3identity shift
Tulsa: the fanbase's identity shifting.
Tre Lamb inherits a 4-8 losing record at Tulsa, a program defined by its historic Oklahoma-G5 identity but now navigating a fanbase in transition.
Tulsa4-8The Tulsa faithful are all the way in.
belief cooled ↓ 2.8vs prior week
Fanbase belief
Bullish
68/100 · 20 mentions · top 4% of FBS
~ our readGrounding
about average
8% cite a stat · 7% typical ✓ counted
~ our readVolatility
Chaotic
σ 36 pts
Credible bullish
~ our readThe model
#102
CFB Zeitgeist · -3.6
✓ measured3Hope-Doping·Offseason
Tulsa is the tiny Oklahoma private school that out-scored everybody for a decade — and is trying, under a first-year coach, to remember how the offense used to feel like a track meet.
Standard GapAn early-2010s run of double-digit-win seasons and conference titles vs…
Tulsa fans are tired of being the program everyone forgets is in the FBS — the 4,000-student private school nobody schedules out of respect. They'll remind you it has more bowl history than schools fi…
offseason · quiet
Roster Reload - Tulsa
2026 snapshot - 2026-08-06Returning Production99%High continuity
Talent Composite#85 nationally247 composite 594.8
Portal Additions21Primary repair: RB
Portal Losses22Primary pressure: WR
Draft Loss0No NFL Draft departures recorded
Recruiting Reload#93Depth class
WRin 4 - David Wells Jr.out 6 - Zion BookerStarter Risk
current room: 189 lbs avg (2025 roster)
RBin 4 - Trequan Jonesout 1 - Ajay AllenNeed Filled
current room: 199 lbs avg (2025 roster)
Sin 2 - Rylan Leathersout 2 - Buddha GarrettDowngrade
current room: 192 lbs avg (2025 roster)
DLin 2 - Jayden Madkinsout 2 - Joe HjelleEven
current room: 259 lbs avg (2025 roster)
EDGEin 2 - Kyran Duhonout 2 - J'Dan BurnettEven
LBin 1 - Devin Hightowerout 2 - Ray ConeyDowngrade
current room: 226 lbs avg (2025 roster)
Belief EKG
WinLoss · hover for scorePrior seasons
Approaching
30 days
until kickoff · vs Oklahoma State · Sat Sep 5 · 19:45 UTC
The experience
Tulsa is the Oklahoma private university whose Todd Graham 2010 11-3 + 2012 Liberty Bowl + Skelly Field at H.A. Chapman Stadium define what historic-Oklahoma-G5-football looks like outside Norman + Stillwater.
Offense: SoftDefense: SolidDefensive shape: Bend-don't-break
Tulsa's 2026 Season Projected to Reach 10-3 with Bowl Game Appearance
Tulsa enters the 2026 season with a high continuity roster and a balanced portal churn, positioning the team for a strong performance. The program's recruiting rank of #93 and transfer additions provide a solid foundation for improvement.
- Roster reloadTulsa has a returning total pct of 99% and a high continuity profile, indicating minimal disruption to the existing roster.
Data as of 2026-08-04
·
Validated against program evidence
Captain Cane is patient.
Tulsa · the story right now
7 storylines developing
What Tulsa's coordinator hires is really about
the open questiondo the new coordinators fit the roster?
coordinatorsthis cycle~readnew
Tulsa, the Oklahoma private university with Todd Graham's 2010 11-3 season, now sits at 4-8, highlighting a gap between its historic G5 identity and current struggles.
what happenedTulsa: coordinator change reshaping a unit. ✓ fact
narrative tension · our read
identitythis cycle~readnew
Tre Lamb inherits a 4-8 losing record at Tulsa, a program defined by its historic Oklahoma-G5 identity but now navigating a fanbase in transition.
what happenedTulsa: the fanbase's identity shifting. ✓ fact
narrative tension · our read
program_outlookthis cycle~readnew
Tulsa jumped 24 spots in SP+ — the gap between the ranking and 4-8 record is the story Tre Lamb has to answer in American Athletic this year.
what happenedTulsa enters 2026 rated No. 104 in 2025 SP+ (-10.0), up 24 spots from 2024. ✓ fact
the contexttop-quintile returning production in FBS — 1% of production comes back
narrative tension · our read
coordinatorsthis cycle✓ factnew
Tulsa: coordinator change reshaping a unit.
narrative tension · our read
closerthis cycle~attributednew
Dominic Richardson gets LESS work in the fourth quarter with a lead than his overall workload would predict -- not the trusted closer raw carries might suggest.
narrative tension · our read
garbage timethis cycle~attributednew
Zion Booker: a garbage time merchant signal screened this season.
narrative tension · our read
coachingthis cycle~readnew
Tre Lamb inherits Tulsa's third head coach in five seasons and a 4-8 roster with 92% QB production returning — historic-Oklahoma-G5-football outside Norman + Stillwater demands stability.
what happenedTre Lamb took over as Tulsa's head coach, replacing Kevin Wilson. ✓ fact
the contextthe program's third head coach in five seasons
narrative tension · our read
How past storylines here turned out
AnsweredTulsa's head-coaching hire held for another season.
ReplacedTulsa's offensive coordinator spot turned over again the following season. See who's next →
The story
The Offseason Ledger · Tulsa
2 verified updates · portal · recruiting · staff · news- Recruiting
Tulsa loses 2027 commit
A 2027 decommit this early stings differently when your class is already sitting 92nd — Lamb's WR room can't afford to lose ground it hasn't fully built yet.
- Recruiting
Romel Koon commits to Tulsa
A DB commit in a rebuild year matters — but the WR room is still where Lamb's 109th-ranked class has the most obvious pressure to add.
Transfer portal snapshot
-2.8 net portal points
(raw ledger: -10.4 — unweighted, no position adjustment)RB+7.4
need not filled
WR-6.9
starter risk
S-4.9
OT-3.5
low confidence
LB-3.4
K+3.3
low confidence
DL-2.7
IOL+2.5
LS-2.0
low confidence
TE-0.8
EDGE+0.4
CB+0.0
P+0.0
QB+0.0
Top 3 commits
2026 class
★★★☆☆
Jamarcea Plater
#554 national
Profiles like a typical incoming running back — 17 of his 25 closest recruiting profiles since 2018 shared the Balanced Back archetype.~our read · projection from recruiting profile — no college snaps yet
★★★☆☆
Xavier Green
#1211 national
Profiles like a typical incoming wide receiver — 20 of his 25 closest recruiting profiles since 2018 shared the Possession Receiver archetype.~our read · projection from recruiting profile — no college snaps yet
★★★☆☆
Alan Pond
#36 national
↑
Among the stronger offseasons on record for this program
96th percentile among FBS programs
Fan vs. market↑
96th
Fan percentile
(FBS mood rank)
(FBS mood rank)
5.5
Vegas O/U wins
(26th among FBS)
(26th among FBS)
Fans 70pp more bullish than market implies
Win total consensus · 3 books
Market outlook
Season expectations
Win total3 booksO/U 5.5
CFP championship#112 in field+125000
AAC title#11 in market+1600
Sportsbook consensus · best odds across multiple books · 2026-08-06
Tulsa · Next-Season Outcome Band
Tulsa · Next-Season Outcome BandFloor / Base / Ceiling
Floor 5-7
Base 8-5
Ceiling 10-3
floor5-7No postseason.
base8-5Bowl game.
ceiling10-3Bowl game.
Final-season-aware projection: floor / base / ceiling include conference title and CFP games where the model supports them, so a ceiling can exceed a 12-game regular season.
How the room reacted
Following now · Tulsa · Developing Confidence
Tulsa: coordinator change reshaping a unit.
Tulsa: coordinator change reshaping a unit.
near-unanimous belief
where the takes land · dot = how loud
DOUBTBELIEF
Believers3 bull takes
CFB Zeitgeist Read · our take
Tulsa, the Oklahoma private university with Todd Graham's 2010 11-3 season, now sits at 4-8, highlighting a gap between its historic G5 identity and current struggles.
Source of record: Tulsa: coordinator change reshaping a unit.
How each room is reacting — tap to expand
📣Believers3 bullish items -- the case it's working.›
The optimistic read: momentum, and the 'this is real' takes.
“Meet the 10 best Tulsa-area LBs, then vote | 2026 All-World Preseason Football contest”
Tulsa World · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
“Meet the 10 best Tulsa-area WRs/Tight ends, then vote | 2026 All-World Preseason Football contest”
Tulsa World · 2026-08-02 · read ↗
“OU football: SEC coaches find little wrong with addition of Sooners and Longhorns”
Tulsa World · 2026-07-31 · read ↗
🧐SkepticsNo prominent dissent — the coverage runs one way.›
The analytical counter: rankings, results, and 'the hype is ahead of the tape' takes.
Nothing in our corpus yet — this door stays open for when there is.
Following now · Tulsa · Developing Confidence
Tulsa: the fanbase's identity shifting.
