Skip to content
Emeka Egbuka

#2Emeka Egbuka

Emeka Egbuka is a Versatile WR for Ohio State. Emeka's 2024 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 97 plays — a elite rate for the WR.

What projects, and what doesn't · WRs · 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)0.47
    Beats guessing the WR average by 16%. n=6,302 WR seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.09
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=5,767 WR seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.45
    Beats guessing the WR average by 12%. n=5,767 WR seasons

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

2024 Production

Receiving
81 Receptions1011 Rec yards10 Rec TD12.5 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Punt returns-1 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume29
  • Explosiveness37
  • Consistency82
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Versatile WR

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 consistency82th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 10 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.57 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.03 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Marshall (SP+ 3).

NIL Market Tier· 2024

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 · WR · 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
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4

Comps are statistical — efficiency, volume, and value tier all factor in. Style and conference context differ.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.0302.03Wk 1 vs Akron: +1.57 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Western Michigan: +1.02 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs Marshall: +2.03 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Michigan State: +1.88 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Iowa: +0.99 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Oregon: +0.75 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Nebraska: +0.70 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Penn State: +0.35 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Purdue: +0.53 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Northwestern: +0.14 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Indiana: +1.11 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Michigan: +0.57 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsAkronW52-6-17.945112.80191.57
2vsWestern MichiganW56-0-10.259819.60351.02
4vsMarshallW49-143.1511723.41682.03
5@Michigan StateW38-7-4.679613.71331.88
6vsIowaW35-715.89717.93150.99
7@OregonL31-3226.010939.31260.75
9vsNebraskaW21-175.53206.7090.70
10@Penn StateW20-1324.633110.31250.35
11vsPurdueW45-0-16.211010.01100.53
12vsNorthwesternW31-7-8.222512.50200.14
13vsIndianaW38-1520.178011.41251.11
14vsMichiganL10-1310.645112.80180.57
20vsOregonW41-2126.057214.4142
20vsNotre DameW34-2323.966410.7024
20vsTennesseeW42-1722.058116.2040
20vsTexasW28-1424.155110.2014

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
10.1%
Passing plays
19.6%
Rushing plays
1.6%
Standard downs
10.1%
Passing downs
10.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.69
Passing downs
1.09
Pass / Rush EPA
0.90 / -0.26

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.