Tulane

Profile vs. FBS, 2025

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.1774th
  Defense+0.0856th
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense45.5%76th
  Defense45.1%18th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1615th
  Defense+1.1686th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0749th
  Defense+0.0554th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.3484th
  Defense+0.1751st
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense50.2%68th
  Defense50.0%22nd
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense34.1%82nd
  Defense32.6%24th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.1883rd
  Defense2.9738th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.9%70th
  Defense17.4%33rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense12.5%85th
  Defense16.5%62nd

Percentiles among the 136 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2025

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Tulane allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   NU
2. W
   USA
3. W
   DUKE
4. L
   MISS
5. W
   TLSA
6. W
   ECU
7. W
   ARMY
8. L
   UTSA
9. W
   MEM
10. W
    FAU
11. W
    TEM
12. W
    CLT
13. W
    UNT
14. L
    MISS

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tulane.

Players, 2025

1. Jake RetzlaffQB413 plays · +0.180 pts/play · 48th of 231 QBs
   1.39WAR0.67 to 2.10
2. Shazz PrestonWR44 plays · +0.258 pts/play · 57th of 451 WRs
   0.21WAR0.13 to 0.30
3. Javin GordonRB109 plays · +0.079 pts/play · 153rd of 365 RBs
   0.16WAR0.11 to 0.22
4. Jamauri McClureRB60 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 192nd of 365 RBs
   0.13WAR0.10 to 0.16
5. Omari HayesWR41 plays · +0.152 pts/play · 156th of 451 WRs
   0.12WAR0.04 to 0.20
6. Patrick DurkinPK20 plays · +0.262 pts/play · 39th of 112 kickers
   0.10WAR0.05 to 0.15
7. Bryce BohanonWR45 plays · +0.113 pts/play · 199th of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.17
8. Zycarl Lewis Jr.WR30 plays · +0.146 pts/play · 225th of 451 WRs
   0.08WAR0.03 to 0.13

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Tulane's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  65165168th of 134Roster talent: 651, 68th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  17317371st of 134Recruiting: 173, 71st of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  15%15%109th of 132Returning production: 15%, 109th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +6.3+6.345th of 134SP+ rating: +6.3, 45th of 134 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 134 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2025

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Tulane's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 4 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.12 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. at TEMQ3 9:05 4th & 1 at TEM 20, up 13Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.2 pts
2. vs UNTQ2 0:47 4th & 3 at UNT 41, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
3. at MEMQ3 11:51 4th & 2 at MEM 12, up 18Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.2 pts
4. vs UNTQ3 8:47 4th & 4 at UNT 32, up 17Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
5. vs ECUQ2 5:05 4th & 3 at ECU 3, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts
6. vs UNTQ2 5:46 4th & 2 at UNT 12, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs NUQ2 11:07 4th & 3 at NU 4, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts
8. at TLSAQ2 9:31 4th & 2 at TULN 45, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.5 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

8th of 136 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Tulane's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   NU
2. W

   USA
3. W

   DUKE
4. L

   MISS
5. W

   TLSA
6. W

   ECU
7. W

   ARMY
8. L

   UTSA
9. W

   MEM
10. W

    FAU
11. W

    TEM
12. W

    CLT
13. W

    UNT
14. L

    MISS

What moved it, 2025

Every game starts at Tulane's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard+2.59
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.10
• Timeouts+0.05
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.48

Game by game

• NUW 23-3 vs NU63% → 100%Before kickoff +13 · On the field +36: Scoreboard +36, Timeouts +1
• USAW 33-31 at USA81% → 93%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +32, Clock +2
• DUKEW 34-27 vs DUKE47% → 98%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +52: Scoreboard +43
• MISSL 10-45 at MISS17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −21
• TLSAW 31-14 at TLSA81% → 98%Before kickoff +31 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +29, Clock +1
• ECUW 26-19 vs ECU62% → 89%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +27: Scoreboard +27, Possession & field position −1
• ARMYW 24-17 vs ARMY78% → 88%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +10: Scoreboard +21, Possession & field position −2
• UTSAL 26-48 at UTSA58% → 0%Before kickoff +8 · On the field −58: Scoreboard −51, Timeouts −1
• MEMW 38-32 at MEM40% → 96%Before kickoff −10 · On the field +56: Scoreboard +54, Clock +3
• FAUW 35-24 vs FAU85% → 98%Before kickoff +35 · On the field +12: Scoreboard +19, Timeouts +1
• TEMW 37-13 at TEM69% → 100%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +37, Clock +2
• CLTW 27-0 vs CLT97% → 100%Before kickoff +47 · On the field +3: Scoreboard +4
• UNTW 34-21 vs UNT45% → 99%Before kickoff −5 · On the field +53: Scoreboard +44, Timeouts +2
• MISSL 10-41 at MISS11% → 0%Before kickoff −39 · On the field −11: Scoreboard −15

Points of win probability, from Tulane's side.

Closest call

TULN 46-45 USC (2022) - Tulane dropped to a 2.4% win probability before pulling it out.