Tulsa · No. 88 · Week 7 analysis

Where the team stands

Tulsa ranks No. 88 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -3.47 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 103; this update moves it +15 places and +2.78 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 7 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 4–3. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: +4.290. Prior-season margin: -4.225.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: +0.0008; EPA/play net: +0.0886; success-rate net: +0.0163; explosiveness net: +0.0873. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 6 eligible games. Excluded games contribute no fabricated EP observation. Opponent results can move a rating even during a bye.

The result and the reconstructed expectation

Tulsa beat Rice by 21 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of +1.64; the result was +19.36 points relative to that expectation.

This is a newly reconstructed forecast under the frozen EP model. It is not represented as a prediction published before the game, and it does not replace the original published grade.

Next scheduled test

The next scheduled opponent at this snapshot is Army on 2026-10-24. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 401 versus 351; Net passing yards: 249 versus 62; Rushing yards: 152 versus 289; First downs: 22 versus 19

Completions–attempts: 20-27 versus 4-8; Rush attempts: 36 versus 54; Yards per pass: 9.2 versus 7.8; Yards per rush: 4.2 versus 5.4

Read production alongside workload: more attempts can raise a yardage total without raising efficiency. The model uses opponent-adjusted rate signals, not this box score alone.

Defense and possession

The opponent scored 17 points and recorded 351 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 3 versus 1; Tackles for loss: 4 versus 7; Third downs: 6-11 versus 4-11; Fourth downs: 1-2 versus 1-3

Turnovers: 0 versus 1; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 1; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 6-63 versus 7-75; Possession time: 30:28 versus 29:32

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 4–3. The expected final record is 6.8–5.2 over 12 scheduled games.

Expected wins add recorded results to the estimated win probabilities of remaining games. They are not a list of certain winners. Probabilities use a symmetric approximation from historical development residuals; independent calibration has not been established.

The comparison around the ranking

Nearby in this same snapshot: No. 87 Cincinnati (-3.29); No. 89 Colorado (-3.60).

PSR compares predictive strength rather than sorting teams by wins. A team can win and move down, or lose and move up, as its performance and opponents change the adjusted evidence.

How to read this assessment

This is a fresh assessment under the frozen EP model, using this period's eligible inputs. Earlier published releases remain preserved separately; the reconstructed archive is not presented as a prediction published before those games.

Scoring margin, prior-season margin, first-down efficiency, EPA per play, success rate and explosiveness contribute together. Correlated signals should not be interpreted as independent proof of an advantage, and a model disagreement with a betting line is not proof of profit.