Army at Tulsa Week 8 College Football Matchup Army at Tulsa Matchup - Week 8
Fri, Oct 23 2026 · Week 8 · 🏟 Skelly Field at H. A. Chapman Stadium Tulsa, OK · Turf · 30,000 cap
Army✈ 1,234 mi-1 hr TZ
Away
VS
Home
Preseason projection — This game has not yet been played and 2026 in-season data is not yet available. Edges are based on 2025 full-season performance. Confidence will increase once in-season games are logged.
📊 Punt & Rally Projection
Army
24
Tulsa
25
P&R Line Tulsa -1
P&R Total O/U 48.5
Confidence 66 Good
Matchup Prediction
Metrics disagree on this matchup
Momentum Control favors Tulsa, while Game Control favors Army. 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
58.3%
Army wins
Lean
Advanced Stats
3 factors agree (PPA + PPO + Havoc) → Army · 82.4% ATS historically
↓ See full breakdown
Army 2026 Schedule
Army's 2026 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/5Army vs Bryant-21.5
Sat 9/12Army vs South Florida-1
— Bye Week —
Sat 9/26Army at Temple-2
Sat 10/3Army at Louisiana Tech-2
Sat 10/10Army vs Tulane-3.5
Sat 10/17Army vs Florida Atlantic-7.5
Fri 10/23Army at Tulsa+1
Sat 10/31Army at Memphis+5.5
Sat 11/7Army vs Air Force-4.5
— Bye Week —
Sat 11/21Army vs East Carolina-1
Sat 11/28Army at Rice-11.5
Tulsa 2026 Schedule
Tulsa's 2026 Schedule
DateMatchupSpreadTotalResultO/UCover
Sat 9/5Tulsa vs Oklahoma State+7
Sat 9/12Tulsa at Sam Houston-17
Sat 9/19Tulsa vs East Texas A&M-20
Sat 9/26Tulsa at Arkansas+8
Thu 10/1Tulsa vs North Texas-6.5
Sat 10/10Tulsa at Navy+5.5
Sat 10/17Tulsa at Rice-10
Fri 10/23Tulsa vs Army-1
— Bye Week —
Sat 11/7Tulsa at Tulane+3
Sat 11/14Tulsa vs Florida Atlantic-6
Sat 11/21Tulsa vs Charlotte-24.5
Sat 11/28Tulsa at UTSA+5
Advanced Stats
Advanced Analytics Matchup
Matchup-adjusted (offense vs opponent defense) · 2025 season (prior year)
Army 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
3 Agree
→ Army
Elite · 73.9% ATS
PPA + Success Rate
Split
Metrics disagree
Individual Factors — Ranked by Predictive Strength
PPA Overall
Points added per play · Elite predictor
Army #53
+0.339
Tulsa #105
+0.289
Army Edge
PPA Passing
Pass efficiency edge · Strong predictor
Army #7
+0.751
Tulsa #114
+0.446
Army Edge
Havoc Total
Def. disruption rate · Strong predictor
Army #121
0.127
Tulsa #121
0.127
TFLs, sacks, PBUs, forced fumbles — higher is better
Even
Points Per Opp
Drive-finishing edge · Strong predictor
Army #67
+7.479
Tulsa #106
+7.107
Army Edge
Success Rate
Play consistency edge · Solid predictor
Army #70
+0.847
Tulsa #97
+0.848
Tulsa Edge
Field Position
Avg start (lower=better) · Solid predictor
Army #39
69.7
Tulsa #115
72.6
Avg yards from own endzone to average start — lower is better · longer bar = better field position
Army Edge
Advanced stats sourced from CFBD · 2025 season (prior year — 2026 data not yet available) · 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
Army #76
-1.0
Tulsa #63
0.8
Offense Rating
Army #78
14.9
Tulsa #53
16.9
Defense Rating (lower = better defense)
Army #71
15.9
Tulsa #75
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
Army #66
0.75
Tulsa #57
0.91
Avg sequences allowed per game (lower is better)
Army #48
0.83
Tulsa #42
0.82
Tulsa +0.16
CSS Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.4% of games historically
Based on 2025 full season · preseason estimate
Game Control (GC)
Win Probability Dominance Who controls games start to finish? Army Edge
Avg GC score per game (offense)
Army #72
41.7
Tulsa #79
35.0
Avg GC score allowed per game (lower is better)
Army #63
36.6
Tulsa #103
49.9
Army +6.7
GC Edge (season-to-date)
Teams with this edge win 58.3% of games historically
Based on 2025 full season · preseason estimate
Coaching Matchup
Army
Jeff Monken #51
89–63 (59%) · Yr 13 at school
OC Cody Worley Yr 3 #105
DC Nate Woody Yr 3 #12
Staff Rating
3.07 #45
Tulsa
Tre Lamb #113
4–8 (33%) · Yr 2 at school
OC Ty Darlington Yr 2 #127
DC Mike Gray Yr 2 #97
Staff Rating
2.10 #120
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