Skip to content
Trent Battle

#6Trent Battle

RB·TCU·2025

Trent Battle is a Explosive Back for TCU. Trent's 2025 season ranks in the 13th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 77 plays — a developing rate for the RB.

What projects, and what doesn't · RBs · 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)0.52
    Beats guessing the RB average by 18%. n=4,219 RB seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.10
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=3,575 RB seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.41
    Beats guessing the RB average by 9%. n=3,575 RB seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Trent Battle'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

Rushing
349 Rush yards6 Rush TD64 Carries5.5 Yards/carry
Receiving
10 Receptions65 Rec yards0 Rec TD6.5 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency13
  • Volume27
  • Explosiveness50
  • Consistency40
  • Receiving63
Player type
Explosive Back

Elite per-carry efficiency — breaks big runs and creates chunk plays at a top rate while in a limited role.

Big-play threatHigh EPA per carryCapitalises on opportunities
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)13th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency40th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 1.39 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs Baylor (SP+ 1).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.3901.39Wk 1 vs North Carolina: +1.37 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs Abilene Christian: +0.72 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs SMU: +0.43 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Arizona State: -0.14 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Colorado: -0.24 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Kansas State: -0.21 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Baylor: +1.39 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs West Virginia: +0.11 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Iowa State: -0.24 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs BYU: -0.35 EPA/play12Wk 14 vs Cincinnati: +0.50 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1@North CarolinaW48-14-6.612828.011.37
3vsAbilene ChristianW42-214205.010.72
4vsSMUW35-2413.47608.600.43
5@Arizona StateL24-273.99303.31-0.14
6vsColoradoW35-21-8.36162.70180-0.24
7@Kansas StateL28-417.0252.501130-0.21
8vsBaylorW42-361.447518.811.39
9@West VirginiaW23-17-6.819894.7141500.11
11vsIowa StateL17-209.9530.61280-0.24
12@BYUL13-4415.9382.70-0.35
14vsCincinnatiW45-234.52115.501600.50
20vsUSCW30-2716.9242.001150

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
9.3%
Passing plays
3.2%
Rushing plays
16.7%
Standard downs
9.6%
Passing downs
8.6%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.10
Passing downs
0.33
Pass / Rush EPA
0.09 / 0.18

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.