Skip to content
J.Michael Sturdivant
J.Michael Sturdivant

#9J.Michael Sturdivant

J.Michael Sturdivant is a Versatile WR for Florida. J.Michael's 2025 season produced 30.0 total EPA across 46 plays.

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 J.Michael Sturdivant'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
27 Receptions406 Rec yards3 Rec TD15.0 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Kick returns10 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume18
  • Explosiveness54
  • Consistency74
  • Pass-Down62
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 consistency74th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 8 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.25 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 2.17 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs Kentucky (SP+ 2).

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 · 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

+2.1702.17Wk 1 vs Long Island University: +0.38 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs South Florida: +0.44 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs LSU: +0.02 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Miami: +0.90 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Texas: +1.51 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Texas A&M: +0.63 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Mississippi State: +0.61 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Georgia: +0.35 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Kentucky: +2.17 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Ole Miss: +0.45 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Tennessee: +0.01 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Florida State: +1.79 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsLong Island UniversityW55-0273.5180.38
2vsSouth FloridaL16-1811.622110.50120.44
3@LSUL10-2010.334314.30180.02
4@MiamiL7-2620.7155.0050.90
6vsTexasW29-2116.224221.00231.51
7@Texas A&ML17-3420.725326.50270.63
8vsMississippi StateW23-214.134314.30200.61
10vsGeorgiaL20-2424.122110.50130.35
11@KentuckyL7-381.83299.70122.17
12@Ole MissL24-3424.026231.01570.45
13vsTennesseeL11-3115.022211.00200.01
14vsFlorida StateW40-217.235819.31341.79

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.3%
Passing plays
12.1%
Rushing plays
0.3%
Standard downs
5.4%
Passing downs
8.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.62
Passing downs
0.70
Pass / Rush EPA
0.68 / -0.59

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.