Skip to content
Ben Prosper

Ben Prosper

Ben Prosper is a Versatile WR for Eastern Michigan.

2026 Usage Outlook · projected share of team plays

6%
projected
band 2%'25 5%9%

Regressed toward the WR mean. Model correlation r≈0.47 on a 2019-2025 walk-forward — volume only; efficiency not projected.

What projects, and what doesn't · WRs · held out 2019-2025

How well one season predicts the next, measured on seasons the model never trained on. 1.00 would be perfectly predictable; 0.00 means last year told us nothing.

  • Usage share (volume)0.47
    Beats guessing the WR average by 16%. n=6,302 WR seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.09
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=5,767 WR seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.45
    Beats guessing the WR average by 12%. n=5,767 WR seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Ben Prosper's projection is a projection of opportunity — how much of the offense he runs through. How well he converts it is something this model does not claim to know a year in advance, and the number above is why.

2026 Production

Receiving
11 Receptions111 Rec yards0 Rec TD10.1 Yards/rec

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

21
Targets
9.2y
Avg depth
5.5y
After catch
52%
Catch rate

The ball travels 9.2 yards in the air on an average target about the median for the position. Another 5.5 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
2
50% · 25y
1
0% · 0y
2
0% · 0y
short
4
75% · 20y
5
60% · 43y
7
57% · 23y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2026 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency33
  • Volume31
  • Explosiveness21
  • Consistency50
  • Pass-Down24
Player type
Versatile WR

Balanced profile without a single dominant trait — contributes across multiple dimensions.

Balanced usageMulti-role
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)33th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs WR peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.

NIL Market Tier· 2026

On3 valuation ↗
Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group deals.

Tier is a model estimate based on position, school brand, performance rank, and usage — not a reported deal. NIL deals are private. For a real market valuation, see On3's NIL profile, which factors in social following and actual deal tracking.

Historical Comparables · WR · efficiency + volume + value

Players from 2013–2025 matched on EPA efficiency, play volume, and adjusted value tier — not just one metric.

PlayerTeamWEPA/playLine valTotal EPA
Amare JonesTulane0.1800.012.8
Brandon ChatmanNavy0.2300.612.0
Amare JonesTulane0.2300.813.3
Tyler BuchnerNotre Dame0.2500.312.8
Eli HeidenreichNavy0.2200.815.4

Comps are statistical — efficiency, volume, and value tier all factor in. Style and conference context differ.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
0vsSacramento StateW28-17-19.178111.6025
2@Michigan StateL7-351.04307.509-0.12

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
10.9%
Passing plays
19.1%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
10.7%
Passing downs
11.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.14
Passing downs
-0.02
Pass / Rush EPA
0.08 / —

Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.