Skip to content
Bryant Koback
Bryant Koback

#22Bryant Koback

RB·Toledo·202120193.9 pts line valueDay 2 (Rds 2–3)

Bryant Koback is a 2-year Featured Back for Toledo. Bryant's 2021 season ranks in the 57th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 231 plays — a average 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 Bryant Koback'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.

2021 Production

Rushing
1400 Rush yards15 Rush TD208 Carries6.7 Yards/carry
Receiving
30 Receptions334 Rec yards3 Rec TD11.1 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2021 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency57
  • Volume82
  • Explosiveness74
  • Consistency69
  • Receiving51
Player type
Featured Back

The centerpiece of the run game — high carry volume, used in early downs and goal-line, true workhorse role.

Primary ball carrierHigh volumeGoal-line threat
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)57th %ile · average
Game-to-game consistency69th %ile · average
Key findings
  • ▸High-volume role — one of the team's most-used RBs by play share.
  • ▸6 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • ▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • ▸Peak game: 1.98 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Norfolk State.

NIL Market Tier· 2021

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
James FlandersTulsa0.3904.9103.7
Saquon BarkleyPenn State0.4105.298.4
Nick WilsonArizona0.4105.2102.5
Travis EtienneClemson0.4704.7100.1
Hassan HaskinsMichigan0.3804.8106.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.980−1.98Wk 1 vs Norfolk State: +1.98 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Notre Dame: +0.07 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Colorado State: +0.01 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Ball State: -0.04 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Massachusetts: +0.67 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Northern Illinois: +0.75 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Central Michigan: +0.20 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Western Michigan: +0.05 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Eastern Michigan: +0.81 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Bowling Green: +0.38 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Ohio: +0.59 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Akron: +1.00 EPA/play13Wk 1 vs Middle Tennessee: +0.31 EPA/play1
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsNorfolk StateW49-10—9525.8233501.98
2@Notre DameL29-3217.4201145.7031610.07
3vsColorado StateL6-22-2.413251.9031900.01
4@Ball StateW22-12-11.223843.703250-0.04
5@MassachusettsW45-7-29.311827.521900.67
6vsNorthern IllinoisL20-22-7.112917.6127710.75
7@Central MichiganL23-26-1.015875.8043900.20
8vsWestern MichiganW34-150.6171005.90———0.05
10vsEastern MichiganL49-52-7.81518012.0221600.81
11@Bowling GreenW49-17-12.4191216.4232500.38
12@OhioW35-23-11.6212039.7431900.59
13vsAkronW49-14-23.1151359.0225311.00
1vsMiddle TennesseeL24-31-4.0181267.001100.31

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
28.6%
Passing plays
8.0%
Rushing plays
48.7%
Standard downs
34.7%
Passing downs
17.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.34
Passing downs
0.56
Pass / Rush EPA
0.68 / 0.34

Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+2.460−3.372021
EPA per play · 2019 — 2021 · 25 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2019Toledo
2.8
60.8
2021Toledo
3.9
80.2

Chart shows per-game EPA (bars) and rolling 5-game average (line). Season breaks marked with dashed lines. Line value = est. points over replacement per game.

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.