Tulsa: the fanbase's identity shifting.
near-unanimous belief
where the takes land · dot = how loud
DOUBTBELIEF
Believers3 bull takes
CFB Zeitgeist Read · our take
Tre Lamb inherits a 4-8 losing record at Tulsa, a program defined by its historic Oklahoma-G5 identity but now navigating a fanbase in transition.
Source of record: Tulsa: the fanbase's identity shifting.
How each room is reacting — tap to expand
📣Believers3 bullish items -- the case it's working.›
The optimistic read: momentum, and the 'this is real' takes.
“Meet the 10 best Tulsa-area LBs, then vote | 2026 All-World Preseason Football contest”
Tulsa World · 2026-08-05 · read ↗
“Meet the 10 best Tulsa-area WRs/Tight ends, then vote | 2026 All-World Preseason Football contest”
Tulsa World · 2026-08-02 · read ↗
“OU football: SEC coaches find little wrong with addition of Sooners and Longhorns”
Tulsa World · 2026-07-31 · read ↗
🧐SkepticsNo prominent dissent — the coverage runs one way.›
The analytical counter: rankings, results, and 'the hype is ahead of the tape' takes.
Nothing in our corpus yet — this door stays open for when there is.
Recent Form · last 10 games
Cooling
Two of five. Schedule has caught up.
Streak L1Last 5 · 2-3Last 10 · 3-7
The forecast
Opens Sep 5
vs Oklahoma State · at home
Season line5.5 winsover -105
SoftSolidBend-don't-break
✓ fact on line · ~ our read on style
Recruiting Footprint · 2026
Recruiting Footprint · 2026
20
OK · 6TX · 5FL · 2GA · 2AR · 1IA · 1KS · 1LA · 1+1 more
OK leads the 2026 class with 6 commits. National footprint reaching 9 states.
Where they recruit · 2023-2026
88 signees across 13 states, 2023-2026. TX leads the pull.
r/cfb this year
[Postgame Thread] ECU Defeats Tulsa 41-27
[Postgame Thread] Memphis Defeats Tulsa 45-7
[Postgame Thread] Tulsa Defeats Army 26-25
Top community posts · last 12 months · r/cfb
National spotlight
6 games with TV coverage: 2 ESPN, 1 cable, 3 streaming
Kickoff windows: 2 noon, 1 afternoon, 3 primetime
Fumble luck
31% recovery rate on the fumbles they've forced — below the ~49% league baseline.
4 of 13 forced fumbles recovered; 12 of 21 own fumbles recovered themselves, 2025 only.
Takeaway conversion
19% of tipped/broken-up passes have turned into picks — about the ~19% league average.
7 interceptions of 36 disrupted passes (29 deflected, 7 intercepted), 2025 only.
Penalty battle
61 penalties committed, 65 drawn on opponents — netting a 185-yard field-position edge.
458 penalty yards committed vs. 643 drawn on opponents, 2025 season total.
The Pulse on Tulsa
68
Δ -2.8 vs last wk
20
mentions this week · conversation velocity
What moved it — fall camp · last 14 days
Camp
Fall camp open — install + scrimmage cycle
ongoing
Kickoff
Season opener in 16 days
kickoff
"Hurricane"
— Tulsa fanbase · recurring line
Fanbase Signals
Cohort Divergence0 pctSpread between sub-fanbase cohorts in the Pulse window.
The Fever Year
Position = mood · width = volume · color = the kind of feeling
Cr/CFB
GGoogle News
UUnderdog Dynasty
CCampus paper
BBluesky
YYouTube
What little we hear
Only 2 cohort(s) cleared the signal floor this week, so we won’t stage a split we can’t back. Here’s the honest read:
National take+0.32
Millennials+0.32
How Tulsa fans actually talk real · top-upvoted
The crowd’s loudest take by upvotes — read for mood, not as a side. The cohort read is the measured part.
81 mentions · 6 sources · week 2026-01. Counts, sources and the divergence rank are measured (fact). Cohort labels and sentiment are a source-weighted model read (our read) — never a quote attributed to a person.
Belief checkmiddle of the pack
~ our readTulsa fans are cautiously optimistic, and they're backing it with about as much hard evidence as anyone.
backed by facts
the mood
✓ counted We read 75 posts from Tulsa fans this week.
Season storylines
Week 4
“I am sweaty, hoarse, and exhausted. We need to figure out our offense. Defense did their very best to keep us in the game but man.”— r/CFB
Week 8
“Honestly as much as I would have enjoyed seeing Dickert lose I also fucking hate SMU so I'm fine with Wake pulling off a stupid win there.”— r/CFB
Week 1
“I am very happy with how we played today. ACU is a solid FCS team and we did not underestimate them. Defense played great, offense found a rhythm. Only one special teams oopsie. Just gotta work on some penalties that I'm mostly chalking up to first game jitters.”— r/CFB
Week 12
“Come back win on the road! This was huge for this team. First conference win since last year, won 2 in a row, and we (possibly, honestly I'm shocked they're playing today) get UAB next week for senior day. Ending the season with 3 wins in a row will be huge for the young guys …”— r/CFB
Week 5
“Why do you not give your star QB at least a shot at winning it with one play before the kick?”— r/CFB
Five Lenses
What people are saying right now
Radio, beat writers & editorial15 posts
News & campus coverage12 posts
Fanbase Health Index · Tulsa · high confidence
Fanbase Health Index · Tulsa · high confidenceGrowing (54)
DecliningStableGrowingSurging
On-Field — 4-8 (33% win rate)50
Volume — 212 effective signal-N77
Cohort Engagement — Divergence 0.00 — quiet35
The Lexicon
214 posts and articles vs the field · 2022 season
brin
×992.8 the field
Signature — ≥10× the rest of college football
brin×992.8n=13
Characteristic — 3–10×
special×6.3n=20
touchdown×4.1n=19
sack×6.2n=11
fumble×4.7n=14
seems×4.8n=10
give×4.0n=11
Mild — <3×
pass×2.9n=12
sure×2.9n=10
defense×1.6n=47
“Holy shit brin looked down and moved the defense”
reddit/CFB · fan post, verbatim
Fanbase Voice
672 fan mentions
Believers
vs the 81 highest-volume fanbases - 2025 season
Key stats — 2025 — FBS rank
Points/game#95 / 138 · 32nd pct23.2
Pts allowed/game#91 / 138 · 35th pct28.9
Total yards/gm#74 / 136 · 46th pct398.5
Rush yards/gm#62 / 136 · 55th pct176.0
Pass yards/gm#81 / 136 · 41st pct222.5
Yards allowed/gm#77 / 136 · 44th pct396.8
Rush yds allowed/gm#102 / 136 · 26th pct182.5
Sacks#85 / 136 · 38th pct23
Interceptions#94 / 136 · 32nd pct7
3rd-down conv#88 / 136 · 36th pct37.9%
All 98 stats
Offense / Defense
Total yards
Team4782398.5/gm5.35/play#74 / 136 · 46th pct#42 / 70 · 41st pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp4761396.8/gm5.57/play#77 / 136 · 44th pct#50 / 70 · 30th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Rush yards
Team2112176.0/gm2.36/play#62 / 136 · 55th pct#31 / 70 · 57th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp2190182.5/gm2.56/play#102 / 136 · 26th pct#59 / 70 · 17th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Rush carries
Team48540.4/gm#47 / 136 · 66th pct#20 / 70 · 73rd pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp50942.4/gm#126 / 136 · 8th pct#67 / 70 · 6th pct#13 / 14 · 14th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Rush TDs
Team181.5/gm#79 / 136 · 43rd pct#46 / 70 · 36th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Opp221.8/gm#88 / 136 · 36th pct#55 / 70 · 23rd pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Net pass yards
Team2670222.5/gm2.99/play#81 / 136 · 41st pct#47 / 70 · 34th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp2571214.2/gm3.01/play#41 / 136 · 71st pct#22 / 70 · 70th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Pass attempts
Team40934.1/gm#55 / 136 · 60th pct#27 / 70 · 63rd pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp34628.8/gm#27 / 136 · 81st pct#14 / 70 · 81st pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Completions
Team24120.1/gm#72 / 136 · 48th pct#40 / 70 · 44th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp22018.3/gm#39 / 136 · 72nd pct#17 / 70 · 77th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Pass TDs
Team151.2/gm#97 / 136 · 29th pct#55 / 70 · 23rd pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp211.8/gm#94 / 136 · 32nd pct#52 / 70 · 27th pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Passer rating
Team122.4122.4#109 / 136 · 21st pct#63 / 70 · 11th pct#13 / 14 · 14th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp140.2140.2#105 / 136 · 24th pct#56 / 70 · 21st pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Interceptions thrown
Team100.8/gm#56 / 136 · 60th pct#23 / 70 · 69th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp70.6/gm#33 / 136 · 76th pct#22 / 70 · 70th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Sacks (def)
Team231.9/gm#85 / 136 · 38th pct#49 / 70 · 31st pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#3 / 10 · 80th pct
Opp242.0/gm#72 / 136 · 48th pct#38 / 70 · 47th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#2 / 10 · 90th pct
Tackles for loss
Team645.3/gm#83 / 136 · 40th pct#45 / 70 · 37th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#7 / 10 · 40th pct
Opp826.8/gm#123 / 136 · 10th pct#66 / 70 · 7th pct#13 / 14 · 14th pct#6 / 10 · 50th pct
First downs
Team26622.2/gm#59 / 136 · 57th pct#35 / 70 · 51st pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp25120.9/gm#72 / 136 · 48th pct#41 / 70 · 43rd pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
