Skip to content
Tre Spivey

#12Tre Spivey

Tre Spivey is a Red Zone Weapon WR for Arizona. Tre's 2025 season produced 31.1 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 Tre Spivey'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
23 Receptions381 Rec yards7 Rec TD16.6 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Kick returns0 KR yards0 KR TD

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

7
Targets
11.0y
Avg depth
2.2y
After catch
57%
Catch rate

The ball travels 11.0 yards in the air on an average target 2.0 yards deeper than the median. Another 2.2 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
1
100% · 20y
0
0
short
4
75% · 25y
2
0% · 0y
0
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume14
  • Explosiveness64
  • Consistency71
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Red Zone Weapon WR

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 WRs — 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.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.83 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 2.70 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Oklahoma State (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 · 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

+2.7002.70Wk 1 vs Hawai'i: +0.36 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs Kansas State: +1.08 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Iowa State: +1.75 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Oklahoma State: +2.70 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs BYU: +0.34 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Houston: +2.16 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Colorado: +1.66 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Kansas: -0.25 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Cincinnati: +0.08 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Baylor: +0.24 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Arizona State: +0.34 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsHawai'iW40-61.712727.00270.36
2vsWeber StateW48-311010.0110
3vsKansas StateW23-177.011616.00161.08
5@Iowa StateL14-399.92105.0191.75
6vsOklahoma StateW41-13-15.138026.72452.70
7vsBYUL27-3315.911010.00100.34
8@HoustonL28-317.417070.01702.16
10@ColoradoW52-17-8.315757.01571.66
11vsKansasW24-204.13227.3014-0.25
12@CincinnatiW30-244.511515.00150.08
13vsBaylorW41-171.42115.5080.24
14@Arizona StateW23-73.94317.80110.34
20vsSMUL19-2413.422211.0112

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
5.0%
Passing plays
8.9%
Rushing plays
0.5%
Standard downs
5.4%
Passing downs
4.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.62
Passing downs
1.20
Pass / Rush EPA
0.76 / 1.02

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.