Skip to content
Carson Smith

#34Carson Smith

RB·Army·2025

Carson Smith is a Committee Back for Army. Carson's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 57 plays — a developing rate for the RB.

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 Carson Smith'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
231 Rush yards2 Rush TD55 Carries4.2 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume23
  • Explosiveness24
  • Consistency0
  • Receiving25
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 consistency0th %ile · below avg
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.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 0.83 EPA/play in Wk 7 vs Charlotte (SP+ -27).

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

+0.8300.83Wk 2 vs Kansas State: -0.41 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs North Texas: -0.17 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs East Carolina: -0.41 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs UAB: +0.07 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Charlotte: +0.83 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Tulane: -0.09 EPA/play8Wk 11 vs Temple: +0.26 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Tulsa: -0.25 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs UTSA: -0.20 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDEPA/play
2@Kansas StateW24-217.09232.60-0.41
4vsNorth TexasL38-4513.83103.30-0.17
5@East CarolinaL6-288.0133.00-0.41
6@UABW31-13-15.86294.800.07
7vsCharlotteW24-7-26.76376.210.83
8@TulaneL17-246.38273.40-0.09
11vsTempleW14-13-5.15306.000.26
13vsTulsaL25-26-10.04133.30-0.25
14@UTSAW27-243.74102.50-0.20
20vsUConnW41-165.19495.41

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
8.1%
Passing plays
1.1%
Rushing plays
9.3%
Standard downs
9.1%
Passing downs
5.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.00
Passing downs
0.19
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.75 / 0.04

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.