Skip to content
Jovanni Bermudez
Jovanni Bermudez

Jovanni Bermudez

Jovanni Bermudez is a Slot Specialist WR for Temple. Jovanni's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 56 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 Jovanni Bermudez'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
39 Receptions501 Rec yards4 Rec TD12.8 Yards/rec
Returns
4 Kick returns67 KR yards0 KR TD10 Punt returns150 PR yards0 PR TD

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

6
Targets
10.2y
Avg depth
6.5y
After catch
67%
Catch rate

The ball travels 10.2 yards in the air on an average target 1.3 yards deeper than the median. Another 6.5 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
2
50% · 26y
short
4
75% · 20y
0
0
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume25
  • Explosiveness39
  • Consistency78
  • Pass-Down66
Player type
Slot Specialist WR

The offense's primary passing-down weapon — routes, separation, and reliability on 3rd down define this role.

3rd-down converterRoute technicianHigh passing-down share
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency78th %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.
  • 7 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.30 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.19 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs UTSA (SP+ 4).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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
Dane KinamonAir Force0.4100.716.0
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Micah DavisAir Force0.3700.616.3
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3700.615.2
JoJo NatsonUtah State0.3901.019.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.1901.19Wk 1 vs Massachusetts: +0.84 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Howard: +0.97 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Oklahoma: +0.14 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Georgia Tech: +0.11 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs UTSA: +1.19 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Navy: +0.87 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Charlotte: -0.05 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Tulsa: +0.37 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs East Carolina: +0.96 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Army: +0.47 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Tulane: +0.43 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs North Texas: +0.15 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@MassachusettsW42-10-36.678712.40230.84
2vsHowardW55-712424.01240.97
3vsOklahomaL3-4218.33155.0090.14
4@Georgia TechL24-459.345814.51280.11
6vsUTSAW27-213.7294.5181.19
7vsNavyL31-326.257414.81300.87
8@CharlotteW49-14-26.734715.7029-0.05
9@TulsaW38-37-10.045814.50380.37
10vsEast CarolinaL14-458.013434.00340.96
11@ArmyL13-140.823919.50210.47
13vsTulaneL13-376.35214.20130.43
14@North TexasL25-5213.823517.50340.15

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
8.6%
Passing plays
16.2%
Rushing plays
1.4%
Standard downs
6.7%
Passing downs
12.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.40
Passing downs
0.50
Pass / Rush EPA
0.57 / -0.55

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.