Skip to content
Kyan Mason

#3Kyan Mason

WR·Akron·2025

Kyan Mason is a Slot Specialist WR for Akron. Kyan's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 51 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 Kyan Mason'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
33 Receptions481 Rec yards5 Rec TD14.6 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Kick returns19 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume19
  • Explosiveness51
  • Consistency71
  • Pass-Down100
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 consistency71th %ile · average
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.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.08 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.81 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Central Michigan (SP+ -9).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Javion PoseyFlorida Atlantic0.4501.423.8

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.8101.81Wk 1 vs Wyoming: -0.06 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Nebraska: -0.27 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs UAB: +0.22 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Duquesne: +0.92 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Toledo: +1.08 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Central Michigan: +1.81 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Miami (OH): +0.42 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Ball State: +1.00 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Buffalo: +1.25 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Massachusetts: +0.29 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Kent State: -0.09 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Bowling Green: +1.36 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsWyomingL0-10-11.33299.7017-0.06
2@NebraskaL0-686.2166.006-0.27
3@UABL28-31-15.823316.50320.22
4vsDuquesneW51-735819.31330.92
5@ToledoL3-456.011515.00151.08
6vsCentral MichiganW28-22-8.8512525.01621.81
7vsMiami (OH)L7-20-3.455210.40200.42
8@Ball StateL28-42-23.045313.31371.00
9@BuffaloW24-16-7.5199.0191.25
11vsMassachusettsW44-10-36.64389.51150.29
12vsKent StateL35-42-19.334615.3021-0.09
13@Bowling GreenW19-16-12.611717.00171.36

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
6.6%
Passing plays
12.9%
Rushing plays
0.3%
Standard downs
4.3%
Passing downs
11.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.12
Passing downs
0.93
Pass / Rush EPA
0.62 / -0.43

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.