Tulsa · Week 3 analysis

Where the team stands

Tulsa ranks No. 87 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -3.50 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 107; this update moves it +20 places and +3.40 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 3 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 3–0. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: +4.025. Prior-season margin: -4.225.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: +0.0019; EPA/play net: +0.0980; success-rate net: +0.0181; explosiveness net: +0.1136. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 3 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 East Texas A&M by 42 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of +31.90; the result was +10.10 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 Arkansas on 2026-09-27. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 450 versus 288; Net passing yards: 164 versus 163; Rushing yards: 286 versus 125; First downs: 23 versus 16

Completions–attempts: 14-26 versus 19-39; Rush attempts: 44 versus 32; Yards per pass: 6.3 versus 4.2; Yards per rush: 6.5 versus 3.9

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 0 points and recorded 288 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 3 versus 0; Tackles for loss: 5 versus 2; Third downs: 5-13 versus 4-15; Fourth downs: 3-3 versus 0-3

Turnovers: 1 versus 1; Fumbles lost: 1 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 1; Penalties–yards: 2-25 versus 7-50; Possession time: 29:42 versus 30:18

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 3–0. The expected final record is 7.4–4.6 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. 86 Colorado (-3.26); No. 88 Delaware (-3.68).

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.