3rd-down conv
Team726.0/gm#50 / 136 · 64th pct#24 / 70 · 67th pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp796.6/gm#126 / 136 · 8th pct#66 / 70 · 7th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
3rd-down att
Team19015.8/gm#20 / 136 · 86th pct#9 / 70 · 89th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp18415.3/gm#93 / 136 · 32nd pct#49 / 70 · 31st pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
4th-down conv
Team242.0/gm#6 / 136 · 96th pct#3 / 70 · 97th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Opp161.3/gm#93 / 136 · 32nd pct#46 / 70 · 36th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
4th-down att
Team423.5/gm#5 / 136 · 97th pct#3 / 70 · 97th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Opp312.6/gm#97 / 136 · 29th pct#50 / 70 · 30th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Time of possession
Team342:4528:34/gm#118 / 136 · 14th pct#64 / 70 · 10th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp377:1531:26/gm#59 / 136 · 57th pct#30 / 70 · 59th pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Kicking & Punting
Field goals#48 / 135 · 65th pct17/21 (81.0%)
Extra points27/27
Punting#74 / 136 · 46th pct43.0 avg · 48 punts
Turnovers & special teams
Turnovers
Team191.6/gm#34 / 136 · 76th pct#12 / 70 · 84th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct
Opp110.9/gm#22 / 136 · 85th pct#12 / 70 · 84th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Fumbles lost
Team90.8/gm#14 / 136 · 90th pct#5 / 70 · 94th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Opp40.3/gm#19 / 136 · 87th pct#11 / 70 · 86th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
INT return TDs
Team00.0/gm#76 / 135 · 44th pct#39 / 70 · 46th pct#9 / 13 · 38th pct#8 / 10 · 30th pct
Opp00.0/gm#1 / 136 · 100th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#1 / 14 · 100th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
INT return yards
Team564.7/gm#103 / 136 · 25th pct#51 / 70 · 29th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Opp1119.2/gm#68 / 136 · 51st pct#37 / 70 · 49th pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Punt ret yds
Team968.0/gm#93 / 136 · 32nd pct#54 / 70 · 24th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Opp947.8/gm#53 / 136 · 62nd pct#35 / 70 · 51st pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Punt ret TDs
Team00.0/gm#43 / 135 · 69th pct#23 / 70 · 69th pct#3 / 13 · 85th pct#3 / 10 · 80th pct
Opp00.0/gm#1 / 135 · 100th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct#1 / 11 · 100th pct
Kick ret yds
Team52343.6/gm#48 / 136 · 65th pct#20 / 70 · 73rd pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Opp32827.3/gm#47 / 136 · 66th pct#30 / 70 · 59th pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Kick ret TDs
Team00.0/gm#40 / 136 · 71st pct#17 / 70 · 77th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#3 / 10 · 80th pct
Opp00.0/gm#1 / 135 · 100th pct#1 / 70 · 100th pct#1 / 13 · 100th pct#1 / 10 · 100th pct
Penalty yards
Team45838.2/gm#127 / 136 · 7th pct#64 / 70 · 10th pct#13 / 14 · 14th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Opp64353.6/gm#59 / 136 · 57th pct#36 / 70 · 50th pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Other
Fourth down go rate#8 / 138 · 95th pct#4 / 70 · 96th pct#3 / 13 · 85th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct0.50.0/gm
Kick returns#19 / 136 · 87th pct#5 / 70 · 94th pct#3 / 14 · 86th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct302.5/gm
Penalties (opp)#29 / 136 · 79th pct#17 / 70 · 77th pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct655.4/gm
H2 epa per play opponent#57 / 143 · 61st pct#34 / 70 · 53rd pct#4 / 13 · 77th pct0.20.0/gm
Kick ret (opp)#60 / 136 · 57th pct#38 / 70 · 47th pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct201.7/gm
H1 epa per play opponent#62 / 167 · 63rd pct#33 / 70 · 54th pct#4 / 13 · 77th pct0.20.0/gm
Passes intercepted opponent#64 / 136 · 54th pct#38 / 70 · 47th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct100.8/gm
Punt ret (opp)#68 / 136 · 51st pct#40 / 70 · 44th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct141.2/gm
Red zone pass rate#72 / 154 · 54th pct#35 / 70 · 51st pct#6 / 13 · 62nd pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct0.40.0/gm
H2 epa per play#93 / 142 · 35th pct#49 / 70 · 31st pct#12 / 13 · 15th pct0.10.0/gm
Interceptions (def)#94 / 136 · 32nd pct#48 / 70 · 33rd pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct70.6/gm
Punt returns#108 / 136 · 21st pct#59 / 70 · 17th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct110.9/gm
Fumbles recovered#109 / 136 · 21st pct#57 / 70 · 20th pct#13 / 14 · 14th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct40.3/gm
Recruiting rating#109 / 138 · 22nd pct#69 / 70 · 3rd pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct137.811.5/gm
H1 epa per play#110 / 162 · 33rd pct#59 / 70 · 17th pct#12 / 13 · 15th pct0.10.0/gm
Penalties#112 / 136 · 18th pct#51 / 70 · 29th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct615.1/gm
Fumbles rec (def)#114 / 136 · 17th pct#62 / 70 · 13th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct90.8/gm
First down pass rate#122 / 215 · 44th pct#43 / 70 · 40th pct#9 / 13 · 38th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct0.40.0/gm
Situational
3rd-down conversion
Off37.9%#88 / 136 · 36th pct#51 / 70 · 29th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Def42.9%#110 / 136 · 20th pct#60 / 70 · 16th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
4th-down conversion
Off57.1%#52 / 136 · 62nd pct#32 / 70 · 56th pct#7 / 14 · 57th pct#5 / 12 · 67th pct
Def51.6%#61 / 136 · 56th pct#29 / 70 · 60th pct#4 / 14 · 79th pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Turnover margin#117 / 136 · 15th pct#61 / 70 · 14th pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct-0.67/gm
Sack rate (def)#66 / 136 · 52nd pct#41 / 70 · 43rd pct#5 / 14 · 71st pct#2 / 10 · 90th pct6.6%
Red Zone & Drive Efficiency (2014– , play-by-play derived)
Red zone trips
Team413.4/gm#80 / 167 · 53rd pct#46 / 70 · 36th pct#10 / 13 · 31st pct#10 / 12 · 25th pct
Opp504.2/gm#141 / 166 · 16th pct#60 / 70 · 16th pct#12 / 13 · 15th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Red zone score %
Team73.2%73.2%#116 / 167 · 31st pct#59 / 70 · 17th pct#12 / 13 · 15th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Opp78.0%78.0%#79 / 166 · 53rd pct#36 / 70 · 50th pct#7 / 13 · 54th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Points / drive
Team1.60.1/gm#112 / 167 · 34th pct#63 / 70 · 11th pct#12 / 13 · 15th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Opp2.00.2/gm#93 / 166 · 45th pct#53 / 70 · 26th pct#7 / 13 · 54th pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Yards / drive
Team41.63.5/gm#68 / 167 · 60th pct#39 / 70 · 46th pct#10 / 13 · 31st pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Opp37.73.1/gm#43 / 166 · 75th pct#24 / 70 · 67th pct#2 / 13 · 92nd pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Plays / drive
Team6.90.6/gm#32 / 167 · 81st pct#16 / 70 · 79th pct#6 / 13 · 62nd pct#1 / 12 · 100th pct
Opp6.80.6/gm#117 / 166 · 30th pct#51 / 70 · 29th pct#8 / 13 · 46th pct#11 / 12 · 17th pct
Three-and-out rate
Team15.1%15.1%#107 / 167 · 37th pct#54 / 70 · 24th pct#11 / 13 · 23rd pct#6 / 12 · 58th pct
Opp12.0%12.0%#105 / 166 · 37th pct#51 / 70 · 29th pct#9 / 13 · 38th pct#2 / 12 · 92nd pct
Scheme Identity (2014– , play-by-play derived)
Rush rate over expected#45 / 145 · 70th pct#15 / 70 · 80th pct#4 / 13 · 77th pct+2.4%+2.4%
Havoc rate
Team13.0%13.0%#120 / 140 · 15th pct#64 / 70 · 10th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct
Opp17.4%17.4%#108 / 140 · 24th pct#57 / 70 · 20th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct
Standard-downs success
Team46.9%46.9%#86 / 154 · 45th pct#49 / 70 · 31st pct#10 / 13 · 31st pct
Opp47.1%47.1%#69 / 172 · 60th pct#35 / 70 · 51st pct#6 / 13 · 62nd pct
Passing-downs success
Team29.7%29.7%#86 / 153 · 44th pct#48 / 70 · 33rd pct#11 / 13 · 23rd pct
Opp33.2%33.2%#109 / 149 · 28th pct#52 / 70 · 27th pct#12 / 13 · 15th pct
Line yards / carry
Team2.92.9#73 / 143 · 50th pct#40 / 70 · 44th pct#9 / 13 · 38th pct
Opp2.92.9#77 / 155 · 51st pct#46 / 70 · 36th pct#6 / 13 · 62nd pct
Stuff rate
Team23.0%23.0%#128 / 143 · 11th pct#66 / 70 · 7th pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp18.7%18.7%#75 / 155 · 52nd pct#41 / 70 · 43rd pct#5 / 13 · 69th pct
Power success rate
Team53.5%53.5%#131 / 137 · 5th pct#70 / 70 · 1st pct#13 / 13 · 8th pct
Opp61.5%61.5%#24 / 141 · 84th pct#13 / 70 · 83rd pct#2 / 13 · 92nd pct
Efficiency
Completion %
Off58.9%#101 / 136 · 26th pct#60 / 70 · 16th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct
Def63.6%#91 / 136 · 34th pct#46 / 70 · 36th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#9 / 12 · 33rd pct
Yards / attempt
Off6.5#104 / 136 · 24th pct#59 / 70 · 17th pct#12 / 14 · 21st pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Def7.4#88 / 136 · 36th pct#52 / 70 · 27th pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#7 / 12 · 50th pct
