Tulsa
3–3 · Ours #99Our rank on the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
24–32Our projected score
UTSA
5–1 · Ours #65Our rank on the rankings page. The board's line comes from the betting model, which sees more than this one number.
Win chanceHow often each team wins the game outright when we play it out thousands of times from our line.UTSA 71%
UTSA 71%SpreadThe betting line right now: the middle of the sportsbooks we track, updated through the day.—oursOur computer's point spread for this game, built from team stats, not from the betting odds. Read it like a betting line: −7 means we have that team winning by 7. UTSA −8.9
TotalThe betting line right now: the middle of the sportsbooks we track, updated through the day.—oursOur computer's projected combined score for both teams, built from team stats, not from the betting odds. 56.0
Our call · No priceNeither DraftKings nor FanDuel is offering our side at our number right now, so there is no price to judge.—
Quarterbackslast game's starter · most dropbacks in each team's last game
Baylor HayesSophomore · 4 starts this year
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback: passes, sacks (college play-by-play logs scrambles as runs). The rank is among the 134 FBS passers with 15+ dropbacks per team game.
- 0.00100th
- Comp %
- 60.6
- TD
- 5
- Turnovers
- 11 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 5
Owen McCownSenior · 6 starts this year
- EPA / dropbackExpected points added per dropback: passes, sacks (college play-by-play logs scrambles as runs). The rank is among the 134 FBS passers with 15+ dropbacks per team game.
- +0.0875th
- Comp %
- 68.7
- TD
- 7
- Turnovers
- 22 INT · 0 fum
- Sacked
- 6
The matchupeach offense against the defense it faces · FBS rank in the colored cell
| UTSAoffense | Offense edge · 4 of 5 | defenseTulsa | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54th | +0.12 | Overall efficiencyEfficiencyExpected points added per play. FBS average: +0.09. | +0.04 | 67th |
| 45th | 46.7% | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that keep the offense on schedule. FBS average: 43.6%. | 40.3% | 66th |
| 77th | +0.07 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback. FBS average: +0.10. | +0.08 | 85th |
| 30th | +0.17 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run. FBS average: +0.07. | −0.01 | 58th |
| 103rd | 11.5% | Big playsBig playsShare of plays gaining 20+ yards passing or 10+ rushing. FBS average: 12.9%. | 11.5% | 67th |
| Tulsaoffense | Defense edge · 3 of 5 | defenseUTSA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 70th | +0.09 | Overall efficiencyEfficiencyExpected points added per play. FBS average: +0.09. | +0.11 | 103rd |
| 124th | 37.4% | Success rateSuccessShare of plays that keep the offense on schedule. FBS average: 43.6%. | 41.3% | 74th |
| 107th | −0.03 | PassingPassingExpected points added per dropback. FBS average: +0.10. | +0.11 | 90th |
| 10th | +0.23 | RushingRushingExpected points added per run. FBS average: +0.07. | +0.11 | 106th |
| 119th | 9.9% | Big playsBig playsShare of plays gaining 20+ yards passing or 10+ rushing. FBS average: 12.9%. | 7.9% | 6th |
Team stats
| UTSAUTSA | TulsaTLSA | |
|---|---|---|
| Special teams & field position | ||
| Special teamsSpecial teams expected points added per game. | +2.129th | −0.282nd |
| Field positionAverage starting field position against the opponent's, in yards. | +2.845th | +1.361st |
| Drives & pace | ||
| Scoring chancesShare of drives that reach the opponent's 40. | 51%79th | 44%109th |
| Points per chancePoints scored per drive that reaches the opponent's 40. | 3.7987th | 4.3748th |
| Time of possession | 26:30106th | 26:30107th |
| Plays per game | 6665th | 6664th |
| Turnovers & havoc | ||
| Turnover margin | +3 | +7 |
| Giveaways – takeaways | 6 – 9 | 7 – 14 |
| Havoc rateShare of defensive plays with a sack, tackle for loss, interception or forced fumble. | 6.9%115th | 7.3%110th |
Season so far
Tulsa3–3 · 97th-hardest schedule
W
vs Oklahoma State24–10covered +13
vs Oklahoma State24–10covered +13W
at Sam Houston23–17missed −12.5
at Sam Houston23–17missed −12.5Wvs East Texas A&M42–0covered −41
L
at Arkansas6–34missed +7
at Arkansas6–34missed +7L
vs North Texas44–45covered +2.5
vs North Texas44–45covered +2.5L
at Navy26–34missed +3
at Navy26–34missed +3UTSA5–1 · 82nd-hardest schedule
Wvs UT Rio Grande Valley45–16covered −28.5
W
at Texas State31–26covered +2.5
at Texas State31–26covered +2.5L
at Texas6–30covered +30
at Texas6–30covered +30W
vs Colorado State59–45push −14
vs Colorado State59–45push −14W
at Rice16–14missed −12.5
at Rice16–14missed −12.5W
vs South Florida31–24covered −6
vs South Florida31–24covered −6Model cfb_scratch · uncertainty ±15.5 · run Oct 13, 7:26 AM EDT · freezes at kickoff and grades as-is