Skip to content
Jackson Acker

#34Jackson Acker

Jackson Acker is a Versatile TE for Wisconsin.

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 Jackson Acker'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
55 Rush yards0 Rush TD15 Carries3.7 Yards/carry
Receiving
8 Receptions66 Rec yards1 Rec TD8.3 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume13
  • Explosiveness8
  • Consistency74
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Versatile TE

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 TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 6 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.18 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.73 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Alabama (SP+ 15).

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 · TE · 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
Ty ThompsonTulane0.4200.720.2
Seth GreenMinnesota0.3900.032.4
Johnny LanganRutgers0.3000.017.7
Evan SvobodaWyoming0.2900.521.8
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.7301.73Wk 1 vs Miami (OH): +0.76 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Middle Tennessee: +0.23 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Alabama: +1.73 EPA/play3Wk 6 vs Michigan: -0.23 EPA/play6Wk 9 vs Oregon: +0.69 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Washington: +0.26 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Indiana: +1.69 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Illinois: +0.46 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Minnesota: +0.89 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsMiami (OH)W17-0-3.40.76
2vsMiddle TennesseeW42-10-16.00.23
3@AlabamaL14-3814.8188.0081.73
6@MichiganL10-2412.4155.005-0.23
8vsOhio StateL0-3430.1
9@OregonL7-2125.90.69
11vsWashingtonW13-1018.43279.00240.26
12@IndianaL7-3132.411919.00191.69
13vsIllinoisW27-1012.9166.0060.46
14@MinnesotaL7-171.5111.0110.89

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
4.5%
Passing plays
4.6%
Rushing plays
4.5%
Standard downs
6.0%
Passing downs
1.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.47
Passing downs
0.92
Pass / Rush EPA
0.60 / 0.44

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.170−0.72
EPA per play · 2023 · 11 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.

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.