#13Gino Campiotti

TE·Massachusetts·20220.7 pts line value1st Round

Gino Campiotti is a Workhorse Receiver TE for Massachusetts. Gino's 2022 season ranks in the 50th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 163 plays — a average 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 Gino Campiotti'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.

2022 Production

Passing

33/74 Comp/Att257 Pass yards1 Pass TD6 INT44.6% Comp %

Rushing

390 Rush yards3 Rush TD102 Carries3.8 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2022 · vs TE peers

Efficiency50
Volume77
Explosiveness0
Consistency31
Pass-Down67

Player type

Workhorse Receiver TE

The primary target in the offense — used across all situations and down-types at an elite volume.

Top target shareAll-down utilityOffense runs through this player

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)50th %ile · average

Game-to-game consistency31th %ile · below avg

Key findings

▸High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.15 EPA/play decline from first to second half.

NIL Market Tier· 2022

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.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Johnny Langan	Rutgers	2019	117	0.240	0.0	28.1
Heinrich Haarberg	Nebraska	2023	112	0.260	0.6	29.1
Connor Blumrick	Texas A&M	2021	106	0.230	0.0	24.4
Cole Gautsche	New Mexico	2013	104	0.170	1.0	17.7
Kaden Feagin	Illinois	2023	98	0.180	0.0	17.6

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

Game Log · EPA per play, week by week

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	EPA/play	Pass	Rush
1	@Tulane	L10-42	12.4	0.15	—	0.15
2	@Toledo	L10-55	-3.7	0.06	0.01	0.14
3	vsStony Brook	W20-3	—	0.27	0.41	0.09
4	@Temple	L0-28	-12.9	0.15	-0.18	0.48
5	@Eastern Michigan	L13-20	-7.1	0.13	0.03	0.21
6	vsLiberty	L24-42	-1.5	-0.31	-0.66	-0.09
7	vsBuffalo	L7-34	-9.2	0.18	—	0.18
10	@UConn	L10-27	-14.6	-0.20	—	-0.20
12	@Texas A&M	L3-20	9.1	0.07	—	0.07
13	vsArmy	L7-44	-1.5	0.29	—	0.29

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

26.9%

Passing plays

33.6%

Rushing plays

24.2%

Standard downs

24.6%

Passing downs

31.2%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.07
Passing downs: 0.17
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.02 / 0.18

Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg

EPA per play · 2022 · 10 games

Chart shows per-game EPA (bars) and rolling 5-game average (line). Season breaks marked with dashed lines. Line value = est. points over replacement per game.