#21Marvis Parrish

RB·Western Kentucky·2025

Marvis Parrish is a Pass-Catching Back for Western Kentucky. Marvis's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 143 plays — a developing rate for the RB.

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 Marvis Parrish'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

576 Rush yards1 Rush TD106 Carries5.4 Yards/carry

Receiving

36 Receptions203 Rec yards1 Rec TD5.6 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

Efficiency0
Volume47
Explosiveness48
Consistency0
Receiving95

Player type

Pass-Catching Back

Third-down weapon out of the backfield. Routes, hands, and separation in coverage define this role as much as rushing.

3rd-down backReceiving threatPass protection

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg

Key findings

▸Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
▸High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
▸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.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗

Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

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

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Car	Rush Yds	Avg	Rush TD	Rec	Rec Yds	Rec TD	EPA/play
0	vsSam Houston	W41-24	-27.8	12	52	4.3	0	6	58	1	—
1	vsNorth Alabama	W55-6	—	4	19	4.8	0	1	14	0	0.17
2	@Toledo	L21-45	6.0	7	22	3.1	0	7	28	0	-0.16
4	vsNevada	W31-16	-13.4	10	44	4.4	0	3	11	0	0.04
5	@Missouri State	W27-22	-10.7	9	20	2.2	0	5	38	0	-0.12
6	@Delaware	W27-24	-10.9	5	27	5.4	0	1	0	0	-0.15
8	vsFlorida International	L6-25	-10.5	9	74	8.2	0	3	10	0	0.21
9	@Louisiana Tech	W28-27	-1.3	5	33	6.6	0	2	18	0	0.31
10	vsNew Mexico State	W35-16	-15.5	7	34	4.9	0	2	7	0	0.01
12	vsMiddle Tennessee	W42-26	-16.0	12	102	8.5	0	2	11	0	0.21
13	@LSU	L10-13	10.3	7	32	4.6	0	3	3	0	-0.30
14	@Jacksonville State	L34-37	-6.7	12	52	4.3	0	1	5	0	-0.04
20	vsSouthern Miss	W27-16	-7.1	7	65	9.3	1	—	—	—	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

16.4%

Passing plays

8.6%

Rushing plays

26.8%

Standard downs

19.3%

Passing downs

10.4%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.01
Passing downs: 0.13
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.01 / 0.05

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