Skip to content
Tommy Mcintosh

#15Tommy Mcintosh

Tommy Mcintosh is a Versatile WR for Central Michigan. Tommy's 2025 season produced 17.8 total EPA across 40 plays.

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 Tommy Mcintosh'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 Receptions422 Rec yards3 Rec TD13.6 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume15
  • Explosiveness44
  • Consistency62
  • Pass-Down100
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 consistency62th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — 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.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.17 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.35 EPA/play in Wk 5 vs Eastern Michigan (SP+ -15).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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
Dane KinamonAir Force0.4100.716.0
Keytaon ThompsonVirginia0.3700.615.2
Micah DavisAir Force0.3700.616.3
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
JoJo NatsonUtah State0.3901.019.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.3502.35Wk 1 vs San José State: +2.16 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Pittsburgh: -0.26 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Michigan: -0.49 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Wagner: +1.91 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Eastern Michigan: +2.35 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Akron: -0.51 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Bowling Green: +1.38 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Massachusetts: +1.53 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Western Michigan: +0.76 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Buffalo: +1.34 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Kent State: -0.47 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Toledo: +0.28 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@San José StateW16-14-14.326130.50472.16
2@PittsburghL17-458.42178.509-0.26
3@MichiganL3-6312.4177.007-0.49
4vsWagnerW49-1023919.51331.91
5vsEastern MichiganW24-13-14.725929.50472.35
6@AkronL22-28-13.9252.504-0.51
8@Bowling GreenW27-6-12.6199.0091.38
9vsMassachusettsW38-13-36.611717.00171.53
10@Western MichiganL21-24-1.411111.00110.76
12vsBuffaloW38-19-7.558517.01341.34
13@Kent StateW28-16-19.3284.017-0.47
14vsToledoL3-216.068313.80340.28
20vsNorthwesternL7-345.84215.307

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
5.3%
Passing plays
15.9%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
5.3%
Passing downs
5.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.32
Passing downs
0.70
Pass / Rush EPA
0.44 / —

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.