Skip to content
Wyatt Sullivan

#8Wyatt Sullivan

Wyatt Sullivan is a Slot Specialist TE for South Florida.

What projects, and what doesn't · TEs · 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)0.42
    Beats guessing the TE average by 9%. n=2,225 TE seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.04
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=2,016 TE seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.46
    Beats guessing the TE average by 13%. n=2,016 TE seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Wyatt Sullivan'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
18 Receptions176 Rec yards2 Rec TD9.8 Yards/rec

Air yards

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

8
Targets
8.9y
Avg depth
7.3y
After catch
38%
Catch rate

The ball travels 8.9 yards in the air on an average target about the median for the position. Another 7.3 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
1
0% · 0y
short
3
67% · 16y
3
33% · 17y
1
0% · 0y
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 TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume9
  • Explosiveness19
  • Consistency56
  • Pass-Down0
Player type
Slot Specialist TE

The offense's primary passing-down weapon — routes, separation, and reliability on 3rd down define this role.

3rd-down converterRoute technicianHigh passing-down share
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency56th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • 6 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 2.23 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 3.59 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs Florida Atlantic (SP+ -9).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Elite

Top-3 player at position nationally. Collective + national brand 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 · TE · 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
Ty ThompsonTulane0.4200.720.2
Seth GreenMinnesota0.3900.032.4
Johnny LanganRutgers0.3000.017.7
Evan SvobodaWyoming0.2900.521.8
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+3.5903.59Wk 1 vs Boise State: -0.33 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Florida: -0.42 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Miami: +0.66 EPA/play3Wk 6 vs Charlotte: -0.88 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs North Texas: +0.94 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Florida Atlantic: +3.59 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Memphis: +0.55 EPA/play9Wk 12 vs Navy: +3.03 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs UAB: +1.73 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsBoise StateW34-73.1133.003-0.33
2@FloridaW18-163.52178.5015-0.42
3@MiamiL12-4920.755511.00300.66
6vsCharlotteW54-26-26.7111.001-0.88
7@North TexasW63-3613.822211.00150.94
8vsFlorida AtlanticW48-13-8.712424.01243.59
9@MemphisL31-347.62199.50100.55
12@NavyL38-416.211919.00193.03
13@UABW48-18-15.82178.51111.73
20vsOld DominionL10-245.91-1-1.000

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.3%
Passing plays
6.9%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
2.5%
Passing downs
5.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
1.16
Passing downs
-0.07
Pass / Rush EPA
0.52 / —

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.