Tulsa 3-2
19.3
Navy 1-3
34.0The model makes this Navy -14.6. The market has it Navy -3, a gap of 11.6 points toward Navy.
Tested against closing lines on 1,148 games, this model tracks the market rather than beating it. A large gap is a question worth asking, not a signal to follow.
Each bar is that input's contribution to the projected margin, in points, pointing toward the team it favours. They sum to 12.9 toward Navy, before calibration.
| Percentile, 0–100 | Tulsa off | Navy off | Tulsa def | Navy def |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Passing | 26 | 20 | 39 | 12 |
| Rushing | 75 | 87 | 77 | 78 |
| Pass cons. | 12 | 4 | 54 | 18 |
| Rush cons. | 36 | 85 | 72 | 84 |
| Pass rate | 82 | 2 | 65 | 35 |
| Pace | 99 | 45 | 1 | 78 |
Higher is better on both sides — defence is flipped so the shape reads the same way. Percentiles are taken from the opponent-adjusted ratings, so a number earned against a hard schedule ranks above the same number earned against a soft one.
| Per play, vs average | Tulsa off | Navy off | Tulsa def | Navy def |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pass EPA / dropback | +0.022 | -0.015 | -0.042 | +0.022 |
| Rush EPA / carry | +0.145 | +0.189 | -0.164 | -0.167 |
| Pass success rate | -0.016 | -0.056 | -0.032 | +0.006 |
| Rush success rate | +0.037 | +0.098 | -0.082 | -0.104 |
| Pass rate | +0.040 | -0.220 | +0.001 | +0.021 |
| Plays per game | +0.5 | -1.5 | +0.6 | -5.3 |
Opponent adjusted and shrunk toward last season — after 5 and 4 games, a rating is still part last year. On defence, negative is good.
| Rating | Tulsa | Navy | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elo, years of results | 1238 | 1498 | +260 |
Worth 7.7 points of this projection. Elo carries what three games of play-by-play can't: years of results, so a team that has been bad for a decade isn't rated average in September.
| vs Oklahoma State | 24–10 |
| at Sam Houston | 23–17 |
| vs East Texas A&M | 42–0 |
| at Arkansas | 6–34 |
| vs North Texas | 44–45 |
| vs Towson | 42–15 |
| at Florida Atlantic | 30–38 |
| at UAB | 20–24 |
| at Air Force | 9–14 |