Tulsa

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

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+0.0628th
  Defense−0.0294th
• 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.
  Offense40.9%36th
  Defense36.0%94th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2860th
  Defense+1.1095th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense0.0027th
  Defense−0.0991st
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1346th
  Defense+0.0782nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense44.5%26th
  Defense42.4%88th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.0%56th
  Defense23.6%95th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.9457th
  Defense2.7072nd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense19.0%61st
  Defense20.6%60th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.4%34th
  Defense18.5%79th

Percentiles among the 127 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, 2020

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. L
   OKST
2. W
   UCF
3. W
   USF
4. W
   ECU
5. W
   SMU
6. W
   TULN
7. W
   NAVY
8. L
   CIN
9. L
   MSST

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tulsa.

Players, 2020

1. Corey Taylor IIRB101 plays · +0.182 pts/play · 78th of 338 RBs
   0.34WAR0.25 to 0.45
2. Deneric PrinceRB86 plays · +0.206 pts/play · 86th of 338 RBs
   0.33WAR0.25 to 0.40
3. Zach SmithQB288 plays · +0.051 pts/play · 112th of 212 QBs
   0.27WAR−0.27 to 0.82
4. Keylon StokesWR74 plays · +0.193 pts/play · 3rd of 409 WRs
   0.27WAR0.18 to 0.35
5. T.K. WilkersonRB78 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 122nd of 338 RBs
   0.26WAR0.19 to 0.33
6. JuanCarlos SantanaWR54 plays · +0.144 pts/play · 61st of 409 WRs
   0.15WAR0.07 to 0.21
7. Josh JohnsonWR66 plays · +0.087 pts/play · 109th of 409 WRs
   0.11WAR0.00 to 0.21
8. Sam CrawfordWR47 plays · +0.097 pts/play · 161st of 409 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.14

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, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  47047079th of 127Roster talent: 470, 79th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13613698th of 127Recruiting: 136, 98th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  87%87%13th of 127Returning production: 87%, 13th of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.6+5.645th of 127SP+ rating: +5.6, 45th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 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, 2020

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 8 clear-cut ones account for 0.20 of the 0.25 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. vs ECUQ4 0:52 4th & 5 at ECU 32, down 3Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−6.2 pts
2. at OKSTQ3 5:57 4th & 1 at TLSA 29, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.7 pts
3. vs TULNQ4 3:56 4th & 13 at TULN 27, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.8 pts
4. vs TULNQ4 3:16 4th & 16 at TULN 19, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−2.3 pts
5. vs SMUQ4 5:29 4th & 5 at TLSA 38, down 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
6. at UCFQ4 8:19 4th & 5 at UCF 44, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.5 pts
7. vs ECUQ3 4:15 4th & 4 at ECU 4, down 3Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at NAVYQ4 10:58 4th & 3 at NAVY 20, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.0 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

14th of 127 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. L

   OKST
2. W

   UCF
3. W

   USF
4. W

   ECU
5. W

   SMU
6. W

   TULN
7. W

   NAVY
8. L

   CIN
9. L

   MSST

What moved it, 2020

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+1.29
• Possession & field position−0.04
• Clock+0.20
• Timeouts−0.17
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.07

Game by game

• OKSTL 7-16 at OKST7% → 3%Before kickoff −43 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −12, Timeouts −1
• UCFW 34-26 at UCF9% → 94%Before kickoff −41 · On the field +85: Scoreboard +52, Clock +3
• USFW 42-13 at USF80% → 100%Before kickoff +30 · On the field +20: Scoreboard +25
• ECUW 34-30 vs ECU86% → 79%Before kickoff +36 · On the field −7: Scoreboard +13, Possession & field position −2
• SMUW 28-24 vs SMU47% → 96%Before kickoff −3 · On the field +49: Scoreboard +38, Timeouts +2
• TULNW 30-24 vs TULN69% → 80%Before kickoff +19 · On the field +11: Scoreboard +23, Timeouts −18
• NAVYW 19-6 at NAVY82% → 98%Before kickoff +32 · On the field +15: Scoreboard +27, Clock +2
• CINL 24-27 at CIN18% → 6%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −23, Possession & field position +1
• MSSTL 26-28 at MSST46% → 23%Before kickoff −4 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −14, Timeouts −1

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.