Tulsa · Week 1 analysis

Where the team stands

Tulsa ranks No. 122 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -10.42 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 113; this update moves it -9 places and -0.45 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 1 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 1–0. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: -1.508. Prior-season margin: -4.225.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0332; EPA/play net: -0.0766; success-rate net: -0.0272; explosiveness net: -0.0243. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 1 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 Oklahoma State by 14 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of +8.41; the result was +5.59 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 Sam Houston on 2026-09-12. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 361 versus 368; Net passing yards: 227 versus 241; Rushing yards: 134 versus 127; First downs: 15 versus 27

Completions–attempts: 17-24 versus 29-49; Rush attempts: 33 versus 37; Yards per pass: 9.5 versus 4.9; Yards per rush: 4.1 versus 3.4

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 10 points and recorded 368 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 2 versus 0; Tackles for loss: 3 versus 4; Third downs: 1-11 versus 5-16; Fourth downs: 1-1 versus 2-6

Turnovers: 1 versus 4; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 2; Interceptions thrown: 1 versus 2; Penalties–yards: 9-102 versus 6-59; Possession time: 28:55 versus 31:05

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 1–0. The expected final record is 5.2–6.8 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. 121 California (-9.69); No. 123 Missouri State (-10.70).

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.