Tulsa

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+0.0218th
  Defense+0.0950th
• 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.
  Offense40.4%29th
  Defense42.5%41st
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2560th
  Defense+1.1970th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense−0.0313th
  Defense+0.0169th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.0411th
  Defense+0.2234th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense46.2%36th
  Defense47.0%47th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense28.2%35th
  Defense31.5%33rd
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8742nd
  Defense2.9244th
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense23.3%8th
  Defense18.2%44th
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense17.0%24th
  Defense12.7%10th

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 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
   ACU
2. L
   NMSU
3. L
   NAVY
4. W
   OKST
5. L
   TULN
6. L
   MEM
7. L
   ECU
8. L
   TEM
9. L
   FAU
10. W
    ORST
11. W
    ARMY
12. L
    UAB

Bars above the line: better than expected for Tulsa.

Players, 2025

1. Baylor HayesQB351 plays · +0.100 pts/play · 114th of 231 QBs
   0.65WAR−0.09 to 1.36
2. Dominic RichardsonRB194 plays · +0.075 pts/play · 57th of 365 RBs
   0.27WAR0.18 to 0.38
3. Brody FoleyTE45 plays · +0.242 pts/play · 4th of 213 TEs
   0.20WAR0.10 to 0.31
4. Ajay AllenRB75 plays · +0.104 pts/play · 175th of 365 RBs
   0.15WAR0.11 to 0.18
5. Zion BookerWR43 plays · +0.106 pts/play · 212th of 451 WRs
   0.09WAR0.02 to 0.14
6. Seth MorganPK17 plays · +0.259 pts/play · 59th of 112 kickers
   0.08WAR0.04 to 0.13
7. Kirk FrancisQB44 plays · +0.096 pts/play · 200th of 231 QBs
   0.08WAR−0.01 to 0.16
8. Zion SteptoeWR40 plays · +0.048 pts/play · 348th of 451 WRs
   0.04WAR−0.02 to 0.09

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, 2025

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  59559585th of 134Roster talent: 595, 85th of 134 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  13913997th of 134Recruiting: 139, 97th of 134 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  24%24%87th of 132Returning production: 24%, 87th of 132 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  −10.0−10.0102nd of 134SP+ rating: −10.0, 102nd 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 Tulsa's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.09 of the 0.15 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 3:19 4th & 3 at OKST 47, up 4Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.8 pts
2. at OKSTQ3 2:26 4th & 1 at TLSA 15, up 16Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
3. at ARMYQ4 4:17 4th & 2 at ARMY 30, down 11Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
4. vs ACUQ2 12:06 4th & 1 at TLSA 10, up 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.4 pts
5. at ECUQ4 8:35 4th & 15 at ECU 49, down 10Went for it; the numbers favored punting−1.2 pts
6. vs ACUQ2 1:04 4th & 12 at ACU 38, up 10Punted; the numbers favored a field goal (close call)−0.8 pts
7. vs UABQ3 5:38 4th & 3 at TLSA 38, tiedPunted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.8 pts
8. at ECUQ3 11:42 4th & 2 at TLSA 46, down 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2025

83rd of 136 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

   ACU
2. L

   NMSU
3. L

   NAVY
4. W

   OKST
5. L

   TULN
6. L

   MEM
7. L

   ECU
8. L

   TEM
9. L

   FAU
10. W

    ORST
11. W

    ARMY
12. L

    UAB

What moved it, 2025

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−0.94
• Possession & field position+0.01
• Clock+0.15
• Timeouts+0.11
• Other+0.01
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff+0.47

Game by game

• ACUW 35-7 vs ACU67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +34
• NMSUL 14-21 at NMSU60% → 11%Before kickoff +10 · On the field −49: Scoreboard −30, Timeouts −1
• NAVYL 23-42 vs NAVY17% → 1%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −16: Scoreboard −25, Clock −1
• OKSTW 19-12 at OKST26% → 96%Before kickoff −24 · On the field +70: Timeouts +29, Scoreboard +25
• TULNL 14-31 vs TULN19% → 2%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −29, Clock −1
• MEML 7-45 at MEM9% → 0%Before kickoff −41 · On the field −9: Scoreboard −12
• ECUL 27-41 at ECU12% → 1%Before kickoff −38 · On the field −12: Scoreboard −17
• TEML 37-38 vs TEM39% → 22%Before kickoff −11 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −29, Timeouts −19
• FAUL 21-40 at FAU37% → 1%Before kickoff −13 · On the field −36: Scoreboard −37
• ORSTW 31-14 vs ORST49% → 99%Before kickoff −1 · On the field +50: Scoreboard +42, Timeouts +2
• ARMYW 26-25 at ARMY29% → 83%Before kickoff −21 · On the field +54: Scoreboard +40, Clock +4
• UABL 24-31 vs UAB74% → 4%Before kickoff +24 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −57, Clock −4

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.