Skip to content
Spencer Curtis

#14Spencer Curtis

Spencer Curtis is a Versatile WR for Nevada.

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 Spencer Curtis'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.

2023 Production

Receiving
30 Receptions373 Rec yards1 Rec TD12.4 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume15
  • Explosiveness36
  • Consistency77
  • Pass-Down35
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)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency77th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 8 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.66 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.82 EPA/play in Wk 7 vs UNLV (SP+ 1).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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 · WR · 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
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.8201.82Wk 1 vs USC: +1.72 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Idaho: -0.60 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Kansas: +0.55 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Texas State: +0.22 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Fresno State: +0.97 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs UNLV: +1.82 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs New Mexico: +1.04 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Utah State: +1.53 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Colorado State: +0.84 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Wyoming: +0.93 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@USCL14-669.438327.70731.72
2vsIdahoL6-33133.003-0.60
3vsKansasL24-319.92147.0090.55
4@Texas StateL24-35-1.62147.0090.22
5@Fresno StateL9-272.58739.11220.97
7vsUNLVL27-451.422713.50161.82
9vsNew MexicoW34-24-16.5166.0061.04
11@Utah StateL24-41-10.935618.70321.53
12@Colorado StateL20-30-8.93279.00110.84
13vsWyomingL6-42-3.657014.00280.93

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
5.3%
Passing plays
11.0%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
5.0%
Passing downs
5.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.83
Passing downs
0.74
Pass / Rush EPA
0.79 / —

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.