Skip to content
Jordan Gant

#1Jordan Gant

RB·Akron·2025

Jordan Gant is a Featured Back for Akron. Jordan's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 208 plays — a developing rate for the RB.

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 Jordan Gant'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
1032 Rush yards6 Rush TD213 Carries4.8 Yards/carry
Receiving
9 Receptions48 Rec yards1 Rec TD5.3 Yards/rec

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

6
Targets
-1.7y
Avg depth
5.8y
After catch
83%
Catch rate

The ball travels -1.7 yards in the air on an average target 10.6 yards shorter than the median. Another 5.8 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
0
short
3
67% · 11y
2
100% · 7y
1
100% · 7y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume75
  • Explosiveness36
  • Consistency11
  • Receiving26
Player type
Featured Back

The centerpiece of the run game — high carry volume, used in early downs and goal-line, true workhorse role.

Primary ball carrierHigh volumeGoal-line threat
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency11th %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.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.24 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.07 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs Duquesne.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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 · RB · efficiency + volume + value

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

PlayerTeamWEPA/playLine valTotal EPA
Saquon BarkleyPenn State0.3403.997.9
Dalvin CookFlorida State0.3404.399.3
Breece HallIowa State0.3404.5102.3

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.0701.07Wk 1 vs Wyoming: -0.01 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Nebraska: +0.14 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs UAB: +0.24 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Duquesne: +1.07 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Toledo: -0.30 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Central Michigan: +0.24 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Miami (OH): -0.06 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Ball State: +0.00 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Buffalo: -0.18 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Massachusetts: +0.07 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Kent State: +0.15 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Bowling Green: -0.05 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsWyomingL0-10-11.36193.20-0.01
2@NebraskaL0-686.28313.900.14
3@UABL28-31-15.811676.100.24
4vsDuquesneW51-71316112.431.07
5@ToledoL3-456.013221.70210-0.30
6vsCentral MichiganW28-22-8.8321765.5032810.24
7vsMiami (OH)L7-20-3.414352.50-0.06
8@Ball StateL28-42-23.019944.902500.00
9@BuffaloW24-16-7.525923.70-0.18
11vsMassachusettsW44-10-36.6281535.520.07
12vsKent StateL35-42-19.322964.4121400.15
13@Bowling GreenW19-16-12.622863.90-0.05

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
26.3%
Passing plays
3.7%
Rushing plays
51.8%
Standard downs
31.5%
Passing downs
16.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.09
Passing downs
0.13
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.09 / 0.11

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.