#88Matthew Hibner

TE·SMU·2025

Matthew Hibner is a Slot Specialist TE for SMU. Matthew's 2025 season produced 35.5 total EPA across 42 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 Matthew Hibner'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

31 Receptions436 Rec yards4 Rec TD14.1 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

Efficiency100
Volume15
Explosiveness47
Consistency47
Pass-Down100

Player type

Slot Specialist TE

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 consistency47th %ile · average

Key findings

▸Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
▸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 1.69 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 6.11 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs Boston College (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 · TE · 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
Ty Thompson	Tulane	2024	48	0.420	0.7	20.2
Seth Green	Minnesota	2018	83	0.390	0.0	32.4

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
1	vsEast Texas A&M	W42-13	—	1	-2	-2.0	0	0	-0.90
2	vsBaylor	L45-48	1.4	2	32	16.0	0	16	2.28
3	@Missouri State	W28-10	-10.7	2	4	2.0	0	5	-1.27
4	@TCU	L24-35	8.3	3	15	5.0	1	9	0.49
6	vsSyracuse	W31-18	-13.1	5	55	11.0	0	29	1.29
8	@Clemson	W35-24	9.5	2	29	14.5	1	22	0.85
10	vsMiami	W26-20	20.7	4	36	9.0	0	16	0.28
11	@Boston College	W45-13	-8.5	1	37	37.0	1	37	6.11
13	vsLouisville	W38-6	12.4	4	58	14.5	0	33	0.71
14	@California	L35-38	-3.2	5	87	17.4	1	32	1.19
20	vsArizona	W24-19	12.0	2	85	42.5	0	80	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

5.2%

Passing plays

9.7%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

3.6%

Passing downs

8.9%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.57
Passing downs: 1.09
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.84 / —

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