Scores
Dev
Go Pro
← Player leaders
Travis Hunter

#12Travis Hunter

Travis Hunter is a Versatile WR for Colorado. Travis's 2024 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 95 plays — a elite rate for the WR.

2024 Production

Receiving
96 Receptions1258 Rec yards15 Rec TD13.1 Yards/rec

Performance Analysis · 2024 · vs WR peers

Gridpex AnalysisAI-generated · updated periodically

The Heisman arithmetic on Travis Hunter obscures a genuine efficiency cost: playing meaningful snaps at cornerback in every game almost certainly compressed his receiving output in ways that box scores cannot capture. Colorado's offensive coordinator leaned heavily on Hunter as a volume target — he accounted for a usage rate that would rank among the top handful of receivers nationally — but his EPA/play as a receiver sat in the respectable rather than elite tier, a function of route trees that skewed short-to-intermediate and a depleted offensive line that shortened Shedeur Sanders's pocket time throughout the season. The dual-position framing was a genuine football story, but it was also a marketing frame that made raw receiving numbers look more impressive than per-play efficiency warranted.

Hunter's best games by EPA came against middling defenses on the Pac-12 fringe of the Big 12, and the sample against legitimately elite defensive SP+ opponents was thin. Colorado's non-conference slate was soft by design, and Hunter padded meaningful counting stats — yards, touchdowns — against defenses ranked outside the top 50 in SP+. Against Kansas State, one of the better defensive units Colorado faced, his receiving efficiency dropped sharply, and the possessions where he played primarily cornerback meant he was functionally unavailable as a route runner on roughly a third of defensive snaps. That is a hidden cost that no Heisman campaign can price.

The case for Hunter as an elite receiver is real but conditional. He is a legitimate separator at the boundary with above-average contested-catch ability, and the receiving touchdowns were not luck-inflated — his red-zone target share was disproportionately high and he converted at a strong rate. Colorado went 9-3 under Deion Sanders, and Hunter's availability on both sides of the ball was part of how a roster with obvious talent gaps at other positions remained competitive. The question of whether the dual-position workload cost him receiving efficiency or simply prevented his per-play number from reaching the heights his raw talent would suggest is not answerable from the data alone, but it is the right question.

Projecting forward, the NFL conversation will hinge on whether teams see him as a receiver who also corners or a corner who also receives — because NFL rosters do not pay two-way players at two-way rates. His receiving efficiency profile, adjusted for competition quality, is that of a solid starter rather than an alpha. Teams willing to use him creatively in a receiver-first role will get real value; teams expecting an X receiver who immediately stresses Cover 1 will be disappointed until he faces a full book of elite corners in practice every week. The Heisman was a legitimate tribute to a genuinely unusual season, but it was also a tribute to Colorado's program moment as much as to his individual efficiency.

EfficiencyVolumeExplosivenessConsistencyPass-Down
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)100th %ile · elite
Game-to-game consistency90th %ile · elite
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 13 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 0.25 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 1.73 EPA/play in Wk 9 vs Cincinnati (SP+ -0).

NIL Market Tier· 2024

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

Wk 1 vs North Dakota State: +1.08 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Nebraska: +0.85 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Colorado State: +0.84 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Baylor: +1.60 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs UCF: +0.47 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Kansas State: +0.72 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Arizona: +1.18 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Cincinnati: +1.73 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Texas Tech: +0.69 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Utah: +1.26 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Kansas: +1.09 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Oklahoma State: +0.87 EPA/play14Wk 1 vs BYU: +1.41 EPA/play1
EPA per play, by weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1vsNorth Dakota StateW31-26713218.93411.08
2@NebraskaL10-285.51011011.00280.85
3@Colorado StateW28-9-5.7131007.72210.84
4vsBaylorW38-318.4713018.60461.60
5@UCFW48-212.89899.91290.47
7vsKansas StateL28-3114.13268.70140.72
8@ArizonaW34-7-2.82178.50141.18
9vsCincinnatiW34-23-0.1915317.02341.73
11@Texas TechW41-274.399911.01240.69
12vsUtahW49-247.755511.00281.26
13vsKansasL21-374.9812515.62511.09
14vsOklahoma StateW52-0-2.61011611.63310.87
1vsBYUL14-3615.3410626.51581.41

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
12.5%
Passing plays
19.4%
Rushing plays
0.7%
Standard downs
10.7%
Passing downs
16.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.82
Passing downs
1.27
Pass / Rush EPA
1.02 / 0.59

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.