Skip to content
Randy Pittman

#5Randy Pittman

TE·SMU·2026

Randy Pittman is a Red Zone Weapon TE for SMU.

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 Randy Pittman'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.

2026 Production

Receiving
6 Receptions77 Rec yards2 Rec TD12.8 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2026 · vs TE peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume14
  • Explosiveness39
  • Consistency50
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Red Zone Weapon TE

Goes from good to great inside the 20 — high TD conversion on limited looks makes this receiver a scoring machine.

Red zone targetHigh TD rateSize/catch radius advantage
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among TEs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 2.11 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Florida State (SP+ 7).

NIL Market Tier· 2026

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

+2.1102.11Wk 1 vs Florida State: +2.11 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs UC Davis: +1.21 EPA/play2
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@Florida StateW27-246.957515.01302.11
2vsUC DavisW56-10122.0121.21

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
4.9%
Passing plays
8.7%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
4.5%
Passing downs
6.1%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
1.25
Passing downs
3.37
Pass / Rush EPA
1.96 / —

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.