Skip to content
Brian Shane

#86Brian Shane

Brian Shane is a Versatile TE for Miami (OH).

What projects, and what doesn't · TEs · 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)0.42
    Beats guessing the TE average by 9%. n=2,225 TE seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.04
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=2,016 TE seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.46
    Beats guessing the TE average by 13%. n=2,016 TE seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Brian Shane'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.

2025 Production

Receiving
13 Receptions116 Rec yards2 Rec TD8.9 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume9
  • Explosiveness13
  • Consistency65
  • Pass-Down66
Player type
Versatile TE

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

Balanced usageMulti-role
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency65th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.16 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.80 EPA/play in Wk 7 vs Akron (SP+ -14).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Elite

Top-3 player at position nationally. Collective + national brand 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 · TE · 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
Ty ThompsonTulane0.4200.720.2
Seth GreenMinnesota0.3900.032.4
Johnny LanganRutgers0.3000.017.7
Evan SvobodaWyoming0.2900.521.8
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.8001.80Wk 4 vs UNLV: -0.08 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Lindenwood: -0.03 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Akron: +1.80 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Eastern Michigan: +0.93 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Western Michigan: +0.85 EPA/play9Wk 12 vs Toledo: +0.92 EPA/play12Wk 15 vs Western Michigan: -0.28 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
4vsUNLVL38-414.32126.0013-0.08
5vsLindenwoodW38-0144.004-0.03
7@AkronW20-7-13.912020.00201.80
8vsEastern MichiganW44-30-14.745614.01200.93
9vsWestern MichiganW26-17-1.4133.0130.85
12vsToledoL3-246.02178.50100.92
15vsWestern MichiganL13-23-1.4100.000-0.28
20vsFresno StateL3-181.8144.004

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.0%
Passing plays
6.4%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
2.9%
Passing downs
3.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.54
Passing downs
0.63
Pass / Rush EPA
0.57 / —

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.