Tulsa · Week 2 analysis

Where the team stands

Tulsa ranks No. 107 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -6.90 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 122; this update moves it +15 places and +3.52 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 2 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 2–0. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: +1.858. Prior-season margin: -4.225.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0121; EPA/play net: +0.0599; success-rate net: -0.0035; explosiveness net: +0.1196. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 2 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 Sam Houston by 6 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -1.24; the result was +7.24 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 East Texas A&M on 2026-09-20. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 367 versus 371; Net passing yards: 126 versus 316; Rushing yards: 241 versus 55; First downs: 18 versus 19

Completions–attempts: 16-33 versus 24-35; Rush attempts: 40 versus 31; Yards per pass: 3.8 versus 9.0; Yards per rush: 6.0 versus 1.8

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 371 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 5 versus 4; Tackles for loss: 7 versus 7; Third downs: 4-17 versus 5-13; Fourth downs: 4-6 versus 0-2

Turnovers: 0 versus 1; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 1; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 0; Penalties–yards: 4-25 versus 7-76; Possession time: 30:18 versus 29:42

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 2–0. The expected final record is 6.6–5.4 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. 106 Southern Miss (-6.85); No. 108 West Virginia (-7.08).

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.