Skip to content
Jeremiah Ballard
Jeremiah Ballard

#13Jeremiah Ballard

WR·UTEP·2023

Jeremiah Ballard is a Versatile WR for UTEP. Jeremiah's 2023 season produced 38.8 total EPA across 45 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 Jeremiah Ballard'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
34 Receptions551 Rec yards1 Rec TD16.2 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume19
  • Explosiveness61
  • Consistency85
  • Pass-Down100
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 consistency85th %ile · above avg
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.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 1.70 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs Middle Tennessee (SP+ -10).

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
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.7001.70Wk 1 vs Incarnate Word: +0.69 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Northwestern: +1.48 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Arizona: +1.25 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs UNLV: +0.74 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Louisiana Tech: +0.29 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Florida International: +1.55 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs New Mexico State: +1.42 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Sam Houston: +0.17 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Western Kentucky: +0.76 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Middle Tennessee: +1.70 EPA/play12
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
0@Jacksonville StateL14-17-1.6177.007
1vsIncarnate WordW28-142115.5070.69
2@NorthwesternL7-38-1.349223.00361.48
3@ArizonaL10-3114.134816.00381.25
4vsUNLVL28-451.424924.51270.74
5vsLouisiana TechL10-24-12.933913.00260.29
7@Florida InternationalW27-14-21.236521.70501.55
8vsNew Mexico StateL7-28-1.857515.00291.42
9@Sam HoustonW37-34-13.834816.00370.17
10vsWestern KentuckyL13-21-2.04307.50150.76
12@Middle TennesseeL30-34-9.548721.80301.70

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.5%
Passing plays
14.4%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
6.1%
Passing downs
7.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.71
Passing downs
1.10
Pass / Rush EPA
0.86 / —

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.