Tulsa · Week 5 analysis

Where the team stands

Tulsa ranks No. 102 in the reconstructed EP field, with a rating of -6.47 points against the average FBS opponent.

The previous snapshot ranked it No. 99; this update moves it -3 places and -1.80 rating points.

The rating snapshot includes 5 eligible games, with an eligible-results record of 3–2. The 24-hour kickoff embargo is applied consistently in historical forecast snapshots.

What enters this model

Opponent-adjusted current margin: +1.871. Prior-season margin: -4.225.

Opponent-adjusted first-down rate: -0.0063; EPA/play net: +0.0260; success-rate net: +0.0007; explosiveness net: +0.0104. These are adjusted net signals, not raw offensive rates.

EP inputs cover 5 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 North Texas by 1 points. The pre-result reconstruction projected a margin of -10.47; the result was +9.47 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 Navy on 2026-10-10. That fixture is schedule information; its later outcome is not used in this report.

Offense: production and workload

Total yards: 352 versus 559; Net passing yards: 211 versus 332; Rushing yards: 141 versus 227; First downs: 22 versus 27

Completions–attempts: 25-43 versus 24-39; Rush attempts: 37 versus 45; Yards per pass: 4.9 versus 8.5; Yards per rush: 3.8 versus 5.0

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 45 points and recorded 559 total yards. This describes the conceded production; it does not identify a particular player or coverage as its cause.

Recorded sacks: 1 versus 1; Tackles for loss: 5 versus 5; Third downs: 3-17 versus 8-19; Fourth downs: 5-5 versus 3-4

Turnovers: 0 versus 3; Fumbles lost: 0 versus 1; Interceptions thrown: 0 versus 2; Penalties–yards: 3-35 versus 9-63; Possession time: 25:18 versus 34:42

The season outlook at this snapshot

The recorded regular-season record is 3–2. The expected final record is 6.1–5.9 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. 101 Cincinnati (-6.35); No. 103 Miami (OH) (-6.59).

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.