Week 10 2025 · October 30, 2025
Tulane at UTSA, Week 10 2025: who deserved to win?
UTSA beat Tulane 48–26, and the replays back it up: with the way both teams actually played, UTSA wins 8 of 10.
An off day for Tulane: its defense played far below its usual level. In a fresh game against UTSA it would win 51% of the time; with this day’s form, 19%. The numbers
Before kickoff Tulane was a 65% favorite. The biggest swing (Q2, 8:09 left): P. Durkin missed a 23-yard field goal, worth 8 points of win probability to UTSA.
Final
 Tulane Green Wave | 26 |
|---|---|
 UTSA Roadrunners | 48 |
Replay with same day's form
Luck index +19 UTSA about even · −19 Tulane
Each team’s own plays from this game, resampled into new drives 4,000 times: with the way both teams actually played, how often does this performance win? How the replay works
Ten replays. Tulane wins 2, UTSA wins 8.
- 1 TULN 52 UTSA 33
- 2 TULN 42 UTSA 38
- 3 TULN 34 UTSA 37
- 4 TULN 43 UTSA 49
- 5 TULN 17 UTSA 27
- 6 TULN 28 UTSA 42
- 7 TULN 31 UTSA 49
- 8 TULN 19 UTSA 42
- 9 TULN 35 UTSA 63
- 10 TULN 14 UTSA 51
Three other ways to ask
Each answers a different question, so none of them replaces the replay above.
Before kickoff
The closing betting line, turned into a probability. What everyone knew before the game.
Same teams, fresh game
The line plus what this game showed, weighted by how much one game can tell. It stays close to the line because one game says little.
Only coin-flips re-rolled
Every kick, fumble bounce, conversion and judgment call redrawn; everything else fixed. The narrowest view of luck.
An off day for Tulane
Its defense played far below its usual level. In a fresh game against UTSA it would win 51% of the time; with this day’s form, 19%.
Same teams, fresh game
Replay with same day's form
32 points apart for Tulane: the gap is how differently this game went from what the two teams usually are.
| Unit | This game | Usual level | Better or worse than usual |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tulane offenseEPA per play gained | +0.21 | +0.16 | better by 0.05 |
| Tulane defenseEPA per play allowed | +0.50 | +0.07 | worse by 0.43 |
| UTSA offenseEPA per play gained | +0.50 | +0.06 | better by 0.44 |
| UTSA defenseEPA per play allowed | +0.21 | +0.06 | worse by 0.15 |
EPA (expected points added) per play on competitive snaps, turnovers left out because they are valued as luck. Usual level: the team’s earlier games this season plus half of last season, pulled toward the league average. One team’s defense and the other team’s offense are the same snaps, so one game can’t fully say whose day it was; it shows how far this one was from both teams’ norms.
How 4,000 replays ended
Tulane wins 19% of them, UTSA 81%, counting the 1% still level after regulation as half each. The line is what actually happened: UTSA by 22.
Show as a table
| Final margin in the replays | Share of replays |
|---|---|
| Tulane by 17+ | 3.4% |
| Tulane by 9–16 | 4.4% |
| Tulane by 1–8 | 9.6% |
| Level after regulation | 1.4% |
| UTSA by 1–8 | 15.2% |
| UTSA by 9–16 | 19.0% |
| UTSA by 17+ | 47.1% |
Where the luck was
What the luck was worth
Every lucky and unlucky play, weighted by the moment it happened: its swing in win probability, added up by kind. A missed kick in a decided game counts for nothing; the same kick at the end of a tie game can be most of a win.
The kicks
How likely each kicker was to make that kick (his own record, the distance), and what happened.