Yards / completion
Off11.1#89 / 136 · 35th pct#51 / 70 · 29th pct#8 / 14 · 50th pct#12 / 12 · 8th pct
Def11.7#77 / 136 · 44th pct#51 / 70 · 29th pct#6 / 14 · 64th pct#3 / 12 · 83rd pct
Yards / carry#70 / 136 · 49th pct#37 / 70 · 49th pct#9 / 14 · 43rd pct#4 / 12 · 75th pct4.4
Yards / play#97 / 136 · 29th pct#55 / 70 · 23rd pct#11 / 14 · 29th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct5.35
Scoring margin#107 / 136 · 22nd pct#60 / 70 · 16th pct#10 / 14 · 36th pct#8 / 12 · 42nd pct-5.8/gm
FBS rankings · 2025 season · all stats vs 136 FBS programs
Player stats — 2025 season
Quarterbacks
| Player | # | G | Cmp/Att | Pct | Yds | Y/A | TD | INT | Rate | QBR | Adj ANY/A | Sack% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pocket Passer · +0.03 EPA/play | 10 | 10 | 186 / 316 | 58.9 | 2159 | 6.8 | 12 | 6 | 125.0 | 46.9 | 6.0 | 6.0 | |
Yards by week → Pocket PasserBalanced passer who operates within the system, without one standout number carrying the profile. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 97 of 183 QBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / attempt7.0 bottom 32th percentile · FBS QBs, min. 80 attempts Completion %59.2% bottom 27th percentile · FBS QBs, min. 80 attempts Trait fingerprint Plays like View Baylor Hayes's full player page | |||||||||||||
| Pocket Passer · +0.14 EPA/play | 11 | 3 | 53 / 88 | 60.2 | 493 | 5.6 | 3 | 4 | 109.4 | 38.2 | 4.2 | 0 | |
Yards by week → Pocket PasserBalanced passer who operates within the system, without one standout number carrying the profile. 97 of 183 QBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / attempt5.8 bottom 9th percentile · FBS QBs, min. 80 attempts INT rate4.5% bottom 6th percentile · FBS QBs, min. 80 attempts Trait fingerprint Plays like View Kirk Francis's full player page | |||||||||||||
Running Backs
| Player | # | G | Car | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | 3rd Dn Use | Pass Dn Use | Stuff% | 10+% | Tgt Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balanced Back · +0.09 EPA/play | 21 | 11 | 212 | 1065 #32 FBS | 5.0 | 5 | 57 | 22.5 | 21.7 | 17.9 | 12.4 | 8.9% (32/359) | |
Yards by week → Balanced BackPlays within the scheme — consistent production without a dominant dimension. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. The most common profile in its group this season — 186 of 349 classified this way. Played in 11 of 21 games this season · senior View Dominic Richardson's full player page | |||||||||||||
| Balanced Back · +0.06 EPA/play | 2 | 11 | 97 | 497 | 5.1 | 5 | 40 | 11.5 | 11.7 | 19.1 | 13.8 | 4.7% (17/359) | |
Yards by week → Balanced BackPlays within the scheme — consistent production without a dominant dimension. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. The most common profile in its group this season — 186 of 349 classified this way. Played in 11 of 21 games this season · junior View Ajay Allen's full player page | |||||||||||||
| +0.15 EPA/play | 1 | 12 | 32 | 215 | 6.7 | 1 | 28 | 6.4 | 4.8 | — | — | 6.1% (22/359) | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||||
Receivers
| Player | # | G | Rec | Yds | Avg | TD | Long | 3rd Dn Use | Pass Dn Use | Tgt Share | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Red-Zone Weapon · +0.69 EPA/play | 80 | 11 | 36 | 521 | 14.5 | 7 #38 FBS | 72 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 13.9% (50/359) | |
Yards by week → Red-Zone WeaponThe first read called near the goal line — size and catch radius do the rest. All-Conference honorable mention / 2nd team — the recognition has started. The rare part: he finds the end zone — and every touch moves the offense, too 12 of 223 TEs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TD rate19.4% 91th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions Total EPA (college ability)29.4 96th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions — the part the label misses Trait fingerprint Plays like View Brody Foley's full player page | |||||||||||
| Slot Technician · +0.08 EPA/play | — | 8 | 46 | 418 | 9.1 | 2 | 40 | 10.7 | 10.3 | 16.7% (60/359) | |
Yards by week → Slot TechnicianRuns precise routes in tight quarters. Volume player who keeps chains moving. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 97 of 558 WRs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Reception volume46 73th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions EPA / play (adj)0.1 bottom 7th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Zion Booker's full player page | |||||||||||
| Possession Receiver · +0.20 EPA/play | 19 | 7 | 22 | 272 | 12.4 | 1 | 51 | 7.3 | 9.5 | 9.2% (33/359) | |
Yards by week → Possession ReceiverReliable target who converts on critical downs. Not flashy; consistently productive. The most common profile in its group this season — 332 of 558 classified this way. Played in 7 of 21 games this season · junior View Grayson Tempest's full player page | |||||||||||
| Possession Receiver · +0.46 EPA/play | 7 | 9 | 21 | 272 | 13.0 | 0 | 42 | 10.7 | 8.9 | 11.1% (40/359) | |
Yards by week → Possession ReceiverReliable target who converts on critical downs. Not flashy; consistently productive. 332 of 558 WRs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / reception13.9 56th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions TD rate0.0% bottom 8th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Zion Steptoe's full player page | |||||||||||
| +0.50 EPA/play | 15 | 5 | 9 | 201 | 22.3 | 1 | 43 | 1.5 | 1 | — | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||
| Deep Threat · +0.51 EPA/play | 3 | 6 | 12 | 196 | 16.3 | 1 | 34 | 7.7 | 8.7 | 6.7% (24/359) | |
Yards by week → Deep ThreatStretches the field vertically. Every snap is a potential big play. 100 of 558 WRs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / reception16.8 83th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Plays like View Micah Tease's full player page | |||||||||||
| Possession Receiver · -0.04 EPA/play | 6 | 8 | 13 | 124 | 9.5 | 0 | 40 | 4.8 | 1.7 | 5.0% (18/359) | |
Yards by week → Possession ReceiverReliable target who converts on critical downs. Not flashy; consistently productive. 332 of 558 WRs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / reception7.8 bottom 16th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions EPA / play (adj)-0.0 bottom 2th percentile · FBS WRs, min. 12 receptions Trait fingerprint View Jacob Emmers's full player page | |||||||||||
| Complete TE · +0.01 EPA/play | 23 | 9 | 13 | 76 | 5.8 | 0 | 15 | 5.8 | 3.3 | 4.5% (16/359) | |
Yards by week → Complete TENo single go-to route — the receiving numbers show up inline and split out alike. 177 of 223 TEs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Yards / reception6.0 bottom 9th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions EPA / play (adj)0.0 bottom 8th percentile · FBS TEs, min. 8 receptions Trait fingerprint Plays like View Landen Lucas's full player page | |||||||||||
| +0.21 EPA/play | 8 | 3 | 9 | 58 | 6.4 | 0 | 8 | 5.6 | 9 | 4.2% (15/359) | |
Yards by week → | |||||||||||
Defensive Line
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | TFL | Sack | Hur |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Two-Gap Base | 90 | 11 | 46 | 10 | 4.5 | 2.5 | 1 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. Impact starter — above-average production for the conference. The most common profile in its group this season — 388 of 809 classified this way. Played in 11 of 21 games this season · junior · 2-star, 2024 class our readTwo-star recruit — top-quartile production against his own recruiting profile our readBreakout: his CFB Index score now sits at the 88th percentile among FBS IDLs, up from the 40th | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 32 | 12 | 41 | 14 | 2.5 | 0 | 2 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 388 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate6.1% bottom 19th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Hudson Ball's full player page | |||||||
| Nose Anchor | 99 | 11 | 39 | 9 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 1 |
