Skip to content
Michael Kirch

#89Michael Kirch

Michael Kirch is a Red Zone Weapon TE for Florida Atlantic.

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 Michael Kirch'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
15 Receptions159 Rec yards3 Rec TD10.6 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume8
  • Explosiveness24
  • Consistency71
  • Pass-Down0
Player type
Red Zone Weapon TE

Goes from good to great inside the 20 — high TD conversion on limited looks makes this receiver a scoring machine.

Red zone targetHigh TD rateSize/catch radius advantage
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency71th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.22 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 2.59 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Rice (SP+ -15).

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.

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

+2.5902.59Wk 1 vs Maryland: -0.39 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs Florida International: +0.67 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Memphis: +1.15 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Rice: +2.59 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs South Florida: +0.36 EPA/play8Wk 12 vs Tulane: +0.64 EPA/play12Wk 14 vs East Carolina: +1.08 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@MarylandL7-390.6221.001-0.39
3@Florida InternationalL28-38-10.5188.0080.67
5vsMemphisL26-557.62189.0091.15
6@RiceW27-21-14.848220.52412.59
8@South FloridaL13-4811.64317.81180.36
12@TulaneL24-356.3199.0090.64
14vsEast CarolinaL3-428.0199.0091.08

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
2.9%
Passing plays
4.4%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
2.9%
Passing downs
2.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.88
Passing downs
0.15
Pass / Rush EPA
0.62 / —

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.