Skip to content
Trey Cornist

#6Trey Cornist

Trey Cornist is a Committee Back for Central Michigan. Trey's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 82 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 Trey Cornist'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
469 Rush yards1 Rush TD104 Carries4.5 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume36
  • Explosiveness30
  • Consistency65
  • Receiving6
Player type
Committee Back

Part of a rotation — contributes in a complementary role and keeps the featured back fresh.

Rotational roleSituational use
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency65th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.

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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.3800.38Wk 1 vs San José State: +0.28 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Pittsburgh: -0.33 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Michigan: -0.34 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Wagner: -0.13 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Eastern Michigan: -0.36 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Akron: -0.18 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs Bowling Green: -0.18 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Massachusetts: -0.29 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Western Michigan: -0.21 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Buffalo: +0.20 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Kent State: -0.20 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Toledo: -0.38 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDEPA/play
1@San José StateW16-14-14.313997.610.28
2@PittsburghL17-458.49131.40-0.33
3@MichiganL3-6312.49161.80-0.34
4vsWagnerW49-1011524.70-0.13
5vsEastern MichiganW24-13-14.7372.30-0.36
6@AkronL22-28-13.93237.70-0.18
8@Bowling GreenW27-6-12.64174.30-0.18
9vsMassachusettsW38-13-36.615704.70-0.29
10@Western MichiganL21-24-1.4111.00-0.21
12vsBuffaloW38-19-7.510626.200.20
13@Kent StateW28-16-19.312352.90-0.20
14vsToledoL3-216.0382.70-0.38
20vsNorthwesternL7-345.811666.00

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
12.6%
Passing plays
0.4%
Rushing plays
19.4%
Standard downs
14.5%
Passing downs
8.6%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.12
Passing downs
-0.03
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.96 / -0.09

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.