Nose AnchorThe heaviest frame on the interior. Sack production is intentionally not the point of this profile. Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 152 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Weight320 lb 90th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Tai Newhouse's full player page | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 10 | 11 | 36 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. 388 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate0.0% bottom 6th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readFading: his CFB Index score moved from the 60th to 28th percentile among FBS IDLs | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 11 | 12 | 28 | 14 | 9.5 | 6.5 #55 FBS | 1 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 269 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate33.9% 98th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readBreakout: his CFB Index score went from the 52nd percentile among FBS IDLs to the 89th | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 88 | 10 | 27 | 5 | 6.5 | 3 | 0 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 269 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate24.1% 84th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readBreakout: his CFB Index score now sits at the 50th percentile among FBS IDLs, up from the 14th | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 19 | 10 | 25 | 7 | 6.5 | 3 | 1 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. 269 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate26.0% 88th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Ty Cooper's full player page | |||||||
| 3-Tech Penetrator | 54 | 9 | 14 | 9 | 6.5 | 4.5 | 1 |
3-Tech PenetratorDisruptive interior rusher who lives in the backfield. 269 of 809 IDLs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt TFL rate46.4% 100th percentile · FBS interior linemen, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readBounce-Back: his CFB Index score shows a real arc: 49th percentile among FBS IDLs, fell to 20th, now back up to 54th | |||||||
| Two-Gap Base | 58 | 3 | 10 | 2 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 |
Two-Gap BaseStout at the point of attack — steady tackle-for-loss production without a standout pass-rush number. The most common profile in its group this season — 388 of 809 classified this way. Played in 3 of 21 games this season · sophomore View Tyler Rich's full player page | |||||||
Linebackers
| Player | # | G | Tot | Solo | Ast | TFL | Sack | PD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balanced Linebacker | — | 12 | 128 | 41 | 87 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
Balanced LinebackerSolid in every phase without a signature dimension. Impact starter — above-average production for the conference. 362 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Tackle volume128 100th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles TFL rate5.5% bottom 29th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like View Ray Coney's full player page | |||||||||
| Balanced Linebacker | 33 | 12 | 66 | 24 | 42 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Balanced LinebackerSolid in every phase without a signature dimension. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. The most common profile in its group this season — 362 of 660 classified this way. Played in 12 of 21 games this season · junior View William Alexander's full player page | |||||||||
| Balanced Linebacker | 16 | 12 | 50 | 21 | 29 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
Balanced LinebackerSolid in every phase without a signature dimension. Part-time starter — splitting the role or filling in on injury. 362 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Tackle volume50 bottom 49th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Sack rate0.0% bottom 23th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like our readBreakout: his CFB Index score moved from the 6th to 53rd percentile among FBS LBs | |||||||||
| Balanced Linebacker | 26 | 10 | 38 | 19 | 19 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Balanced LinebackerSolid in every phase without a signature dimension. 362 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Tackle volume38 bottom 33th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles TFL rate2.6% bottom 17th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like View Josh Anglin's full player page | |||||||||
| Balanced Linebacker | 27 | 5 | 18 | 7 | 11 | 1.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Balanced LinebackerSolid in every phase without a signature dimension. 362 of 660 LBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Tackle volume18 bottom 12th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles PD rate0.0% bottom 18th percentile · FBS linebackers, min. 15 tackles Trait fingerprint Plays like View Zane Woodham's full player page | |||||||||
| 24 | 6 | 11 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 35 | 6 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Defensive Backs
| Player | # | G | Tot | PD | INT | TFL | Sack |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Box Safety | 21 | 12 | 79 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Box SafetyLives near the line of scrimmage as a de facto extra linebacker. Impact starter — above-average production for the conference. 166 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Tackle volume79 96th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like our readUnranked recruit — top-quartile production against his own recruiting profile | |||||||
| Rover | 18 | 12 | 73 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
RoverHits like a linebacker and still takes the ball away. 83 of 801 Ss we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate9.6% 58th percentile · FBS safeties, min. 15 tackles Plays like our readAscending: his CFB Index score moved from the 33rd to 72nd percentile among FBS Ss | |||||||
| Press Corner | 7 | 12 | 59 | 7 | 5 #6 FBS | 2 | 0 |
Press Corner· Takeaway threatLong and physical; jams receivers off their route at the line. the kind of DB who takes it back the other way Starter — over 60% of the snaps, holding the job. 43 of 270 CBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt Height6'2" 87th percentile · FBS corners, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readBreakout: his CFB Index score now sits at the 98th percentile among FBS CBs, up from the 70th | |||||||
| Hybrid Nickel | 15 | 11 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 |
Hybrid NickelMoves between deep coverage and the slot — the modern positionless DB. The most common profile in its group this season — 419 of 801 classified this way. Played in 11 of 21 games this season · sophomore · 3-star, 2024 class View Ashton Williams's full player page | |||||||
| Cover Corner | 3 | 10 | 23 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Cover CornerSteady in coverage; doesn't get beat deep and rarely gives up the big play. 141 of 270 CBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate8.7% bottom 31th percentile · FBS corners, min. 10 tackles Plays like our readFading: his CFB Index score moved from the 48th to 14th percentile among FBS CBs | |||||||
| Cover Corner | 1 | 9 | 16 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Cover CornerSteady in coverage; doesn't get beat deep and rarely gives up the big play. The most common profile in its group this season — 141 of 270 classified this way. Played in 9 of 21 games this season · junior View Champ Lewis's full player page | |||||||
| Cover Corner | 13 | 4 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Cover CornerSteady in coverage; doesn't get beat deep and rarely gives up the big play. 141 of 270 CBs we've classified this way this season. Season receipt PD rate0.0% bottom 8th percentile · FBS corners, min. 10 tackles Plays like View Nunu Campbell's full player page | |||||||
| 9 | 6 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 22 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Kicking
| Player | # | G | FG M/A | FG% | XP M/A | Pts | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steady | 11 | 12 | 17/21 | 81.0 | 27/27 | 78 | 49 |
Punting
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | Long | In20 | TB |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pinner | 29 | 12 | 46 | 1993 | 43.3 | 80 | 21 | 0 |
Net average is unavailable — CFBD's punting feed carries gross yards only, with no return-yardage or touchback deduction.
Kick Returns
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | TD | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| +0.27 EPA/play | 22 | 3 | 7 | 170 | 24.3 | 0 | 39 |
| +0.15 EPA/play | 1 | 12 | 9 | 162 | 18 | 0 | 33 |
| Complete TE · +0.01 EPA/play | 23 | 9 | 5 | 43 | 8.6 | 0 | 15 |
Punt Returns
| Player | # | G | No | Yds | Avg | TD | Long |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Possession Receiver · +0.20 EPA/play | 19 | 7 | 3 | 52 | 17.3 | 0 | 32 |
| Slot Technician · +0.08 EPA/play | — | 8 | 8 | 44 | 5.5 | 0 | 13 |
2025 stat leaders
final
2025 stat leaders
1.
Ray Coney
LB
128 tot (def)
2.
Lento Smith Jr.
S
79.0 tot (def)
3.
Zach Williams
S
73.0 tot (def)
4.
Dominic Richardson
RB
1,065 yds (rush)
5.
William Alexander
LB
66.0 tot (def)
Roster
2025
25
players carry a qualified CFB Index Score this season.
Elijah Green
CB
#10 of 364
Brody Foley
TE
#10 of 156
Ray Coney
LB
#88 of 583
J'Dan Burnett
EDGE
#65 of 420
Joe Hjelle
IDL
#54 of 330
Lento Smith Jr.
S
#119 of 544
+19 more
Tulsa · 2025 schedule & results4-8Hard slateAverage opponent win rate 48% · 3 AP top-25 opponents on the schedule.
