Skip to content
Lance Mason

#86Lance Mason

Lance Mason is a Versatile TE for Wisconsin. Lance's 2025 season produced 20.3 total EPA across 47 plays.

What projects, and what doesn't · TEs · 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)0.42
    Beats guessing the TE average by 9%. n=2,225 TE seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.04
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=2,016 TE seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.46
    Beats guessing the TE average by 13%. n=2,016 TE seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Lance 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
30 Receptions398 Rec yards4 Rec TD13.3 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume21
  • Explosiveness42
  • Consistency54
  • Pass-Down69
Player type
Versatile TE

Balanced profile without a single dominant trait — contributes across multiple dimensions.

Balanced usageMulti-role
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency54th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — 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.
  • Peak game: 3.15 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs Indiana (SP+ 32).

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 · TE · 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
Ty ThompsonTulane0.4200.720.2
Seth GreenMinnesota0.3900.032.4
Johnny LanganRutgers0.3000.017.7
Evan SvobodaWyoming0.2900.521.8
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+3.1503.15Wk 2 vs Middle Tennessee: +0.76 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Alabama: +2.77 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Maryland: +0.28 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Michigan: +0.01 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Iowa: -0.22 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Ohio State: +0.29 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Oregon: -0.01 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Washington: -0.01 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Indiana: +3.15 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Illinois: +0.04 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Minnesota: +0.78 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
2vsMiddle TennesseeW42-10-16.0710214.61340.76
3@AlabamaL14-3814.823015.00192.77
4vsMarylandL10-270.65459.01150.28
6@MichiganL10-2412.433010.00160.01
7vsIowaL0-3719.712929.0029-0.22
8vsOhio StateL0-3430.123115.50240.29
9@OregonL7-2125.9294.517-0.01
11vsWashingtonW13-1018.4155.005-0.01
12@IndianaL7-3132.414545.01453.15
13vsIllinoisW27-1012.922311.50170.04
14@MinnesotaL7-171.544912.30260.78

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
7.5%
Passing plays
17.6%
Rushing plays
0.3%
Standard downs
7.4%
Passing downs
8.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.39
Passing downs
0.50
Pass / Rush EPA
0.42 / 0.87

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.