Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Tulsa,
while Game Control favors Tulane.
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
75.9%
Tulane wins
Solid
Vegas Spread
Tulane -6.5
O/U 56.0
teamrankings
Advanced Stats
PPA + Success Rate agree → Tulane
· 73.9% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Tulane 2022 Schedule
Tulane's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Tulane vs Massachusetts | -28.5W42–10 | 59.0 | W42–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/10 | Tulane vs Alcorn State | -35.5W52–0 | 59.5 | W52–0 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/17 | Tulane at Kansas State | +13.5W17–10 | 49.0 | W17–10 | U | Y |
| Sat 9/24 | Tulane vs Southern Miss | -12.0L24–27 | 48.5 | L24–27 | O | N |
| Fri 9/30 | Tulane at Houston | +5.0W27–24 | 52.0 | W27–24 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/8 | Tulane vs East Carolina | -2.5W24–9 | 56.0 | W24–9 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/15 | Tulane at South Florida | -12.0W45–31 | 55.0 | W45–31 | O | Y |
| Sat 10/22 | Tulane vs Memphis | -7.0W38–28 | 55.5 | W38–28 | O | Y |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Sat 11/5 | Tulane at Tulsa | -6.5W27–13 | 56.0 | W27–13 | U | Y |
| Sat 11/12 | Tulane vs UCF | -1.0L31–38 | 54.5 | L31–38 | O | N |
| Thu 11/17 | Tulane vs SMU | -3.5W59–24 | 65.0 | W59–24 | O | Y |
| Fri 11/25 | Tulane at Cincinnati | -1.0W27–24 | 44.0 | W27–24 | O | Y |
| Sat 12/3 | Tulane vs UCF | -3.5W45–28 | 57.5 | W45–28 | O | Y |
| Mon 1/2 | Tulane vs USC | +1.5W46–45 | 67.0 | W46–45 | O | Y |
Tulsa 2022 Schedule
Tulsa's 2022 Schedule
| Date | Matchup | Spread | Total | Result | O/U | Cover |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 9/3 | Tulsa at Wyoming | -6.5L37–40 | 47.0 | L37–40 | O | N |
| Sat 9/10 | Tulsa vs Northern Illinois | -6.5W38–35 | 63.0 | W38–35 | O | N |
| Sat 9/17 | Tulsa vs Jacksonville State | -12.0W54–17 | 64.0 | W54–17 | O | Y |
| Sat 9/24 | Tulsa at Ole Miss | +21.0L27–35 | 66.5 | L27–35 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/1 | Tulsa vs Cincinnati | +10.0L21–31 | 59.0 | L21–31 | U | Y |
| Sat 10/8 | Tulsa at Navy | -4.5L21–53 | 45.5 | L21–53 | O | N |
| — Bye Week — | ||||||
| Fri 10/21 | Tulsa at Temple | -13.5W27–16 | 53.5 | W27–16 | U | N |
| Sat 10/29 | Tulsa vs SMU | +1.0L34–45 | 63.5 | L34–45 | O | N |
| Sat 11/5 | Tulsa vs Tulane | +6.5L13–27 | 56.0 | L13–27 | U | N |
| Thu 11/10 | Tulsa at Memphis | +7.0L10–26 | 62.0 | L10–26 | U | N |
| Fri 11/18 | Tulsa vs South Florida | -14.0W48–42 | 57.5 | W48–42 | O | N |
| Sat 11/26 | Tulsa at Houston | +13.0W37–30 | 66.5 | W37–30 | O | Y |
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) ·
2022 season
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
→ Tulane
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
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
Power ratings updated throughout the season as results accumulate
Momentum Control (CSS)
Consecutive Scoring Sequences
Who builds scoring momentum?
Tulsa Edge
Tulsa +0.27
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 8 games this season
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance
Who controls games start to finish?
Tulane Edge
Tulane +31.1
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 75.9% of games historically
Based on 8 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
Tulane
Willie Fritz #1
31–43 (42%)
· Yr 7 at school
OC
Jim Svoboda
Yr 1
#1
DC
Chris Hampton
Yr 2
#1
Tulsa
Philip Montgomery #1
38–46 (45%)
· Yr 8 at school
OC
Philip Montgomery
Yr 2
#1
DC
Luke Olson
Yr 1
#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: CSS is not a predictive 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: GS is not a predictive 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 ✓
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: CSS is not a predictive 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: GS is not a predictive 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 ✓