Skip to content
Christian Clark

#10Christian Clark

RB·Texas·2025

Christian Clark is a Committee Back for Texas. Christian's 2025 season produced 2.8 total EPA across 49 plays.

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 Christian Clark'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
236 Rush yards2 Rush TD55 Carries4.3 Yards/carry
Receiving
4 Receptions57 Rec yards0 Rec TD14.3 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume32
  • Explosiveness26
  • Consistency20
  • Receiving54
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 consistency20th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.70 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.53 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Sam Houston (SP+ -28).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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

+0.7800.78Wk 2 vs San José State: -0.13 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs UTEP: +0.18 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Sam Houston: +0.53 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Florida: -0.03 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Oklahoma: -0.78 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Kentucky: -0.23 EPA/play8Wk 13 vs Arkansas: -0.66 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
2vsSan José StateW38-7-14.37213.00-0.13
3vsUTEPW27-10-17.57324.6023200.18
4vsSam HoustonW55-0-27.813624.8111600.53
6@FloridaL21-293.5100.00190-0.03
7vsOklahomaW23-618.3111.00-0.78
8@KentuckyW16-131.83134.30-0.23
13vsArkansasW52-375.1320.70-0.66
20vsMichiganW41-2712.4201055.31

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
11.2%
Passing plays
3.3%
Rushing plays
18.9%
Standard downs
11.3%
Passing downs
11.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.05
Passing downs
0.28
Pass / Rush EPA
0.39 / 0.00

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.