Skip to content
Ca'Lil Valentine
Ca'Lil Valentine

#5Ca'Lil Valentine

Ca'Lil Valentine is a Committee Back for Illinois.

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 Ca'Lil Valentine'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
614 Rush yards4 Rush TD131 Carries4.7 Yards/carry
Receiving
10 Receptions55 Rec yards0 Rec TD5.5 Yards/rec
Returns
9 Kick returns186 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume50
  • Explosiveness34
  • Consistency0
  • Receiving37
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 consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.27 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.50 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Duke (SP+ 7).

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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.7800.78Wk 1 vs Western Illinois: +0.03 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Duke: +0.50 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Western Michigan: +0.48 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Indiana: -0.30 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs USC: +0.27 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Purdue: -0.16 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Ohio State: -0.78 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Washington: -0.15 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Rutgers: -0.38 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Maryland: -0.16 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Wisconsin: -0.31 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Northwestern: +0.35 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsWestern IllinoisW52-39515.700.03
2@DukeW45-196.66447.3121400.50
3vsWestern MichiganW38-0-1.410636.310.48
4@IndianaL10-6332.46111.801-40-0.30
5vsUSCW34-3216.98597.401500.27
6@PurdueW43-27-6.122954.31-0.16
7vsOhio StateL16-3430.1362.00-0.78
9@WashingtonL25-4218.47273.90220-0.15
10vsRutgersW35-131.012373.10-0.38
12vsMarylandW24-60.620643.20-0.16
13@WisconsinL10-27-4.46183.001100-0.31
14vsNorthwesternW20-135.814745.310.35
20vsTennesseeW30-2815.08658.103280

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
17.4%
Passing plays
3.5%
Rushing plays
30.7%
Standard downs
19.3%
Passing downs
12.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.02
Passing downs
0.16
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.01 / 0.02

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.