Skip to content
King Miller

#8King Miller

RB·USC·2025

King Miller is a Committee Back for USC. King's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 163 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 King Miller'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
972 Rush yards8 Rush TD156 Carries6.2 Yards/carry
Receiving
16 Receptions111 Rec yards0 Rec TD6.9 Yards/rec
Returns
2 Kick returns45 KR yards0 KR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume62
  • Explosiveness64
  • Consistency46
  • Receiving43
Player type
Committee Back

Part of a rotation — contributes in a complementary role and keeps the featured back fresh.

Rotational roleSituational use
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency46th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs RB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • 3 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 — 0.41 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.04 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Missouri State (SP+ -11).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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

+1.0401.04Wk 1 vs Missouri State: +1.04 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Georgia Southern: +1.02 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Purdue: +0.09 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Illinois: +0.04 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Michigan: +0.50 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Notre Dame: -0.12 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Nebraska: +0.23 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Northwestern: +0.10 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Iowa: -0.11 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Oregon: -0.41 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs UCLA: +0.28 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsMissouri StateW73-13-10.748020.011.04
2vsGeorgia SouthernW59-20-9.435518.311.02
3@PurdueW33-17-6.14174.301700.09
5@IllinoisL32-3412.91600.04
7vsMichiganW31-1312.4181588.8121400.50
8@Notre DameL24-3424.418703.902140-0.12
10@NebraskaW21-176.2181297.210.23
11vsNorthwesternW38-175.8151278.512300.10
12vsIowaW26-2119.719834.40-0.11
13@OregonL27-4225.915302.003100-0.41
14vsUCLAW29-10-8.7171247.3244200.28
20vsTCUL27-308.325994.011150

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
21.8%
Passing plays
5.1%
Rushing plays
40.2%
Standard downs
23.8%
Passing downs
16.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.01
Passing downs
0.28
Pass / Rush EPA
0.01 / 0.05

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.
King Miller Stats, EPA & Player Profile — Usc · Gridpex