#89Jacob Harris

TE·Bowling Green·2025

Jacob Harris is a Red Zone Weapon TE for Bowling Green.

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 Jacob Harris'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

19 Receptions182 Rec yards5 Rec TD9.6 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

Efficiency100
Volume12
Explosiveness17
Consistency67
Pass-Down58

Player type

Red Zone Weapon TE

Goes from good to great inside the 20 — high TD conversion on limited looks makes this receiver a scoring machine.

Red zone targetHigh TD rateSize/catch radius advantage

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite

Game-to-game consistency67th %ile · average

Key findings

▸Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
▸6 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.34 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 2.32 EPA/play in Wk 7 vs Toledo (SP+ 6).

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.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Ty Thompson	Tulane	2024	48	0.420	0.7	20.2
Seth Green	Minnesota	2018	83	0.390	0.0	32.4
Johnny Langan	Rutgers	2020	59	0.300	0.0	17.7
Evan Svoboda	Wyoming	2024	75	0.290	0.5	21.8
Jordan Myers	Rice	2021	59	0.270	0.2	15.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

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

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Rec	Rec Yds	Avg	Rec TD	Long	EPA/play
1	vsLafayette	W26-7	—	1	6	6.0	0	6	0.19
2	@Cincinnati	L20-34	4.5	2	5	2.5	0	5	-0.47
3	vsLiberty	W23-13	-9.0	2	21	10.5	1	12	1.68
4	@Louisville	L17-40	12.4	3	46	15.3	1	38	0.97
7	vsToledo	W28-23	6.0	1	8	8.0	1	8	2.32
8	vsCentral Michigan	L6-27	-8.8	2	15	7.5	0	9	0.53
9	@Kent State	L21-24	-19.3	2	23	11.5	1	13	1.46
11	@Eastern Michigan	L21-27	-14.7	2	23	11.5	0	16	1.08
13	vsAkron	L16-19	-13.9	2	29	14.5	1	21	0.35
14	@Massachusetts	W45-14	-36.6	2	6	3.0	0	5	-0.41

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

4.1%

Passing plays

10.3%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

2.4%

Passing downs

7.6%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.55
Passing downs: 0.60
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.58 / —

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