Skip to content
Matt Wagner
Matt Wagner

#88Matt Wagner

TE·Boise State·2025

Matt Wagner is a Versatile TE for Boise State. Matt's 2025 season produced 8.8 total EPA across 34 plays.

What projects, and what doesn't · TEs · 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)0.42
    Beats guessing the TE average by 9%. n=2,225 TE seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.04
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=2,016 TE seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.46
    Beats guessing the TE average by 13%. n=2,016 TE seasons

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

Receiving
23 Receptions246 Rec yards1 Rec TD10.7 Yards/rec

Air yards

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

7
Targets
3.3y
Avg depth
2.5y
After catch
57%
Catch rate

The ball travels 3.3 yards in the air on an average target — 5.7 yards shorter than the median. Another 2.5 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
0
—
0
—
0
—
short
1
100% · 7y
2
50% · 7y
4
50% · 13y
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 TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume10
  • Explosiveness25
  • Consistency43
  • Pass-Down57
Player type
Versatile TE

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 consistency43th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • ▸Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • ▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • ▸6 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • ▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.28 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • ▸Peak game: 1.46 EPA/play in Wk 8 vs UNLV (SP+ 4).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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.

Historical Comparables · TE · 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
Johnny LanganRutgers0.2400.08.9
Jordan MyersRice0.2700.215.9
Johnny LanganRutgers0.3000.017.7
D'Vaughn PennamonOle Miss0.2000.011.0
Jackson AckerWisconsin0.2100.115.3

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.460−1.46Wk 1 vs South Florida: -0.28 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Eastern Washington: +0.50 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs Air Force: +0.58 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs App State: +1.11 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Notre Dame: -0.58 EPA/play6Wk 8 vs UNLV: +1.46 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Nevada: +0.32 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Fresno State: -0.62 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs San Diego State: -0.14 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Colorado State: +0.83 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Utah State: +0.67 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs UNLV: +0.16 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@South FloridaL7-3411.6155.005-0.28
2vsEastern WashingtonW51-14—22110.50170.50
4@Air ForceW49-37-3.222814.00240.58
5vsApp StateW47-14-11.43299.70151.11
6@Notre DameL7-2824.423015.0028-0.58
8vsUNLVW56-314.311111.00111.46
9@NevadaW24-3-13.4188.0080.32
10vsFresno StateL7-301.8122.002-0.62
12@San Diego StateL7-176.7144.004-0.14
13vsColorado StateW49-21-15.633210.70150.83
14@Utah StateW25-24-3.146416.01260.67
15vsUNLVW38-214.3155.0050.16
20vsWashingtonL10-3818.4177.007—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
3.5%
Passing plays
7.3%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
3.5%
Passing downs
3.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.24
Passing downs
0.29
Pass / Rush EPA
0.26 / —

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.