Skip to content
Tae Meadows

#21Tae Meadows

RB·Troy·2025

Tae Meadows is a Committee Back for Troy.

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 Tae Meadows'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
695 Rush yards6 Rush TD159 Carries4.4 Yards/carry
Receiving
11 Receptions64 Rec yards0 Rec TD5.8 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs RB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume61
  • Explosiveness28
  • Consistency30
  • Receiving31
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 consistency30th %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.
  • Peak game: 0.35 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Nicholls.

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

+0.5400.54Wk 1 vs Nicholls: +0.35 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Clemson: +0.06 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Memphis: -0.54 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Buffalo: +0.04 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs South Alabama: +0.04 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Texas State: -0.45 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs UL Monroe: -0.14 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Arkansas State: -0.10 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Old Dominion: -0.14 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Georgia State: -0.11 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Southern Miss: +0.03 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs James Madison: -0.21 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+CarRush YdsAvgRush TDRecRec YdsRec TDEPA/play
1vsNichollsW38-20231868.1111200.35
2@ClemsonL16-279.516764.800.06
3vsMemphisL7-287.6571.40-0.54
4@BuffaloW21-17-7.514684.910.04
6vsSouth AlabamaW31-24-12.717794.610.04
7@Texas StateW48-412.310161.60220-0.45
8@UL MonroeW37-14-21.614664.71150-0.14
10vsArkansas StateL10-23-8.814483.403210-0.10
12@Old DominionL0-335.95102.00140-0.14
13vsGeorgia StateW31-19-24.513352.701120-0.11
14@Southern MissW28-18-7.121944.511300.03
15@James MadisonL14-3112.37101.41150-0.21

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
21.4%
Passing plays
3.6%
Rushing plays
42.0%
Standard downs
27.6%
Passing downs
9.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.01
Passing downs
-0.04
Pass / Rush EPA
0.03 / -0.02

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.