#3Major Everhart

WR·TCU·2025

Major Everhart is a Versatile WR for TCU.

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 Major Everhart'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

14 Receptions149 Rec yards0 Rec TD10.6 Yards/rec

Returns

9 Kick returns197 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

Efficiency33
Volume13
Explosiveness24
Consistency0
Pass-Down0

Player type

Versatile WR

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

Balanced usageMulti-role

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)33th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg

Key findings

▸Below-average efficiency vs WR peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
▸High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.10 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 1.21 EPA/play in Wk 5 vs Arizona State (SP+ 4).

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.

Historical Comparables · WR · efficiency + volume + value

Players from 2013–2025 matched on EPA efficiency, play volume, and adjusted value tier — not just one metric.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Amare Jones	Tulane	2020	71	0.180	0.0	12.8
Brandon Chatman	Navy	2025	52	0.230	0.6	12.0
Amare Jones	Tulane	2019	58	0.230	0.8	13.3
Eli Heidenreich	Navy	2025	70	0.220	0.8	15.4
Justin Lynch	Temple	2021	63	0.240	0.3	15.1

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Rec	Rec Yds	Avg	Rec TD	Long	EPA/play
4	vsSMU	W35-24	13.4	—	—	—	—	—	-1.72
5	@Arizona State	L24-27	3.9	1	9	9.0	0	9	1.21
6	vsColorado	W35-21	-8.3	1	19	19.0	0	19	0.91
7	@Kansas State	L28-41	7.0	—	—	—	—	—	—
8	vsBaylor	W42-36	1.4	3	25	8.3	0	12	0.23
9	@West Virginia	W23-17	-6.8	4	45	11.3	0	26	-0.35
11	vsIowa State	L17-20	9.9	1	13	13.0	0	11	0.20
20	vsUSC	W30-27	16.9	4	38	9.5	0	20	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

4.4%

Passing plays

6.6%

Rushing plays

2.0%

Standard downs

4.9%

Passing downs

3.5%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.33
Passing downs: -0.58
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.13 / -0.15

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