#6Jordan Brunson

RB·Miami (OH)·2025

Jordan Brunson is a Committee Back for Miami (OH). Jordan's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 149 plays — a developing rate for the RB.

What projects, and what doesn't · RBs · 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)0.52
Beats guessing the RB average by 18%. n=4,219 RB seasons
EPA per play (efficiency)0.10
Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=3,575 RB seasons
Total EPA (value)0.41
Beats guessing the RB average by 9%. n=3,575 RB seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Jordan Brunson'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

767 Rush yards4 Rush TD164 Carries4.7 Yards/carry

Receiving

1 Receptions5 Rec yards0 Rec TD5.0 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

Efficiency0
Volume59
Explosiveness34
Consistency0
Receiving8

Player type

Committee Back

Part of a rotation — contributes in a complementary role and keeps the featured back fresh.

Rotational roleSituational use

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg

Key findings

▸Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
▸High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.17 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 0.36 EPA/play in Wk 5 vs Lindenwood.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗

Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

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

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Car	Rush Yds	Avg	Rush TD	Rec	Rec Yds	Rec TD	EPA/play
1	@Wisconsin	L0-17	-4.4	2	2	1.0	0	—	—	—	-0.73
4	vsUNLV	L38-41	4.3	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
5	vsLindenwood	W38-0	—	10	36	3.6	1	—	—	—	0.36
6	@Northern Illinois	W25-14	-16.7	20	73	3.7	0	—	—	—	-0.05
7	@Akron	W20-7	-13.9	19	72	3.8	0	—	—	—	-0.25
8	vsEastern Michigan	W44-30	-14.7	23	122	5.3	1	1	5	0	0.26
9	vsWestern Michigan	W26-17	-1.4	13	90	6.9	0	—	—	—	0.27
11	@Ohio	L20-24	-4.0	15	49	3.3	0	—	—	—	-0.11
12	vsToledo	L3-24	6.0	9	44	4.9	0	—	—	—	0.05
13	@Buffalo	W37-20	-7.5	16	123	7.7	0	—	—	—	0.20
14	vsBall State	W45-24	-23.0	14	54	3.9	1	—	—	—	0.09
15	vsWestern Michigan	L13-23	-1.4	14	59	4.2	1	—	—	—	0.20
20	vsFresno State	L3-18	1.8	9	43	4.8	0	—	—	—	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

20.7%

Passing plays

0.9%

Rushing plays

37.3%

Standard downs

24.8%

Passing downs

12.2%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: -0.00
Passing downs: 0.18
Pass / Rush EPA: -0.37 / 0.04

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