Skip to content
Jacob Cowing

#2Jacob Cowing

Jacob Cowing is a Versatile WR for Arizona. Jacob's 2023 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 68 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 Jacob Cowing'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.

2023 Production

Receiving
89 Receptions839 Rec yards13 Rec TD9.4 Yards/rec
Returns
2 Kick returns11 KR yards0 KR TD11 Punt returns65 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume26
  • Explosiveness16
  • Consistency71
  • Pass-Down53
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 consistency71th %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.
  • 9 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Peak game: 1.77 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Northern Arizona.

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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

+1.7701.77Wk 1 vs Northern Arizona: +1.77 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Mississippi State: -0.91 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs UTEP: +0.85 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Stanford: +0.80 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Washington: +0.57 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs USC: +1.26 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Washington State: +0.11 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Oregon State: +0.32 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs UCLA: +0.59 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Colorado: +0.98 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Utah: +0.41 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Arizona State: +0.94 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsNorthern ArizonaW38-333812.71301.77
2@Mississippi StateL24-310.57314.4117-0.91
3vsUTEPW31-10-16.210848.41160.85
4@StanfordW21-20-11.988510.60250.80
5vsWashingtonL24-3116.48617.61130.57
6@USCL41-439.410888.84251.26
7@Washington StateW44-64.98293.60100.11
9vsOregon StateW27-2412.66366.00140.32
10vsUCLAW27-109.78496.11180.59
11@ColoradoW34-31-4.93248.01130.98
12vsUtahW42-188.5252.5070.41
13@Arizona StateW59-23-11.3915717.41370.94
20vsOklahomaW38-2415.0715221.7257

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
9.1%
Passing plays
15.1%
Rushing plays
1.4%
Standard downs
8.0%
Passing downs
11.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.75
Passing downs
0.77
Pass / Rush EPA
0.81 / 0.12

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.