| Wk | Date | Us | Opp | Line | Opponent | Result | Record | Conf |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Aug 31 | #104 | #120 | -5.5 | Abilene Christian | W 35–7 136 | 1-0 | 0-0 |
| 2 | Sep 7 | #103 | #252 | -3.5 | @New Mexico State | L 14–21 148 | 1-1 | 0-0 |
| 3 | Sep 14 | #113 | #36 | +13.5 | Navy | L 23–42 143 | 1-2 | 0-1 |
| 4 | Sep 19 | #115 | #84 | +10 | @Oklahoma State | W 19–12 153 | 2-2 | 0-1 |
| 5 | Sep 27 | #100 | #73 | +14.5 | Tulane | L 14–31 147 | 2-3 | 0-2 |
| 6 | Oct 5 | #124 | #51 | +21.5 | @Memphis | L 7–45 136 | 2-4 | 0-3 |
| 8 | Oct 16 | #138 | #59 | +16.5 | @East Carolina | L 27–41 174 | 2-5 | 0-4 |
| 9 | Oct 25 | #148 | #72 | +5 | Temple | L 37–38 144 | 2-6 | 0-5 |
| 11 | Nov 8 | #135 | #128 | +4.5 | @Florida Atlantic | L 21–40 156 | 2-7 | 0-6 |
| 12 | Nov 15 | #149 | #136 | -1 | Oregon State | W 31–14 139 | 3-7 | 0-6 |
| 13 | Nov 22 | #135 | #85 | +9.5 | @Army | W 26–25 136 | 4-7 | 1-6 |
| 14 | Nov 29 | #118 | #181 | -9.5 | UAB | L 24–31 137 | 4-8 | 1-7 |
Advanced box score (EPA, success rate, explosiveness)▼
| Date | Opp | Result | Yds | TO | TOP | EPA/play | Success% | Explosive% | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 29 | UAB | L 24–31 | 357 | 2 | 24:37 | +0.085 | 42.4% | 119.5% | One-score loss |
| Nov 22 | @Army | W 26–25 | 497 | 2 | 25:24 | +0.243 | 47.3% | 113.4% | Best success rate |
| Nov 15 | Oregon State | W 31–14 | 446 | 0 | 29:23 | +0.218 | 43.1% | 146.0% | |
| Nov 8 | @Florida Atlantic | L 21–40 | 431 | 3 | 36:47 | +0.016 | 38.6% | 124.9% | |
| Oct 25 | Temple | L 37–38 | 436 | 1 | 28:12 | +0.358 | 42.3% | 158.4% | Most explosive |
| Oct 16 | @East Carolina | L 27–41 | 398 | 0 | 30:56 | +0.032 | 37.3% | 124.6% | |
| Oct 5 | @Memphis | L 7–45 | 246 | 4 | 20:49 | +0.009 | 30.5% | 123.2% | Blowout loss |
| Sep 27 | Tulane | L 14–31 | 338 | 2 | 25:01 | -0.157 | 38.2% | 116.3% | Season-low EPA/play |
| Sep 19 | @Oklahoma State | W 19–12 | 424 | 1 | 34:45 | +0.148 | 38.8% | 129.6% | One-score win |
| Sep 14 | Navy | L 23–42 | 329 | 2 | 24:36 | +0.043 | 41.4% | 115.8% | Defense's roughest night |
| Sep 7 | @New Mexico State | L 14–21 | 376 | 2 | 29:10 | +0.017 | 38.7% | 106.8% | One-score loss |
| Aug 31 | Abilene Christian | W 35–7 | 504 | 0 | 33:05 | +0.369 | 46.8% | 133.0% | Season-high EPA/play |
| Season average (12 games) | 398 | 1.6 | +0.115 | 40.5% | 126.0% | ||||
How They Play · 2025
How They Play · 2025Tulsa fields a limited offense behind a solid, bend-don't-break defense.
Opponent-adjusted percentiles vs all FBS. Bar = where this team ranks — right is better.
Team identity · competitive snaps only
How Tulsa actually scores
20th percentile quality, 70th percentile boom-dependency. Garbage time excluded from both axes — the same correction that changes the Q4 story below.
View all FBS teams as a table
| Team | Quality percentile | Boom-share percentile |
|---|---|---|
| Air Force | 86th | 11th |
| Akron | 12th | 89th |
| Alabama | 58th | 17th |
| App State | 35th | 47th |
| Arizona | 64th | 37th |
| Arizona State | 41st | 62nd |
| Arkansas | 90th | 12th |
| Arkansas State | 17th | 66th |
| Army | 57th | 43rd |
| Auburn | 47th | 53rd |
| BYU | 78th | 19th |
| Baylor | 69th | 25th |
| Boise State | 66th | 20th |
| Boston College | 37th | 54th |
| Bowling Green | 2nd | 98th |
| Buffalo | 11th | 88th |
| California | 28th | 48th |
| Central Michigan | 52nd | 64th |
| Cincinnati | 89th | 16th |
| Clemson | 51st | 48th |
| Coastal Carolina | 17th | 83rd |
| Colorado | 18th | 84th |
| Colorado State | 16th | 83rd |
| Delaware | 38th | 58th |
| Duke | 80th | 14th |
| East Carolina | 63rd | 36th |
| Eastern Michigan | 49th | 42nd |
| Florida | 30th | 67th |
| Florida Atlantic | 62nd | 59th |
| Florida International | 42nd | 50th |
| Florida State | 83rd | 32nd |
| Fresno State | 26th | 73rd |
| Georgia | 81st | 3rd |
| Georgia Southern | 73rd | 21st |
| Georgia State | 36th | 70th |
| Georgia Tech | 84th | 5th |
| Hawai'i | 64th | 41st |
| Houston | 27th | 65th |
| Illinois | 75th | 26th |
| Indiana | 95th | 1st |
| Iowa | 44th | 40th |
| Iowa State | 68th | 22nd |
| Jacksonville State | 54th | 38th |
| James Madison | 65th | 44th |
| Kansas | 85th | 28th |
| Kansas State | 71st | 49th |
| Kennesaw State | 56th | 30th |
| Kent State | 21st | 86th |
| Kentucky | 15th | 85th |
| LSU | 14th | 81st |
| Liberty | 43rd | 56th |
| Louisiana | 19th | 73rd |
| Louisiana Tech | 39th | 61st |
| Louisville | 48th | 64th |
| Marshall | 55th | 39th |
| Maryland | 30th | 74th |
| Memphis | 80th | 24th |
| Miami | 76th | 5th |
| Miami (OH) | 34th | 67th |
| Michigan | 67th | 33rd |
| Michigan State | 27th | 75th |
| Middle Tennessee | 39th | 52nd |
| Minnesota | 29th | 77th |
| Mississippi State | 22nd | 77th |
| Missouri | 61st | 30th |
| Missouri State | 55th | 46th |
| NC State | 86th | 23rd |
| Navy | 94th | 17th |
| Nebraska | 48th | 57th |
| Nevada | 3rd | 97th |
| New Mexico | 58th | 60th |
| New Mexico State | 9th | 87th |
| North Carolina | 13th | 89th |
| North Texas | 98th | 7th |
| Northern Illinois | 8th | 92nd |
| Northwestern | 52nd | 36th |
| Notre Dame | 99th | 20th |
| Ohio | 67th | 18th |
| Ohio State | 93rd | 4th |
| Oklahoma | 20th | 80th |
| Oklahoma State | 5th | 95th |
| Old Dominion | 83rd | 45th |
| Ole Miss | 89th | 2nd |
| Oregon | 91st | 10th |
| Oregon State | 2nd | 98th |
| Penn State | 73rd | 33rd |
| Pittsburgh | 60th | 39th |
| Purdue | 25th | 78th |
| Rice | 6th | 94th |
| Rutgers | 70th | 27th |
| SMU | 74th | 42nd |
| Sam Houston | 4th | 96th |
| San Diego State | 24th | 76th |
| San José State | 45th | 69th |
| South Alabama | 36th | 58th |
| South Carolina | 23rd | 86th |
| South Florida | 87th | 23rd |
| Southern Miss | 40th | 55th |
| Stanford | 10th | 90th |
| Syracuse | 5th | 95th |
| TCU | 72nd | 35th |
| Temple | 70th | 34th |
| Tennessee | 96th | 11th |
| Texas | 45th | 55th |
| Texas A&M | 82nd | 14th |
| Texas State | 92nd | 8th |
| Texas Tech | 77th | 31st |
| Toledo | 50th | 61st |
| Troy | 14th | 80th |
| Tulane | 79th | 15th |
| Tulsa | 20th | 70th |
| UAB | 61st | 45th |
| UCF | 33rd | 82nd |
| UCLA | 23rd | 79th |
| UConn | 95th | 13th |
| UL Monroe | 11th | 92nd |
| UNLV | 88th | 9th |
| USC | 98th | 2nd |
| UTEP | 1st | 99th |
| UTSA | 77th | 51st |
| Utah | 97th | 6th |
| Utah State | 46th | 63rd |
| Vanderbilt | 100th | 0th |
| Virginia | 59th | 27th |
| Virginia Tech | 32nd | 71st |
| Wake Forest | 42nd | 72nd |
| Washington | 92nd | 8th |
| Washington State | 33rd | 52nd |
| West Virginia | 7th | 93rd |
| Western Kentucky | 53rd | 29th |
| Western Michigan | 31st | 68th |
| Wisconsin | 0th | 100th |
| Wyoming | 8th | 91st |
Fourth-quarter reliability, corrected
Tulsa's 4th-quarter offense, before and after garbage time
Raw Q4 EPA/play ranks 15th percentile in FBS. Strip out snaps taken with a blowout margin and it climbs to the 49th — the correction is the finding, not a footnote.
Standard downs vs. passing downs
Does Tulsa hold up once the down-and-distance turns against them?
43rd percentile success on standard downs, 43rd on passing downs — little dropoff between the two — a schedule-independent identity.
