Skip to content
Trevon Tate
Trevon Tate

#15Trevon Tate

WR·UTEP·2025

Trevon Tate is a Versatile WR for UTEP.

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 Trevon Tate'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
20 Receptions227 Rec yards1 Rec TD11.3 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume15
  • Explosiveness29
  • Consistency14
  • Pass-Down0
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)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency14th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • ▸Below-average efficiency vs WR peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • ▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • ▸High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • ▸3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • ▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.17 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • ▸Peak game: 0.55 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs UL Monroe (SP+ -22).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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
Amare JonesTulane0.1800.012.8
Brandon ChatmanNavy0.2300.612.0
Hyleck FosterMarshall0.1800.518.2
Amare JonesTulane0.2300.813.3
Eli HeidenreichNavy0.2200.815.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.650−0.65Wk 1 vs Utah State: +0.48 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs UT Martin: -0.32 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Texas: +0.34 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs UL Monroe: +0.55 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Louisiana Tech: -0.65 EPA/play5Wk 8 vs Sam Houston: +0.45 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Kennesaw State: +0.18 EPA/play10
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@Utah StateL16-28-3.1166.0060.48
2vsUT MartinW42-17—242.004-0.32
3@TexasL10-2716.266410.70430.34
4vsUL MonroeL25-31-21.6612621.01730.55
5vsLouisiana TechL11-30-1.33134.307-0.65
8vsSam HoustonW35-17-27.8177.0070.45
10@Kennesaw StateL20-33-5.4177.0070.18

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
5.4%
Passing plays
8.9%
Rushing plays
0.8%
Standard downs
6.2%
Passing downs
3.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.21
Passing downs
-0.32
Pass / Rush EPA
0.14 / -0.99

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.