Skip to content
Tybo Rogers

#20Tybo Rogers

Tybo Rogers is a Committee Back for Washington. Tybo's 2023 season produced -8.8 total EPA across 30 plays.

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 Tybo Rogers'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.

2023 Production

Rushing
184 Rush yards0 Rush TD44 Carries4.2 Yards/carry
Receiving
6 Receptions72 Rec yards0 Rec TD12.0 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume21
  • Explosiveness24
  • Consistency39
  • Receiving58
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 consistency39th %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.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.85 from the first to second half of the season.

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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

+4.2104.21Wk 3 vs Michigan State: +0.06 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs California: +0.11 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Arizona: -0.77 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Oregon: -4.21 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Stanford: -0.45 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs USC: +0.14 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Utah: -0.03 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Oregon State: -0.49 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Washington State: -0.10 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
3@Michigan StateW41-7-6.815744.900.06
4vsCaliforniaW59-32-0.18131.6014700.11
5@ArizonaW31-2414.1155.001-40-0.77
7vsOregonW36-3326.21-1-1.00-4.21
9@StanfordW42-33-11.92126.00-0.45
10@USCW52-429.45214.2011500.14
11vsUtahW35-288.522412.00-0.03
12@Oregon StateW22-2012.6111.00130-0.49
13vsWashington StateW24-214.93144.70-0.10
20vsMichiganL13-3431.3122.001110
20vsTexasW37-3123.25193.80100

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
7.5%
Passing plays
2.4%
Rushing plays
14.1%
Standard downs
7.5%
Passing downs
7.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.29
Passing downs
-0.31
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.29 / -0.29

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.