- M. Petro, 34 yds made · 82% expected
- P. Durkin, 23 yds missed · 94% expected
- M. Petro, 43 yds made · 68% expected
Penalties: Tulane 5 for 31 yards, UTSA 10 for 116 yards
Every accepted flag, in order, and what it did to the helped team’s chance of winning at that moment, including any play it wiped out (points on the scoreboard in grey). A flag in a decided game is worth nothing; one at the turn of a close game can be worth most of a win. Judgment calls count toward luck, pre-snap fouls mostly don’t. How calls are valued
| When | Flag | Win probability for |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 12:33 | Pass Interference on UTSA, 15 yards | +5% TULN +3.2 pts |
| Q1 9:58 | Pass Interference on Tulane, 6 yards | +3% UTSA +1.4 pts |
| Q1 6:44 | Holding on UTSA, 10 yards, wiping out the play | +7% TULN +3.1 pts |
| Q2 10:45 | Holding on Tulane, 10 yards, wiping out the play | +5% UTSA +2.0 pts |
| Q2 9:05 | Pass Interference on UTSA, 9 yards | +4% TULN +1.5 pts |
| Q2 9:03 | Pass Interference on UTSA, 2 yards | +1% TULN +0.5 pts |
| Q2 9:00 | False Start on Tulane, 5 yards · pre-snap | +3% UTSA +1.1 pts |
| Q2 6:05 | Pass Interference on UTSA, 15 yards | +3% TULN +1.4 pts |
| Q2 3:09 | False Start on Tulane, 5 yards · pre-snap | +1% UTSA +0.9 pts |
| Q3 12:24 | False Start on UTSA, 5 yards · pre-snap | 0% TULN +0.4 pts |
| Q4 13:47 | False Start on Tulane, 5 yards · pre-snap | 0% UTSA +0.4 pts |
| Q4 9:54 | Pass Interference on UTSA, 15 yards, wiping out the play | 0% TULN +2.5 pts |
| Q4 8:43 | Roughing the Passer on UTSA, 15 yards | 0% UTSA +0.3 pts |
| Q4 8:36 | Pass Interference on UTSA, 15 yards, wiping out the play | 0% TULN +4.2 pts |
| Q4 8:17 | Face Mask on UTSA, 15 yards | 0% TULN +1.6 pts |
When it happened
UTSA’s chance of winning
As low as 24% and as high as 100%. Numbers mark the biggest luck moments, listed below.
| # | When | What happened | Win probability for | Next drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Q1 12:33 | Pass Interference on UTSA, 15 yardsJudgment calls | +5% TULN | TULN: Touchdown |
| 2 | Q1 8:29 | Tulane fumbled and UTSA recoveredFumble bounces · loose balls are close to 50/50 | +5% UTSA | TULN: Turnover on downs |
| 3 | Q1 6:44 | Holding on UTSA, 10 yards, wiping out the playJudgment calls | +7% TULN | TULN: Turnover on downs |
| 4 | Q1 0:53 | Tulane was stopped on 4th & 33rd & 4th downs · 53% expected | +7% UTSA | TULN: Missed field goal |
| 5 | Q2 10:45 | Holding on Tulane, 10 yards, wiping out the playJudgment calls | +5% UTSA | UTSA: Punt |
| 6 | Q2 9:56 | Tulane converted 3rd & 63rd & 4th downs · 38% expected | +4% TULN | TULN: Missed field goal |
| 7 | Q2 9:05 | Pass Interference on UTSA, 9 yardsJudgment calls | +4% TULN | TULN: Missed field goal |
| 8 | Q2 8:09 | P. Durkin missed a 23-yard field goalKicks · 94% expected for him | +8% UTSA | TULN: Turnover |
Adjust the assumptions
Disagree with how much of a fumble bounce or a pass interference call is luck? Change it and the coin-flip replay reruns in your browser.
Only coin-flips re-rolled
Tulane 10% · UTSA 90%
- Final margin
- UTSA by 22
- Luck in points
- 14.1 for UTSA
- Luck-adjusted margin
- UTSA by 7.9
- Replay with same day's form
- Tulane 19% · UTSA 81% unchanged: why
About these numbers
Play-by-play and expected points from CollegeFootballData.com via cfbfastR; win probability from our own model of the score, the possession and the betting line; kicks valued against each kicker’s own record. College play-by-play has no charting of drops or interception-worthy throws and no injury reports, so those kinds of luck aren’t counted here.
Methodology and validation · All Week 10 2025 games · 
Tulane · 
UTSA
More from Week 10 2025
- Army at Air Force ARMY 20–17 · replay 34% for the winner
- Navy at North Texas UNT 31–17 · replay 48% for the winner
- UAB at UConn CONN 38–19 · replay 93% for the winner
- Memphis at Rice MEM 38–14 · replay 100% for the winner
- East Carolina at Temple ECU 45–14 · replay 100% for the winner
- Oklahoma at Tennessee OU 33–27 · replay 17% for the winner
- Duke at Clemson DUKE 46–45 · replay 22% for the winner
- Mississippi State at Arkansas MSST 38–35 · replay 23% for the winner
- Washington State at Oregon State ORST 10–7 · replay 27% for the winner
- Miami at SMU SMU 26–20 · replay 32% for the winner
- Georgia Tech at NC State NCSU 48–36 · replay 35% for the winner
- Michigan State at Minnesota MINN 23–20 · replay 41% for the winner