Tulsa
University of Tulsa · 2023 · American Athletic
Tulsa went 4-8 and was ranked 113th in the FanBoardHQ CFP Rankings (blended resume and efficiency). Their 107th-ranked offense was the engine, backed by a 108th-ranked defense. They ran the ball on 56% of offensive plays with a 124th-ranked rushing attack and passed the ball on the remaining 44% of plays with a 61st-ranked passing attack.
Quadrant record
By opponent strength, adjusted for where the game was played.
Projected wins
Per-game win probabilities combined across the full schedule.
The resume
Every game on the schedule. Click a row for the game breakdown (played) or the matchup projection (upcoming).
| Wk | Opponent | Conf | Opp rank | Result | Exp. margin | Win prob | GameScore | Quad |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | vs Arkansas-Pine Bluff | SWAC | — | W 42–7 | +39.5 | 100% | -23.5 | Q4 |
| 2 | @ Washington | Pac-12 | #1 | L 10–43 | -39.9 | 0% | -11.2 | Q1 |
| 3 | vs Oklahoma | Big 12 | #11 | L 17–66 | -32.8 | 0% | -22.0 | Q1 |
| 4 | @ Northern Illinois | Mid-American | #84 | W 22–14 | -10.6 | 100% | 1.9 | Q4 |
| 5 | vs Temple | American Athletic | #129 | W 48–26 | +8.5 | 100% | 0.8 | Q4 |
| 6 | @ Florida Atlantic | American Athletic | #111 | L 17–20 | -8.5 | 0% | -9.9 | Q4 |
| 8 | vs Rice | American Athletic | #88 | L 10–42 | -5.9 | 0% | -36.1 | Q4 |
| 9 | @ SMU | American Athletic | #31 | L 10–69 | -28.3 | 0% | -42.9 | Q1 |
| 10 | vs Charlotte | American Athletic | #125 | L 26–33 | +5.7 | 0% | -20.5 | Q4 |
| 11 | @ Tulane | American Athletic | #37 | L 22–24 | -20.3 | 0% | 4.9 | Q2 |
| 12 | vs North Texas | American Athletic | #99 | L 28–35 | -1.8 | 0% | -20.0 | Q4 |
| 13 | @ East Carolina | American Athletic | #128 | W 29–27 | -6.8 | 100% | -7.4 | Q4 |
12 played · 4-8. Expected margin and gamescore use the latest ratings — a completed game shows what the model would say now, not that week.
The season
The model’s read on Tulsa, recomputed after every week. Toggle between overall, offensive, and defensive efficiency (each with a dot for that week’s game) or the FanBoardHQ CFP rank.
Passing & rushing
Opponent-adjusted, FBS-only. The bar is the blended Eff rank — EPA/play (scoring value), success rate (staying on schedule), and yards/play (explosiveness), each standardized against the FBS field. The three ranks below each bar are those components, so you can see what's driving it.
Their offense vs. what their defense allows.
Scored vs. allowed, all regular-season games.
What kind of team is this?
Every team by offensive and defensive efficiency (points/game vs. an average team, higher is better on both). Click a dot for that team.
Field position 121st · Finishing 101st
Field position 122nd · Finishing 104th
1.82 points per drive on offense, 2.53 allowed — starting, on average, at their own 29.
Play-calling & efficiency
What the offense did, by quarter and by down — raw, not opponent-adjusted.
| Quarter (att.) | Pass / rush | Success | Yd/play |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1(231) | 42% / 58% | 43% | 5.3 |
| Q2(220) | 44% / 56% | 43% | 6.1 |
| Q3(186) | 40% / 60% | 35% | 5.4 |
| Q4(204) | 41% / 59% | 46% | 5.8 |
| Down (att.) | Avg. to go | Success | Yd/play |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st(106) | 10.1 | 47% | 7.9 |
| 2nd(110) | 8.3 | 37% | 5.3 |
| 3rd(125) | 7.7 | 45% | 7.1 |
| 4th(11) | 5.5 | 36% | 3.5 |
| All (352) | — | 43% | 6.7 |
| Down (att.) | Avg. to go | Success | Yd/play |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1st(250) | 9.9 | 38% | 4.9 |
| 2nd(172) | 7.2 | 40% | 4.9 |
| 3rd(63) | 4.9 | 54% | 5.0 |
| 4th(4) | 2.3 | 75% | 6.8 |
| All (489) | — | 41% | 4.9 |
Tulsa, all games.