Tulsa · Week 4 analysis

Where the team stands

Tulsa ranks No. 99 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -4.67 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 87; this update moves it -12 places and -1.17 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 4 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 3–1. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: +3.059. Prior-season margin: -4.225.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: +0.0002; EPA/play net: +0.0500; success-rate net: +0.0072; explosiveness net: +0.0542. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 4 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 lost to Arkansas by 28 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -2.70; the result was -25.30 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 North Texas on 2026-10-02. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 241 versus 441; Net passing yards: 176 versus 309; Rushing yards: 65 versus 132; First downs: 12 versus 24

Completions–attempts: 20-32 versus 24-36; Rush attempts: 23 versus 43; Yards per pass: 5.5 versus 8.6; Yards per rush: 2.8 versus 3.1

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 34 points and recorded 441 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 3 versus 2; Tackles for loss: 7 versus 2; Third downs: 5-14 versus 8-17; Fourth downs: 1-2 versus 0-0

Turnovers: 2 versus 1; Fumbles lost: 2 versus 0; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 1; Penalties–yards: 9-63 versus 2-30; Possession time: 22:29 versus 37:31

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 3–1. The expected final record is 6.7–5.3 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. 98 Old Dominion (-4.59); No. 100 Tulane (-4.90).

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.