Cam Camper

WR·Indiana·2023

Cam Camper is a Versatile WR for Indiana.

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 Cam Camper'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.

2023 Production

Receiving

17 Receptions285 Rec yards1 Rec TD16.8 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume19
Explosiveness65
Consistency62
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)100th %ile · elite

Game-to-game consistency62th %ile · average

Key findings

▸Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
▸4 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 — 0.61 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 2.56 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Louisville (SP+ 8).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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 · WR · efficiency + volume + value

Players from 2013–2025 matched on EPA efficiency, play volume, and adjusted value tier — not just one metric.

Player	Team	Yr	Plays	WEPA/play	Line val	Total EPA
Quadree Henderson	Pittsburgh	2016	63	0.530	1.6	33.4
DeAndre Hughes	Air Force	2021	60	0.470	1.3	28.2
Savion Williams	TCU	2024	56	0.450	1.1	25.2
Keytaon Thompson	Mississippi State	2017	70	0.460	1.2	32.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.	Central Michigan	2022	53	0.460	1.6	24.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	Rec	Rec Yds	Avg	Rec TD	Long	EPA/play
1	vsOhio State	L3-23	25.2	3	35	11.7	0	24	0.49
2	vsIndiana State	W41-7	—	3	37	12.3	0	21	0.10
3	vsLouisville	L14-21	8.0	3	74	24.7	0	41	2.56
4	vsAkron	W29-27	-21.6	4	103	25.8	1	40	1.01
7	@Michigan	L7-52	31.3	3	29	9.7	0	15	0.73
8	vsRutgers	L14-31	3.5	1	7	7.0	0	7	-0.43

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

6.8%

Passing plays

13.9%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

8.1%

Passing downs

4.0%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.47
Passing downs: 1.61
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.66 / —

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