View all FBS teams as a table
| Team | Standard-downs percentile | Passing-downs percentile |
|---|---|---|
| Air Force | 82nd | 69th |
| Akron | 20th | 36th |
| Alabama | 47th | 76th |
| App State | 41st | 80th |
| Arizona | 54th | 54th |
| Arizona State | 40th | 37th |
| Arkansas | 90th | 97th |
| Arkansas State | 51st | 40th |
| Army | 37th | 44th |
| Auburn | 73rd | 24th |
| Austin Peay | 56th | 13th |
| BYU | 91st | 46th |
| Ball State | 5th | 3rd |
| Baylor | 70th | 77th |
| Boise State | 42nd | 63rd |
| Boston College | 56th | 54th |
| Bowling Green | 10th | 17th |
| Bryant | 7th | 2nd |
| Buffalo | 29th | 20th |
| California | 25th | 66th |
| Central Michigan | 57th | 11th |
| Charlotte | 7th | 7th |
| Cincinnati | 89th | 65th |
| Clemson | 49th | 34th |
| Coastal Carolina | 16th | 22nd |
| Colorado | 8th | 48th |
| Colorado State | 29th | 35th |
| Delaware | 66th | 31st |
| Duke | 82nd | 63rd |
| East Carolina | 63rd | 91st |
| Eastern Michigan | 46th | 67th |
| Florida | 52nd | 45th |
| Florida Atlantic | 44th | 61st |
| Florida International | 50th | 26th |
| Florida State | 65th | 90th |
| Fresno State | 22nd | 71st |
| Georgia | 95th | 69th |
| Georgia Southern | 64th | 84th |
| Georgia State | 22nd | 75th |
| Georgia Tech | 92nd | 89th |
| Hawai'i | 33rd | 87th |
| Houston | 61st | 29th |
| Idaho | 30th | 78th |
| Idaho State | 93rd | 14th |
| Illinois | 79th | 95th |
| Indiana | 97th | 98th |
| Iowa | 74th | 19th |
| Iowa State | 80th | 58th |
| Jacksonville State | 59th | 56th |
| James Madison | 77th | 52nd |
| Kansas | 99th | 82nd |
| Kansas State | 37th | 59th |
| Kennesaw State | 44th | 67th |
| Kent State | 15th | 5th |
| Kentucky | 62nd | 29th |
| LSU | 18th | 52nd |
| Lafayette | 0th | 12th |
| Liberty | 65th | 53rd |
| Lindenwood | 4th | 1st |
| Long Island University | 24th | 78th |
| Louisiana | 24th | 23rd |
| Louisiana Tech | 41st | 24th |
| Louisville | 84th | 32nd |
| Maine | 3rd | 18th |
| Marshall | 71st | 62nd |
| Maryland | 11th | 86th |
| Massachusetts | 5th | 9th |
| Memphis | 75th | 68th |
| Merrimack | 1st | 83rd |
| Miami | 80th | 64th |
| Miami (OH) | 33rd | 39th |
| Michigan | 73rd | 74th |
| Michigan State | 48th | 39th |
| Middle Tennessee | 69th | 47th |
| Minnesota | 35th | 33rd |
| Mississippi State | 52nd | 35th |
| Missouri | 76th | 50th |
| Missouri State | 32nd | 50th |
| Murray State | 1st | 6th |
| NC State | 58th | 71st |
| Navy | 95th | 72nd |
| Nebraska | 78th | 51st |
| Nevada | 17th | 16th |
| New Mexico | 38th | 60th |
| New Mexico State | 16th | 33rd |
| North Carolina | 14th | 30th |
| North Texas | 100th | 97th |
| Northern Illinois | 9th | 5th |
| Northwestern | 48th | 88th |
| Notre Dame | 88th | 99th |
| Ohio | 69th | 76th |
| Ohio State | 99th | 99th |
| Oklahoma | 39th | 41st |
| Oklahoma State | 14th | 7th |
| Old Dominion | 72nd | 79th |
| Ole Miss | 83rd | 95th |
| Oregon | 93rd | 55th |
| Oregon State | 54th | 25th |
| Penn State | 76th | 73rd |
| Pittsburgh | 35th | 56th |
| Purdue | 46th | 88th |
| Rice | 20th | 0th |
| Rutgers | 71st | 84th |
| SMU | 50th | 57th |
| Sam Houston | 26th | 4th |
| San Diego State | 84th | 1st |
| San José State | 68th | 70th |
| South Alabama | 53rd | 28th |
| South Carolina | 31st | 8th |
| South Carolina State | 10th | 3rd |
| South Florida | 86th | 46th |
| Southern Miss | 27th | 38th |
| Stanford | 12th | 12th |
| Syracuse | 19th | 10th |
| TCU | 63rd | 82nd |
| Temple | 85th | 22nd |
| Tennessee | 97th | 81st |
| Texas | 27th | 61st |
| Texas A&M | 88th | 59th |
| Texas State | 60th | 93rd |
| Texas Tech | 45th | 65th |
| Toledo | 67th | 42nd |
| Troy | 18th | 27th |
| Tulane | 81st | 86th |
| Tulsa | 43rd | 43rd |
| UAB | 34th | 94th |
| UCF | 39th | 20th |
| UCLA | 28th | 48th |
| UConn | 96th | 37th |
| UL Monroe | 13th | 14th |
| UNLV | 78th | 85th |
| USC | 94th | 90th |
| UT Martin | 2nd | 41st |
| UTEP | 3rd | 10th |
| UTSA | 67th | 92nd |
| Utah | 87th | 96th |
| Utah State | 31st | 49th |
| Vanderbilt | 90th | 100th |
| Virginia | 36th | 73rd |
| Virginia Tech | 59th | 21st |
| Wake Forest | 21st | 31st |
| Washington | 98th | 93rd |
| Washington State | 61st | 44th |
| West Virginia | 12th | 18th |
| Western Kentucky | 55th | 80th |
| Western Michigan | 86th | 16th |
| Wisconsin | 6th | 27th |
| Wyoming | 23rd | 15th |
Halftime identity
Tulsa by half
1st-half offense ranks 33rd percentile in FBS; 2nd-half, 35th — competitive snaps only, garbage time excluded from both halves.
Schedule mirage
How much of Tulsa's number is the schedule?
Raw EPA/play through week 21 is 0.12; 47th percentile once opponent strength is stripped out, it's 0.02. The widest gap came in week 1: 0.37 raw vs. 0.03 adjusted.
Tulsa reads strongest in rushing epa allowed (top 22%) and explosive plays allowed (top 33%); the crux lives in passing epa, where Tulsa sits at the 20th percentile.
offense · strengths lead
defense · higher bar = harder to play against
hidden math · special situations
ELITE · 90+STRONG · 70+AVERAGE · 40-70CONCERN · 10-40BOTTOM · <10
Most Similar Programs · Tulsa
Most Similar Programs · TulsaReads Like
CharlotteTier 3 · Prestige T2 · Similarly-sized rosters up frontColorado StateTier 3 · Prestige T2 · Similarly-sized rosters up frontGeorgia StateTier 3 · Prestige T2 · Similarly-sized rosters up front
Static-attribute similarity across tier, archetype, conference, and voice. Not a prediction — a calibration.
Home-Field Advantage · Tulsa · 2018-present
Above-Average
44% home win rate vs 31% on the road. margin runs +5.6 better at home. Chapman Stadium seats 30,000, averaging 62% full (18,689 attendance, 23 games reported).
Home20-25Away15-32
Positional competition · RB room
The carries are split. The job isn’t.
Dominic Richardson and Ajay Allen split the carries (219/315 vs 96/315) -- but the job isn't split the same way. Ajay Allen produces in bigger chunks.
Dominic RichardsonAjay Allen
Carries
the baseline -- every row below is tested against this split, not a flat 50/50
Targets
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Top-5-carry share
concentration and EPA/carry agree -- a real boom/bust split
Screened 2 claims, 1 survived, 1 falsified
Positional competition · WR/TE room
The targets are split. The job isn’t.
Zion Booker (WR) and Brody Foley (TE) split the targets (58/104 vs 46/104) -- but the job isn't split the same way. Brody Foley produces in bigger chunks.
Zion BookerBrody Foley
Targets
the baseline -- every row below is tested against this split, not a flat 50/50
3rd-down targets
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Inside the 10
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Garbage-time share
shared -- dots touch, this room really is a committee here
Top-5-catch share
concentration and EPA/target agree -- a real boom/bust split
Screened 4 claims, 1 survived, 3 falsified
What changed
Tulsa’s play-calling, before and after the change
Offense: Steve Spurrier Jr. (2023–2024) → co-Ty Darlington / Brad Robbins (2025)
The biggest shift: 1st-down pass rate moved up 8 points. The rest held closer to steady.
1st-down pass rate
Red-zone pass rate
Defense: Chris Polizzi (2023–2024) → Josh Reardon / co-Mike Gray (2025)
The biggest shift: 1st-down pass rate moved up 8 points. The rest held closer to steady.
1st-down pass rate
Red-zone pass rate
Defensive identity · pass zones
What this defense gives up, by zone.
On short passes, Tulsa’s defense allows a completion rate above the FBS mean (66.0% vs 65.9% league-wide, shrunk toward the mean for its 103-play sample) — mid-pack, 68 of 133 qualifying defenses.
We won’t show a deep-ball leaderboard here: at the defense level, most teams face well under 30 rich-feed deep targets all season — too thin to tell a real tendency from noise, so we won’t guess.
