Skip to content
Kiefer Sibley
Kiefer Sibley

#21Kiefer Sibley

RB·North Texas·2025

Kiefer Sibley is a Explosive Back for North Texas. Kiefer's 2025 season produced 18.0 total EPA across 40 plays.

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 Kiefer Sibley'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
274 Rush yards5 Rush TD45 Carries6.1 Yards/carry
Receiving
3 Receptions34 Rec yards0 Rec TD11.3 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume24
  • Explosiveness62
  • Consistency54
  • Receiving31
Player type
Explosive Back

Elite per-carry efficiency — breaks big runs and creates chunk plays at a top rate while in a limited role.

Big-play threatHigh EPA per carryCapitalises on opportunities
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency54th %ile · average
Key findings
  • ▸Top-10% efficiency among RBs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • ▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • ▸4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • ▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • ▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.38 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • ▸Peak game: 1.94 EPA/play in Wk 14 vs Temple (SP+ -5).

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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.940−1.94Wk 1 vs Lamar: +0.16 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Western Michigan: +1.31 EPA/play2Wk 8 vs UTSA: +0.49 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Charlotte: +0.84 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Navy: -0.39 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs UAB: -0.48 EPA/play12Wk 14 vs Temple: +1.94 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs Tulane: +0.20 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsLamarW51-0—6386.31———0.16
2@Western MichiganW33-30-1.47385.4123501.31
8vsUTSAW55-173.78637.91———0.49
9@CharlotteW54-20-26.777110.12———0.84
10vsNavyW31-176.2681.30———-0.39
12@UABW53-24-15.8252.501-10-0.48
14vsTempleW52-25-5.111111.00———1.94
15@TulaneL21-346.38405.00———0.20

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
8.3%
Passing plays
1.4%
Rushing plays
15.2%
Standard downs
8.3%
Passing downs
8.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.21
Passing downs
1.02
Pass / Rush EPA
0.46 / 0.45

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.