Skip to content
Wayne Harris

#6Wayne Harris

Wayne Harris is a Versatile WR for Kent State. Wayne's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 66 plays — a developing rate for the WR.

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 Wayne Harris'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
35 Receptions383 Rec yards1 Rec TD10.9 Yards/rec
Returns
16 Punt returns211 PR yards1 PR TD

Air yards

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

11
Targets
7.8y
Avg depth
7.2y
After catch
55%
Catch rate

The ball travels 7.8 yards in the air on an average target 1.1 yards shorter than the median. Another 7.2 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
1
100% · 58y
short
7
57% · 25y
0
3
33% · 10y
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

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume27
  • Explosiveness26
  • Consistency0
  • Pass-Down100
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 consistency0th %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.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.58 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 0.88 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs Ball State (SP+ -23).

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
De'Michael HarrisSouthern Miss0.1300.715.2
Amare JonesTulane0.1800.012.8
Hyleck FosterMarshall0.1800.518.2
Davis BrysonKennesaw State0.2000.019.4
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

+0.8800.88Wk 1 vs Merrimack: -0.15 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Texas Tech: +0.42 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Buffalo: -0.16 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Florida State: -0.71 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Oklahoma: -0.56 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Massachusetts: -0.51 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Toledo: -0.18 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Bowling Green: +0.72 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Ball State: +0.88 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Akron: +0.07 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Central Michigan: -0.08 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Northern Illinois: +0.37 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsMerrimackW21-17294.5010-0.15
2@Texas TechL14-6227.612727.00270.42
3vsBuffaloL28-31-7.54399.8026-0.16
4@Florida StateL10-667.2188.008-0.71
6@OklahomaL0-4418.33186.009-0.56
7vsMassachusettsW42-6-36.64266.5013-0.51
8@ToledoL10-456.0221.006-0.18
9vsBowling GreenW24-21-12.644010.01120.72
11@Ball StateL13-17-23.058717.40420.88
12@AkronW42-35-13.93258.30180.07
13vsCentral MichiganL16-28-8.835618.7022-0.08
14@Northern IllinoisW35-31-16.734615.30370.37

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
9.5%
Passing plays
20.8%
Rushing plays
0.5%
Standard downs
8.6%
Passing downs
11.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.22
Passing downs
0.25
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.00 / -0.77

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.