Skip to content
Bo Jackson

#25Bo Jackson

Bo Jackson is a Explosive Back for Ohio State. Bo's 2025 season ranks in the 8th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 178 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 Bo Jackson'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
1090 Rush yards6 Rush TD179 Carries6.1 Yards/carry
Receiving
19 Receptions200 Rec yards1 Rec TD10.5 Yards/rec

Air yards

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

7
Targets
0.0y
Avg depth
10.2y
After catch
71%
Catch rate

The ball travels 0.0 yards in the air on an average target 8.9 yards shorter than the median. Another 10.2 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
0
short
4
75% · 29y
2
50% · 11y
1
100% · 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 RB peers

  • Efficiency8
  • Volume68
  • Explosiveness62
  • Consistency66
  • Receiving38
Player type
Explosive Back

Elite per-carry efficiency — breaks big runs and creates chunk plays at a top rate while in a limited role.

Big-play threatHigh EPA per carryCapitalises on opportunities
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)8th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency66th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • 3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.10 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.98 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Grambling.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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 · RB · 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
Saquon BarkleyPenn State0.3403.997.9
Dalvin CookFlorida State0.3404.399.3
Breece HallIowa State0.3404.5102.3

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.9800.98Wk 2 vs Grambling: +0.98 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Ohio: +0.41 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Washington: -0.07 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Minnesota: +0.08 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Illinois: +0.14 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Wisconsin: +0.22 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Penn State: +0.19 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Purdue: +0.25 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs UCLA: +0.50 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Rutgers: +0.11 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Michigan: +0.11 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs Indiana: -0.01 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
2vsGramblingW70-0910812.010.98
3vsOhioW37-9-4.0910912.1022100.41
5@WashingtonW24-618.417804.70150-0.07
6vsMinnesotaW42-31.513634.8111100.08
7@IllinoisW34-1612.910474.7022010.14
8@WisconsinW34-0-4.410262.6055700.22
10vsPenn StateW38-1418.1131058.100.19
11@PurdueW34-10-6.114755.4011000.25
12vsUCLAW48-10-8.7151127.510.50
13vsRutgersW42-91.0191105.8211400.11
14@MichiganW27-912.4221175.3044900.11
15vsIndianaL10-1332.417834.902130-0.01
20vsMiamiL14-2420.711555.01

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
23.8%
Passing plays
5.0%
Rushing plays
42.6%
Standard downs
25.2%
Passing downs
18.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.07
Passing downs
0.52
Pass / Rush EPA
0.83 / 0.07

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.