Skip to content
Garret Rangel

#13Garret Rangel

Garret Rangel is a Dual-Threat QB for Oklahoma State.

What projects, and what doesn't · QBs · 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)0.46
    Beats guessing the QB average by 16%. n=2,421 QB seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.05
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=1,965 QB seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.51
    Beats guessing the QB average by 20%. n=1,965 QB seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Garret Rangel'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.

2024 Production

Passing
17/33 Comp/Att192 Pass yards2 Pass TD1 INT51.5% Comp %
Rushing
91 Rush yards0 Rush TD9 Carries10.1 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency30
  • Volume49
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency71
  • Clutch43
Player type
Dual-Threat QB

A genuine rushing threat who stresses defenses horizontally. Extends plays with legs and forces extra gap assignments.

Rushing threatScrambles for valueStresses defensive structure
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)30th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency71th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • Peak game: 0.79 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs West Virginia (SP+ 2).

NIL Market Tier· 2024

On3 valuation ↗
Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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

+0.7900.79Wk 3 vs Tulsa: +0.20 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Utah: -0.14 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs West Virginia: +0.79 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs BYU: +0.73 EPA/play8
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
3@TulsaW45-10-20.64/8350033.51400.20
4vsUtahL19-227.73/11310019.600-0.14
6vsWest VirginiaL14-382.14/5751062.6000.79
8@BYUL35-3815.36/9511197.47700.73

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
17.3%
Passing plays
24.6%
Rushing plays
7.8%
Standard downs
15.5%
Passing downs
20.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.44
Passing downs
0.45
Pass / Rush EPA
0.32 / 0.93

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.