Skip to content
Cade Yacamelli

#20Cade Yacamelli

Cade Yacamelli is a Committee Back for Wisconsin.

What projects, and what doesn't · RBs · 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)0.52
    Beats guessing the RB average by 18%. n=4,219 RB seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.10
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=3,575 RB seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.41
    Beats guessing the RB average by 9%. n=3,575 RB seasons

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

Rushing
128 Rush yards0 Rush TD38 Carries3.4 Yards/carry
Receiving
2 Receptions26 Rec yards0 Rec TD13.0 Yards/rec
Returns
4 Kick returns83 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume25
  • Explosiveness8
  • Consistency58
  • Receiving47
Player type
Committee Back

Part of a rotation — contributes in a complementary role and keeps the featured back fresh.

Rotational roleSituational use
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency58th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.6100.61Wk 1 vs Miami (OH): +0.05 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Middle Tennessee: -0.01 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Alabama: +0.03 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Maryland: -0.42 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Michigan: -0.61 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Iowa: +0.08 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Ohio State: -0.34 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Oregon: -0.17 EPA/play9
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsMiami (OH)W17-0-3.45204.000.05
2vsMiddle TennesseeW42-10-16.04153.80-0.01
3@AlabamaL14-3814.85214.200.03
4vsMarylandL10-270.6242.001120-0.42
6@MichiganL10-2412.41-1-1.00-0.61
7vsIowaL0-3719.77233.3011400.08
8vsOhio StateL0-3430.111302.70-0.34
9@OregonL7-2125.93165.30-0.17
13vsIllinoisW27-1012.9
14@MinnesotaL7-171.5

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
8.9%
Passing plays
2.3%
Rushing plays
14.6%
Standard downs
8.0%
Passing downs
11.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.48
Passing downs
0.04
Pass / Rush EPA
-1.08 / -0.20

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.