#5Jordan Mcdonald

RB·Boston College·2025

Jordan Mcdonald is a Committee Back for Boston College. Jordan's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 100 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 Mcdonald'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

397 Rush yards4 Rush TD94 Carries4.2 Yards/carry

Receiving

13 Receptions84 Rec yards2 Rec TD6.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

Efficiency0
Volume37
Explosiveness24
Consistency28
Receiving43

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 consistency28th %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 0.20 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 1.08 EPA/play in Wk 14 vs Syracuse (SP+ -13).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗

Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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	vsFordham	W66-10	—	6	20	3.3	0	2	13	1	0.38
2	@Michigan State	L40-42	-3.4	5	12	2.4	0	1	5	0	-0.38
3	@Stanford	L20-30	-11.8	4	14	3.5	1	2	12	0	0.21
5	vsCalifornia	L24-28	-3.2	2	4	2.0	0	1	4	0	-0.48
6	@Pittsburgh	L7-48	8.4	5	31	6.2	0	1	11	0	0.55
7	vsClemson	L10-41	9.5	4	17	4.3	0	1	16	0	0.09
8	vsUConn	L23-38	5.1	24	123	5.1	0	—	—	—	-0.03
9	@Louisville	L24-38	12.4	19	80	4.2	0	2	8	0	0.12
10	vsNotre Dame	L10-25	24.4	3	4	1.3	0	—	—	—	-0.11
11	vsSMU	L13-45	13.4	8	30	3.8	0	2	10	1	0.23
12	vsGeorgia Tech	L34-36	9.3	9	34	3.8	1	—	—	—	0.31
14	@Syracuse	W34-12	-13.1	5	28	5.6	2	1	5	0	1.08

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

13.1%

Passing plays

3.1%

Rushing plays

27.4%

Standard downs

16.4%

Passing downs

5.5%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.03
Passing downs: 0.61
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.51 / 0.05

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