Skip to content
Wayne Harris

#6Wayne Harris

Wayne Harris is a Versatile WR for Kent State. Wayne's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 66 plays — a developing rate for the WR.

What projects, and what doesn't · WRs · 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)0.47
    Beats guessing the WR average by 16%. n=6,302 WR seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.09
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=5,767 WR seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.45
    Beats guessing the WR average by 12%. n=5,767 WR seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Wayne Harris'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
35 Receptions383 Rec yards1 Rec TD10.9 Yards/rec
Returns
16 Punt returns211 PR yards1 PR TD

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume27
  • Explosiveness26
  • Consistency0
  • Pass-Down100
Player type
Versatile WR

Balanced profile without a single dominant trait — contributes across multiple dimensions.

Balanced usageMulti-role
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs WR peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • 3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.58 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 0.88 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs Ball State (SP+ -23).

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.

Historical Comparables · WR · 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
De'Michael HarrisSouthern Miss0.1300.715.2
Amare JonesTulane0.1800.012.8
Hyleck FosterMarshall0.1800.518.2
Davis BrysonKennesaw State0.2000.019.4
Eli HeidenreichNavy0.2200.815.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.8800.88Wk 1 vs Merrimack: -0.15 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Texas Tech: +0.42 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Buffalo: -0.16 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Florida State: -0.71 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Oklahoma: -0.56 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Massachusetts: -0.51 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Toledo: -0.18 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Bowling Green: +0.72 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Ball State: +0.88 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Akron: +0.07 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Central Michigan: -0.08 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Northern Illinois: +0.37 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsMerrimackW21-17294.5010-0.15
2@Texas TechL14-6227.612727.00270.42
3vsBuffaloL28-31-7.54399.8026-0.16
4@Florida StateL10-667.2188.008-0.71
6@OklahomaL0-4418.33186.009-0.56
7vsMassachusettsW42-6-36.64266.5013-0.51
8@ToledoL10-456.0221.006-0.18
9vsBowling GreenW24-21-12.644010.01120.72
11@Ball StateL13-17-23.058717.40420.88
12@AkronW42-35-13.93258.30180.07
13vsCentral MichiganL16-28-8.835618.7022-0.08
14@Northern IllinoisW35-31-16.734615.30370.37

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
9.5%
Passing plays
20.8%
Rushing plays
0.5%
Standard downs
8.6%
Passing downs
11.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.22
Passing downs
0.25
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.00 / -0.77

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.