Tulsa

Profile vs. FBS, 2024

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.
  Offense0.0011th
  Defense+0.284th
• 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.
  Offense34.1%2nd
  Defense42.2%43rd
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.3483rd
  Defense+1.581st
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.058th
  Defense+0.0945th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0620th
  Defense+0.472nd
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense40.4%2nd
  Defense46.7%56th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense22.0%2nd
  Defense32.7%26th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8829th
  Defense2.8270th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense17.8%43rd
  Defense21.1%83rd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.8%26th
  Defense15.1%36th

Percentiles among the 134 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, 2024

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
   NWST
2. L
   ARST
3. L
   OKST
4. W
   LT
5. L
   UNT
6. L
   ARMY
7. L
   TEM
8. W
   UTSA
9. L
   UAB
10. L
    ECU
11. L
    USF
12. L
    FAU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tulsa.

Players, 2024

1. Kirk FrancisQB186 plays · +0.162 pts/play · 123rd of 232 QBs
   0.57WAR0.25 to 0.90
2. Cooper LegasQB144 plays · +0.156 pts/play · 140th of 232 QBs
   0.42WAR0.12 to 0.72
3. Kamdyn BenjaminWR58 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 34th of 452 WRs
   0.22WAR0.05 to 0.37
4. Anthony WatkinsRB70 plays · +0.116 pts/play · 193rd of 373 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.21
5. Bill JacksonRB70 plays · +0.092 pts/play · 220th of 373 RBs
   0.12WAR0.07 to 0.17
6. Lloyd AvantRB55 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 236th of 373 RBs
   0.11WAR0.08 to 0.14
7. Angus DaviesP53 plays · +0.068 pts/play · 47th of 106 punters
   0.07WAR−0.04 to 0.18
8. Luke McGaryTE14 plays · +0.160 pts/play · 80th of 221 TEs
   0.04WAR0.01 to 0.07

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, 2024

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  55755793rd of 131Roster talent: 557, 93rd of 131 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  129129104th of 131Recruiting: 129, 104th of 131 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  71%71%22nd of 130Returning production: 71%, 22nd of 130 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −20.6−20.6125th of 131SP+ rating: −20.6, 125th of 131 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 131 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, 2024

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 7 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.16 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 LTQ4 5:04 4th & 3 at TLSA 38, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
2. at ARSTQ4 4:45 4th & 8 at TLSA 36, down 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.7 pts
3. at TEMQ2 2:16 4th & 1 at TLSA 21, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
4. at TEMQ2 2:16 4th & 1 at TLSA 21, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
5. at TEMQ3 2:40 4th & 2 at TEM 27, down 10Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.6 pts
6. at UNTQ2 5:33 4th & 3 at UNT 44, up 3Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
7. at ARSTQ2 0:51 4th & 1 at ARST 45, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
8. at TEMQ2 9:55 4th & 2 at TLSA 49, down 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.9 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2024

115th of 134 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

   NWST
2. L

   ARST
3. L

   OKST
4. W

   LT
5. L

   UNT
6. L

   ARMY
7. L

   TEM
8. W

   UTSA
9. L

   UAB
10. L

    ECU
11. L

    USF
12. L

    FAU

What moved it, 2024

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−1.46
• Possession & field position+0.03
• Clock−0.14
• Timeouts+0.15
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.55

Game by game

• NWSTW 62-28 vs NWST98% → 100%Before kickoff +48 · On the field +2: Scoreboard +3
• ARSTL 24-28 at ARST30% → 4%Before kickoff −20 · On the field −26: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• OKSTL 10-45 vs OKST13% → 0%Before kickoff −37 · On the field −13: Scoreboard −18, Clock −1
• LTW 23-20 at LT51% → 88%Before kickoff +1 · On the field +37: Scoreboard +41, Timeouts +19
• UNTL 20-52 at UNT38% → 0%Before kickoff −12 · On the field −38: Scoreboard −39, Clock +1
• ARMYL 7-49 vs ARMY24% → 0%Before kickoff −26 · On the field −23: Scoreboard −29
• TEML 10-20 at TEM50% → 3%Before kickoff 0 · On the field −47: Scoreboard −37, Timeouts −3
• UTSAW 46-45 vs UTSA32% → 95%Before kickoff −18 · On the field +62: Scoreboard +37, Timeouts +2
• UABL 21-59 at UAB45% → 0%Before kickoff −5 · On the field −45: Scoreboard −43
• ECUL 31-38 vs ECU18% → 96%Before kickoff −32 · On the field +78: Scoreboard +41, Possession & field position +2
• USFL 30-63 at USF14% → 0%Before kickoff −36 · On the field −14: Scoreboard −16, Timeouts −1
• FAUL 16-63 vs FAU59% → 0%Before kickoff +9 · On the field −59: Scoreboard −58, Possession & field position −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.