Skip to content
Carsen Ryan

#20Carsen Ryan

TE·BYU·2025

Carsen Ryan is a Versatile TE for BYU. Carsen's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 55 plays — a elite rate for the TE.

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 Carsen Ryan'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
45 Receptions620 Rec yards3 Rec TD13.8 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Punt returns14 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume17
  • Explosiveness45
  • Consistency70
  • Pass-Down40
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 consistency70th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 7 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.29 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.07 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Portland State.

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

+2.0702.07Wk 1 vs Portland State: +2.07 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Stanford: +0.66 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs East Carolina: +0.83 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Colorado: +0.99 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs West Virginia: +0.01 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Utah: +0.24 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Iowa State: +0.19 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Texas Tech: +0.71 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs TCU: +1.02 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Cincinnati: -0.28 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs UCF: +1.19 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs Texas Tech: -0.10 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsPortland StateW69-024723.51252.07
2vsStanfordW27-3-11.833612.00250.66
4@East CarolinaW34-138.046315.81240.83
5@ColoradoW24-21-8.334615.30280.99
6vsWest VirginiaW38-24-6.82199.50140.01
8vsUtahW24-2122.24369.00260.24
9@Iowa StateW41-279.92136.50100.19
11@Texas TechL7-2927.64328.00150.71
12vsTCUW44-138.347919.81431.02
13@CincinnatiW26-144.52168.0011-0.28
14vsUCFW41-21-1.258517.00261.19
15vsTexas TechL7-3427.622814.0022-0.10
20vsGeorgia TechW25-219.3812015.0035

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.0%
Passing plays
13.8%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
5.6%
Passing downs
6.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.62
Passing downs
0.56
Pass / Rush EPA
0.60 / —

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.