Tulsa

Profile vs. FBS, 2026

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+0.1345th
  Defense+0.0565th
• 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.
  Offense37.8%10th
  Defense41.1%48th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2241st
  Defense+1.1578th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.2382nd
  Defense−0.0169th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0820th
  Defense+0.2434th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.1%35th
  Defense43.9%69th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense19.4%1st
  Defense35.0%18th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.2366th
  Defense2.9445th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense11.0%96th
  Defense16.6%32nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense14.6%49th
  Defense13.0%16th

Percentiles among the 138 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, 2026

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 Tulsa 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
   OKST
2. W
   SHSU
3. W
   ETAM
4. L
   ARK
5. L
   UNT
6. L
   NAVY

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tulsa.

Players, 2026

1. Baylor HayesQB151 plays · +0.078 pts/play · 88th of 192 QBs
   0.22WAR−0.02 to 0.44
2. Damari AlstonRB81 plays · +0.091 pts/play · 33rd of 320 RBs
   0.14WAR0.09 to 0.19
3. Trequan JonesRB35 plays · +0.103 pts/play · 151st of 320 RBs
   0.07WAR0.04 to 0.09
4. Oran Singleton Jr.WR45 plays · +0.074 pts/play · 112th of 364 WRs
   0.06WAR0.01 to 0.12
5. Dexter Williams IIQB37 plays · +0.083 pts/play · 161st of 192 QBs
   0.06WAR0.00 to 0.11
6. Javon RossWR23 plays · +0.127 pts/play · 136th of 364 WRs
   0.05WAR0.03 to 0.08
7. David Wells Jr.WR24 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 177th of 364 WRs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.08
8. D.J. McKinneyRB11 plays · +0.089 pts/play · 249th of 320 RBs
   0.02WAR0.01 to 0.03

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 Tulsa'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, 2026

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  62362384th of 138Roster talent: 623, 84th of 138 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  15615696th of 138Recruiting: 156, 96th of 138 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  41%41%64th of 136Returning production: 41%, 64th of 136 in FBS
• SP+ rating so far

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −5.1−5.193rd of 138SP+ rating so far: −5.1, 93rd of 138 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 138 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion so far

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2026

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 Tulsa's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 3 clear-cut ones account for 0.06 of the 0.07 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 SHSUQ4 8:03 4th & 17 at SHSU 33, up 6Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−3.1 pts
2. at SHSUQ3 10:10 4th & 10 at TLSA 44, down 4Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.5 pts
3. vs OKSTQ2 8:47 4th & 1 at TLSA 37, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
4. vs UNTQ3 7:16 4th & 3 at TLSA 20, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts
5. vs UNTQ3 11:39 4th & 4 at TLSA 39, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.4 pts
6. at NAVYQ3 3:08 4th & 5 at NAVY 29, up 6Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
7. vs OKSTQ1 12:59 4th & 1 at TLSA 34, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts
8. vs OKSTQ4 1:06 4th & 4 at TLSA 40, up 14Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.1 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2026

90th of 138 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

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

1. W

   OKST
2. W

   SHSU
3. W

   ETAM
4. L

   ARK
5. L

   UNT
6. L

   NAVY

What moved it, 2026

Every game starts at Tulsa'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−0.13
• Possession & field position−0.05
• Clock+0.19
• Timeouts−0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.06

Game by game

• OKSTW 24-10 vs OKST22% → 99%Before kickoff −28 · On the field +77: Scoreboard +56
• SHSUW 23-17 at SHSU78% → 94%Before kickoff +28 · On the field +17: Scoreboard +35, Clock +2
• ETAMW 42-0 vs ETAM99% → 100%Before kickoff +49 · On the field +1: Scoreboard +3
• ARKL 6-34 at ARK32% → 0%Before kickoff −18 · On the field −32: Scoreboard −34, Clock +1
• UNTL 44-45 vs UNT53% → 23%Before kickoff +3 · On the field −30: Scoreboard −31, Timeouts −20
• NAVYL 26-34 at NAVY49% → 1%Before kickoff −1 · On the field −48: Scoreboard −42

Points of win probability, from Tulsa's side.

Closest call

UTSA 45-46 TLSA (2024) - Tulsa dropped to a 1.6% win probability before pulling it out.