#18Jack Bech

WR·TCU·2024

Jack Bech is a Versatile WR for TCU. Jack's 2024 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 79 plays — a elite rate for the WR.

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 Jack Bech'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

Receiving

62 Receptions1034 Rec yards9 Rec TD16.7 Yards/rec

Returns

2 Punt returns34 PR yards0 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs WR peers

Efficiency100
Volume28
Explosiveness65
Consistency78
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 consistency78th %ile · above avg

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.
▸9 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 — 0.35 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 2.20 EPA/play in Wk 10 vs Baylor (SP+ 8).

NIL Market Tier· 2024

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

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	@Stanford	W34-27	-8.2	6	139	23.2	1	46	1.13
2	vsLong Island University	W45-0	—	2	11	5.5	0	6	0.88
3	vsUCF	L34-35	2.8	9	200	22.2	1	50	1.38
4	@SMU	L42-66	17.5	8	166	20.8	2	46	2.05
5	vsKansas	W38-27	4.9	10	131	13.1	2	35	1.46
6	vsHouston	L19-30	-8.2	4	55	13.8	1	29	-0.08
8	@Utah	W13-7	7.7	3	46	15.3	0	30	0.88
9	vsTexas Tech	W35-34	4.3	4	77	19.3	0	52	0.52
10	@Baylor	L34-37	8.4	5	98	19.6	2	36	2.20
11	vsOklahoma State	W38-13	-2.6	5	59	11.8	0	25	0.34
13	vsArizona	W49-28	-2.8	3	25	8.3	0	10	0.02
14	@Cincinnati	W20-13	-0.1	3	27	9.0	0	19	0.76

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

9.9%

Passing plays

17.6%

Rushing plays

0.0%

Standard downs

9.6%

Passing downs

10.5%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.79
Passing downs: 1.37
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.98 / —

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