Screened 133 claims, 133 survived · 2025 only, in the 399 games with the detailed play-text feed; n=103 short-zone plays faced, raw rate 66.0%
Historical echo
Tulsa’s slide has precedent — and 1 of the 4 closest kept falling.
Programs whose stature fell in the same shape. The grey line is their decline; the color is what came next for them.
Virginia 1969–1974
kept sliding
Houston 1998–2003
clawed back
Kansas State 1973–1978
stayed down
Arizona State 1940–1948
clawed back
An analogy on the shape of a program’s Zeitgeist stature arc — not a prediction. Interim calibration, medium confidence; matched among current FBS programs at a comparable level.
Venue texture
71°F average kickoff temp; 3% of games had measurable precipitation; 7 mph average wind.
Based on 69 home games with weather data.
The CFP Era
12 seasons inside the CFP era, no bids yet — the era the program is still trying to break into.
TRAJECTORY · quality-score line · AP rank dotted · CFP bids marked · coach regimes ribboned
Program Quality
AP Rank (inverted)
CFP Appearance
Tulsa's 2014–2025 record is 55-87. The era is still being written; the CFP line is the one the program is arguing for.
All-Time Record
538-512-22
since 1914 · 110 seasons · .501 win rate
HOME
347-188-7
AWAY
177-312-15
NEUTRAL
14-12
1910s
1920s
1930s
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000s
2010s
2020s
The program, in full — read the essay
Tulsa once built one of the most points-per-game offenses in the country out of a private university with 4,000 students. The scoreboard hasn't spun like that in over a decade — and a first-year coach trying to restart the motor went 4-8 in his debut.
The Golden Hurricane's identity was never about enrollment or budget. Todd Graham turned Skelly Field at H.A. Chapman Stadium into a track meet in the late 2000s — a tempo offense that outscored power programs, a 10-3 Conference USA title in 2010, and then Bill Blankenship's 11-3 Liberty Bowl team in 2012. That was Tulsa at its best: the smallest school in the league, putting up the most points.
Tre Lamb arrived from East Tennessee State with a reputation as a program-builder, and ran directly into the gap between what the roster was and what the identity requires. A 4-8 (1-7 American) first season in 2025 wasn't a surprise to anyone watching the depth chart, but it stretched the distance from the Graham years into something harder to wave away. The internal fracture in Tulsa is patient and pointed: one side says Lamb needs time to reload a thin roster, the other side wants the offense to feel like a track meet again and doesn't want to wait.
The 2026 question isn't whether Lamb can eventually rebuild Tulsa — the FCS record says he can build — but whether the offense can find any trace of the tempo identity this season. A bowl trip would end the longest bowl drought in program history. A winning record would be a statement that the smallest school in the American can still out-gun the room. Those are modest goals for a program that used to make them look easy.
How they play
When it's working, Tulsa football is a scoreboard problem — tempo, the deep ball, a pass-happy attack that wears out secondaries before they solve it. The Graham-era wide-open offense was the blueprint the sport was catching up to; the post-Graham years have been a search for who runs it next. Lamb runs a spread-based system, and the 2026 question is whether the pieces in place can get the scoreboard moving again at Chapman Stadium.
Steady
Tulsa 2016–2025. Holding the line. The 10-year slope (-0.12 rungs / yr) doesn't tilt either way — the program lives at roughly Tier 2.
CFP Era · Tulsa
12 seasons on file
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
down middle peak CFP year
Season Standing · 2025 · 4-8
Season Standing · 2025 · 4-8FBS sub-.500
Tulsa: Below .500 in FBS play. The rebuild bar.
R0R1R2R3R4R5R6R7R8R9
Sub-FBSBuildingBowlRankedContenderPlayoff
American Athletic Standing · 2025
13th in the American Athletic
Tulsa is 13th of 14 in the American Athletic at 1-7. The path to the title is steep — the focus is on bowl access and rivalry wins.
| # | Program | Record |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Navy | 8-1 |
| 2 | Tulane | 8-1 |
| 3 | North Texas | 7-2 |
| 4 | East Carolina | 6-2 |
| 5 | South Florida | 6-2 |
| 6 | Memphis | 4-4 |
| 7 | UTSA | 4-4 |
| 8 | Army | 4-5 |
| 9 | Florida Atlantic | 3-5 |
| 10 | Temple | 3-5 |
| 11 | Rice | 2-6 |
| 12 | UAB | 2-6 |
| 13 | Tulsa | 1-7 |
| 14 | Charlotte | 0-8 |
Coaching Era · Tulsa
Coaching Era · TulsaTre Lamb
Tre Lamb in year 2 of the rebuild. The methodology is taking shape.
Era Tre Lamb · 2025–presentPrev: Kevin Wilson (2023–2024)OC: Kevin Barbay / co-Ty DarlingtonPrev OC: co-Ty Darlington / Brad Robbins (2025)DC: Josh Reardon / co-Mike GrayPrev DC: Chris Polizzi (2023–2024)
2
years · era
Rituals
Three gameday rituals — the ones outsiders never quite catch.
Todd Graham Era (2007-2010)
since 2007
Todd Graham's 2007-2010 tenure produced the program's modern peak — 2010 10-3 + Conference USA championship + Hawaii Bowl championship. The Air Raid offense identity + recruiting reach + bowl wins reset what Hurricane fans believed possible. Graham's 2011 departure to Pittsburgh opened Bill Blankenship's tenure.
Skelly Field at H.A. Chapman Stadium
since 1930
Skelly Field at H.A. Chapman Stadium (built 1930, renovated 2008) — Tulsa's on-campus venue with 30,000 capacity — anchors the program. The historic stadium + the bowl design + the Oklahoma plains setting create a venue distinct from the larger Oklahoma flagship-state programs (OU + OSU).
Reign Cane Identity
since 2010s
'Reign Cane' (a pun on 'Reign' + 'Hurricane') — the program's modern marketing identity since the Todd Graham era — captures the Golden Hurricane brand. Used in tweets + recruiting materials + postgame celebrations. The phrase compactly encapsulates ascent + storm imagery.
Program memory
What this program never forgets
Most weeks vanish. These didn’t.
The 2010 Conference USA title
Todd Graham's 10-3 team wins the league and a bowl
2012
The Liberty Bowl season
11-3 and a Liberty Bowl win under Bill Blankenship — the high-water mark
The 2020 AAC title-game run
A surprise pandemic-year climb to the American championship game
Moment of the Year · Tulsa · 2025
Moment of the Year · Tulsa · 2025Won 35-7 vs Abilene Christian
Week 1 of 2025. A statement margin. Recruiting boards re-rendered overnight.
Bowl / Postseason Ledger
Bowl / Postseason LedgerRecent postseason (2015-2021): 2-2
Most recent: 2021 — win 30-17 (home). Last 5 postseason: 2-2.
2021202020162015
NFL Draft Pipeline
2022–2022
NFL Draft PipelineThin
2 picks last 5 cycles. Roster development still maturing.
2
picks · 1 R1
#24
Tyler Smith
Offensive Tackle · 2022 · Dallas
#230
Chris Paul
Offensive Guard · 2022 · Washington
#82 all-time · 4 first-round picksthe talent factory →
Unit lineage
Tulsa’s offense and defense, by coordinator
FBS-relative efficiency percentile per season (2014–2025), same population as the Coordinator Mirror board. Dashed vertical lines mark a coordinator change.
Offense2014–2025
2014 · Denver Johnson2015 · co-Matt Mattox / co-Sterlin Gilbert2016 · Philip Montgomery2023–2024 · Steve Spurrier Jr.2025 · co-Ty Darlington / Brad Robbins
Hired for 2026: Kevin Barbay / co-Ty Darlington — not yet reflected in on-field data.
Defense2014–2025
2014 · Brent Guy2015–2017 · co-Bill Young / co-Brian Norwood2018 · Bill Young2019–2021 · Joe Gillespie2022 · Luke Olson2023–2024 · Chris Polizzi2025 (ongoing) · Josh Reardon / co-Mike Gray
Elite (≥70th pct)AveragePoor (≤30th pct)
Chronicle Visuals
Among the most continuous rosters into 2025 — 99% back, anchored by the qb room, only offense to settle.
The portal upgraded the LB room but opened a hole at WR.
Tulsa signs higher-rated classes than its draft yield delivers.
r/cfb moments
1.4k
[Postgame Thread] Tulsa Defeats UCF 34-26
738
[Postgame Thread] UC Davis Defeats Tulsa 19-17
723
[Postgame Thread] Navy Defeats Tulsa 20-17
332
[Postgame Thread] Tulsa Defeats SMU 28-24
228
[Postgame Thread] Tulsa Defeats USF 42-13
All-time top community posts · ranked by upvotes
This page may include content derived from public news sources, social media, and fan communities. We relay these sources as-is — we are not reporting them. Sources may be summarized or quoted imperfectly; for anything that matters, go look at the original source directly. The original source may also be wrong. AI-generated content is labeled and may contain factual errors. All analysis is editorial opinion, not professional reporting. Data sources · About this site