Skip to content
Chimere Dike
Chimere Dike

#17Chimere Dike

WR·Wisconsin·2023

Chimere Dike is a Versatile WR for Wisconsin.

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 Chimere Dike'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
19 Receptions328 Rec yards1 Rec TD17.3 Yards/rec
Returns
11 Kick returns249 KR yards0 KR TD12 Punt returns108 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume11
  • Explosiveness68
  • Consistency70
  • 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 consistency70th %ile · average
Key findings
  • ▸Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • ▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • ▸High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • ▸6 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 — 1.79 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • ▸Peak game: 2.79 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Buffalo (SP+ -15).

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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+2.790−2.79Wk 1 vs Buffalo: +2.79 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Washington State: +1.85 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Georgia Southern: +1.39 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Purdue: +2.61 EPA/play4Wk 7 vs Iowa: +0.58 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Illinois: -0.15 EPA/play8Wk 12 vs Nebraska: -1.03 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Minnesota: +2.29 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsBuffaloW38-17-15.212929.01292.79
2@Washington StateL22-314.947518.80411.85
3vsGeorgia SouthernW35-14-5.235719.00381.39
4@PurdueW38-17-7.336722.30342.61
7vsIowaL6-155.844411.00160.58
8@IllinoisW25-21-2.511010.0010-0.15
9vsOhio StateL10-2425.2——————
12vsNebraskaW24-170.3100.000-1.03
13@MinnesotaW28-140.424623.00352.29

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.9%
Passing plays
8.1%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.7%
Passing downs
4.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.98
Passing downs
1.82
Pass / Rush EPA
1.25 / —

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.