Tulsa

Profile vs. FBS, 2021

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+0.1129th
  Defense+0.1264th
• 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.
  Offense44.5%60th
  Defense40.0%71st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.1610th
  Defense+1.3133rd
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0936th
  Defense+0.0860th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1629th
  Defense+0.1865th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense49.0%53rd
  Defense44.2%84th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense33.3%71st
  Defense31.8%42nd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense3.0647th
  Defense2.8074th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense16.4%52nd
  Defense21.1%85th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.4%29th
  Defense16.6%50th

Percentiles among the 130 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, 2021

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
   UCD
2. L
   OKST
3. L
   OSU
4. W
   ARST
5. L
   HOU
6. W
   MEM
7. W
   USF
8. L
   NAVY
9. L
   CIN
10. W
    TULN
11. W
    TEM
12. W
    SMU
13. W
    ODU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tulsa.

Players, 2021

1. Davis BrinQB395 plays · +0.249 pts/play · 42nd of 219 QBs
   1.84WAR1.12 to 2.55
2. Shamari BrooksRB181 plays · +0.176 pts/play · 43rd of 387 RBs
   0.60WAR0.46 to 0.75
3. Josh JohnsonWR83 plays · +0.170 pts/play · 27th of 474 WRs
   0.26WAR0.15 to 0.37
4. Anthony WatkinsRB65 plays · +0.200 pts/play · 190th of 387 RBs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.32
5. Deneric PrinceRB77 plays · +0.168 pts/play · 190th of 387 RBs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.33
6. JuanCarlos SantanaWR61 plays · +0.173 pts/play · 68th of 474 WRs
   0.20WAR0.12 to 0.27
7. Ezra Naylor IIWR33 plays · +0.172 pts/play · 215th of 474 WRs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.13
8. Lachlan WilsonP46 plays · +0.117 pts/play · 60th of 101 punters
   0.10WAR−0.01 to 0.20

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, 2021

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  47047084th of 130Roster talent: 470, 84th of 130 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  127127117th of 130Recruiting: 127, 117th of 130 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  74%74%66th of 128Returning production: 74%, 66th of 128 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +5.8+5.861st of 130SP+ rating: +5.8, 61st of 130 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 130 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, 2021

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 10 clear-cut ones account for 0.22 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. at OKSTQ4 10:56 4th & 2 at OKST 2, tiedKicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−5.2 pts
2. at TULNQ3 5:44 4th & 1 at TULN 47, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.1 pts
3. at OKSTQ3 12:37 4th & 1 at TLSA 19, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it−2.3 pts
4. at USFQ3 12:47 4th & 1 at TLSA 28, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.9 pts
5. vs ODUQ4 13:40 4th & 16 at ODU 47, up 13Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.9 pts
6. at SMUQ4 4:06 4th & 2 at SMU 9, up 7Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
7. vs MEMQ4 14:11 4th & 2 at TLSA 39, up 8Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
8. vs MEMQ3 7:43 4th & 3 at midfield, up 1Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2021

57th of 130 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

   UCD
2. L

   OKST
3. L

   OSU
4. W

   ARST
5. L

   HOU
6. W

   MEM
7. W

   USF
8. L

   NAVY
9. L

   CIN
10. W

    TULN
11. W

    TEM
12. W

    SMU
13. W

    ODU

What moved it, 2021

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+0.37
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.16
• Timeouts+0.21
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.55

Game by game

• UCDL 17-19 vs UCD92% → 11%Before kickoff +42 · On the field −81: Scoreboard −43, Clock −3
• OKSTL 23-28 at OKST18% → 8%Before kickoff −32 · On the field −10: Scoreboard −19, Timeouts −3
• OSUL 20-41 at OSU5% → 1%Before kickoff −45 · On the field −4: Scoreboard −9
• ARSTW 41-34 vs ARST83% → 96%Before kickoff +33 · On the field +13: Scoreboard +21, Clock +1
• HOUL 10-45 vs HOU57% → 0%Before kickoff +7 · On the field −57: Scoreboard −58, Clock −1
• MEMW 35-29 vs MEM58% → 96%Before kickoff +8 · On the field +39: Scoreboard +34, Timeouts +3
• USFW 32-31 at USF62% → 96%Before kickoff +12 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +42, Clock +2
• NAVYL 17-20 vs NAVY79% → 7%Before kickoff +29 · On the field −72: Scoreboard −54, Clock −3
• CINL 20-28 at CIN6% → 3%Before kickoff −44 · On the field −3: Scoreboard −12
• TULNW 20-13 at TULN53% → 82%Before kickoff +3 · On the field +29: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +19
• TEMW 44-10 vs TEM92% → 100%Before kickoff +42 · On the field +8: Scoreboard +11
• SMUW 34-31 at SMU31% → 93%Before kickoff −19 · On the field +63: Scoreboard +53, Clock +3
• ODUW 30-17 vs ODU68% → 99%Before kickoff +18 · On the field +31: Scoreboard +32, 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.