17, 1TD)
vs
Rice's Punt Return Defense - #86 (9.68, 1TD)

Marshall's Punt Return Defense - #76 (9.00)
vs
Rice's Punt Returns - #95 (5.85)

Net Punting: Marshall = Rice
Marshall - #106 (34.64)
Rice - #98 (35.17)

Kickoff Returns vs Kickoff Return Defense: Marshall > Rice
Marshall's kickoff return - #26 (23.49
vs
Rice's kickoff return defense - #41 (20.07)

Rice's kickoff return - #91 (19.96)
vs
Marshall's kickoff return defense - #22 (18.97)

Schedule Winning Percentage: Marshall = Rice
Marshall: 59-85 (.409)
(Miami 0-12, GW 7-5, OHIO 7-5, VT 8-4, UTSA 7-5, FAU 6-6, MTSU 8-4, USM 1-11, UAB 2-10, Tulsa 3-9, FIU 1-11, ECU 9-3)

Rice: 60-84 (.416)
(Texas A&M 8-4, Kansas 3-9, Houston 8-4, FAU 6-6, Tulsa 3-9, UTSA 7-5, NMST 2-10, UTEP 2-10, North Texas 8-4, LaTech 4-8, UAB 2-10, Tulane 7-5