Cincinnati at Tulsa Week 5 College Football Matchup Cincinnati at Tulsa Matchup - Week 5
Sat, Oct 1 2022 · Week 5 · 🏟 Skelly Field at H. A. Chapman Stadium Tulsa, OK · Turf · 30,000 cap
Cincinnati✈ 657 mi-1 hr TZ
31 21
Final
Home
📊 Punt & Rally Projection
Cincinnati
37
CIN -10
Tulsa
21
P&R Line Cincinnati -16.5
P&R Total O/U 58
Confidence 86 High
Vegas Cincinnati -10 · O/U 59.0
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Tulsa, while Game Control favors Cincinnati. Split signals historically show weaker predictive confidence — treat as a toss-up.
⚡ Split Signal — Metrics Disagree
Momentum Control
58.4%
Tulsa wins
Lean
Game Control
64.9%
Cincinnati wins
Lean
Vegas Spread
Cincinnati -10
O/U 59.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → Cincinnati · 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Cincinnati 2022 Schedule
Cincinnati's 2022 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/3Cincinnati at Arkansas+6.5L24–3154.5L24–31ON
Sat 9/10Cincinnati vs Kennesaw State-29
Sat 9/17Cincinnati vs Miami (OH)-24.0W38–1751.0W38–17ON
Sat 9/24Cincinnati vs Indiana-16.5W45–2457.0W45–24OY
Sat 10/1Cincinnati at Tulsa-10.0W31–2159.0W31–21UN
Sat 10/8Cincinnati vs South Florida-27.0W28–2458.5W28–24UN
— Bye Week —
Sat 10/22Cincinnati at SMU-3.5W29–2759.5W29–27UN
Sat 10/29Cincinnati at UCF+1.5L21–2555.5L21–25UN
Sat 11/5Cincinnati vs Navy-18.5W20–1043.5W20–10UN
Fri 11/11Cincinnati vs East Carolina-4.5W27–2551.5W27–25ON
Sat 11/19Cincinnati at Temple-17.0W23–348.5W23–3UY
Fri 11/25Cincinnati vs Tulane+1.0L24–2744.0L24–27ON
Sat 12/17Cincinnati vs Louisville+2.5L7–2438.5L7–24UN
Tulsa 2022 Schedule
Tulsa's 2022 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/3Tulsa at Wyoming-6.5L37–4047.0L37–40ON
Sat 9/10Tulsa vs Northern Illinois-6.5W38–3563.0W38–35ON
Sat 9/17Tulsa vs Jacksonville State-12.0W54–1764.0W54–17OY
Sat 9/24Tulsa at Ole Miss+21.0L27–3566.5L27–35UY
Sat 10/1Tulsa vs Cincinnati+10.0L21–3159.0L21–31UY
Sat 10/8Tulsa at Navy-4.5L21–5345.5L21–53ON
— Bye Week —
Fri 10/21Tulsa at Temple-13.5W27–1653.5W27–16UN
Sat 10/29Tulsa vs SMU+1.0L34–4563.5L34–45ON
Sat 11/5Tulsa vs Tulane+6.5L13–2756.0L13–27UN
Thu 11/10Tulsa at Memphis+7.0L10–2662.0L10–26UN
Fri 11/18Tulsa vs South Florida-14.0W48–4257.5W48–42ON
Sat 11/26Tulsa at Houston+13.0W37–3066.5W37–30OY
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) · 2022 season
Cincinnati PPA Edge
Agreement Signals — When All Metrics Agree
Elite · 83.1% ATS
PPA + PPO + SR + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 82.4% ATS
PPA + PPO + Havoc
Split
Metrics disagree
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Both Agree
→ Cincinnati
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
Cincinnati
+0.408
Tulsa
+0.300
Cincinnati Edge
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
Cincinnati
+0.575
Tulsa
+0.421
Cincinnati Edge
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
Cincinnati
0.198
Tulsa
0.151
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
Cincinnati Edge
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
Cincinnati
+7.952
Tulsa
+8.133
Tulsa Edge
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
Cincinnati
+0.797
Tulsa
+0.787
Cincinnati Edge
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
Cincinnati
70.8
Tulsa
71.9
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
Cincinnati Edge
Advanced stats sourced from CFBD · 2022 season · Edges are matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense)
Power Ratings
Team Power Ratings
Overall · Offense · Defense ratings · Updated as season progresses
Tulsa Rated Higher
Overall Power Rating
Cincinnati
-1.3
Tulsa
0.8
Offense Rating
Cincinnati
13.7
Tulsa
16.9
Defense Rating (lower = better defense)
Cincinnati
15.0
Tulsa
16.1
Power ratings updated throughout the season as results accumulate
Momentum Control (CSS)
Consecutive Scoring Sequences Who builds scoring momentum? Tulsa Edge
Avg sequences created per game
Cincinnati #39
1.25
Tulsa #77
1.75
Avg sequences allowed per game (lower is better)
Cincinnati #9
0.25
Tulsa #63
1.25
Tulsa +0.50
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 4 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance Who controls games start to finish? Cincinnati Edge
Avg GC score per game (offense)
Cincinnati #1
66.5
Tulsa #1
52.3
Avg GC score allowed per game (lower is better)
Cincinnati #32
26.9
Tulsa #105
33.8
Cincinnati +14.1
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 64.9% of games historically
Based on 4 games this season
Spread Context
ATS Historical Context
Based on 2021–2025 backtest · FBS vs FBS · Regular season

CSS and GC disagree on this matchup. When the metrics split, historical cover rates are essentially random — treat this as a coin flip against the spread.

ATS data is informational only. Past cover rates do not guarantee future results.

Coaching Matchup
Cincinnati
Luke Fickell #1
48–15 (76%) · Yr 6 at school
OC Gino Guidugli Yr 1 #1
DC Mike Tressel Yr 2 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #1
Tulsa
Philip Montgomery #1
38–46 (45%) · Yr 8 at school
OC Philip Montgomery Yr 2 #1
DC Luke Olson Yr 1 #1
Staff Rating
0.00 #1
About these metrics
Advanced Stats shows matchup-adjusted factor edges (offense vs opponent defense). Combination signals — when PPA, PPO, Success Rate, and Havoc all point the same direction — have historically predicted the SU winner in 95–97% of games and the ATS winner in 82–83% of games (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS, regular season).
Impact: Advanced Stats are the best performance based metric used to predict the outcome of games.

Momentum Control (CSS) measures consecutive scoring sequences — when a team scores, holds the opponent scoreless, then scores again. Teams entering a game with a CSS edge of +1.0 or more have won 71–78% of games historically (2021–2025, FBS vs FBS).
Impact: Momentum Control is a great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set.

Game Control (GC) measures win probability dominance — how thoroughly a team controlled the game from start to finish. Teams with a GC edge of +12 or more have won 67–76% of games historically. When both metrics agree, combined confidence is higher. When they split, treat as a lean at best.
Impact: Game Control is another great measure for predicting game outcome but NOT an ATS advantage, data shows this is already considered when lines are set.

Power Ratings are a custom-built composite of a Teams Talent, Experience & Production, Coaching & Performance Metrics. These are updated constantly with roster changes, performance once the games start for the 2026 season, injuries the team is dealing with and scheduling situations.
Impact: There are a wide range of power ratings available, we think ours is the best, you can decide for yourself