Skip to content
Cameron Barmore

Cameron Barmore

Cameron Barmore is a Slot Specialist TE for Arizona.

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 Cameron Barmore'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
19 Receptions189 Rec yards2 Rec TD9.9 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume11
  • Explosiveness20
  • Consistency59
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Slot Specialist TE

The offense's primary passing-down weapon — routes, separation, and reliability on 3rd down define this role.

3rd-down converterRoute technicianHigh passing-down share
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency59th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 1.03 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs Houston (SP+ 7).

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

+1.0301.03Wk 6 vs Oklahoma State: +0.32 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Houston: +1.03 EPA/play8Wk 11 vs Kansas: -0.52 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Cincinnati: +0.28 EPA/play12Wk 14 vs Arizona State: +0.92 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
5@Iowa StateL14-399.9
6vsOklahoma StateW41-13-15.12115.5060.32
8@HoustonL28-317.444210.50191.03
11vsKansasW24-204.111616.0016-0.52
12@CincinnatiW30-244.54317.80150.28
14@Arizona StateW23-73.93289.31110.92
20vsSMUL19-2413.456112.2124

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.9%
Passing plays
7.4%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
2.5%
Passing downs
6.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.05
Passing downs
0.81
Pass / Rush EPA
0.51 / —

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.