Efficiency & Role
EPA = expected points added per play. Compared with every FBS WR/TE who qualifies
Advanced
Computed from every play, garbage time excluded. FBS rank among players with enough volume
| Receiving | Value | FBS rank |
|---|---|---|
| Targets | 16 | — |
| Target share | 9.8% | — |
| Catch rate | 81.2% | — |
| Success rate per target | 56.2% | — |
| Yards per target | 10.1 | — |
| Explosive catches | 18.8% | — |
| Deep-target rate | 6.2% | — |
| 3rd-down targets | 0 | — |
| Red-zone targets | 4 | — |
Charting
Where Levicki's plays went: throw and catch spots, air yards and yards after the catch, read from the play-by-play
Where he's targeted16 targets charted
Game Log
Nate Levicki's box score, game by game, from ESPN, with a 0–10 game score for each (hover it for how it works). Click a result for the full game
| Receiving | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wk | Opponent | Result | Game score | Rec | Yds | Y/R | TD | Long |
| 1 | @ Michigan | L 12–13 | 3.7 | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | 4 |
| 2 |  Monmouth | W 49–14 | 5.7 | 2 | 28 | 14.0 | 0 | 27 |
| 3 | @ Rice | W 28–21 | — | no stats recorded | ||||
| 4 |  Boise State | L 7–32 | 3.7 | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | 4 |
| 5 | @ Buffalo | W 20–17 | 8.3 | 4 | 76 | 19.0 | 0 | 47 |
| 6 |  Kent State | W 38–7 | 6.3 | 3 | 23 | 7.7 | 0 | 25 |
| 7 | @ Central Michigan | W 21–14 | 6.5 | 1 | 10 | 10.0 | 1 | 10 |
| 8 | @ Toledo | L 38–45 | 5.6 | 1 | 17 | 17.0 | 0 | 17 |
| 9 |  Bowling Green | W 23–10 | — | no stats recorded | ||||
| 2026 · 7 games | 5.7 | 13 | 162 | 12.5 | 1 | 47 | ||
2026 Season Stats
FBS rank among qualifying players
| Receiving | 2026 | FBS rank |
|---|---|---|
| Receptions | 13 | 558th / 2089 |
| Yards | 162 | 529th / 2074 |
| Yards / catch | 12.5 | — |
| Touchdowns | 1 | 412th / 914 |
| Long | 47 | — |
| Kick returns | 2026 | FBS rank |
|---|---|---|
| Returns | 1 | — |
| Yards | 9 | — |
| Average | 9 | — |
| Touchdowns | 0 | — |
| Long | 9 | — |
Snaps by Game
Estimated snaps from a model trained on real NFL snap counts. Ranges in brackets are where the real number lands 80% of the time: wide for a single game, tighter over the season. How it works
| Game | Start | Team plays | Est. snaps | Plays involved | Special teams | Snap share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wk 1 · Michigan | — | 67 | ~40 (34–48) | 2 | · | 60% |
| Wk 2 · Monmouth | — | 57 | ~30 (14–43) | 3 | 1 | 53% |
| Wk 3 · Rice | — | 63 | ~25 (12–36) | 1 | · | 40% |
| Wk 4 · Boise State | ✓ TE | 51 | ~20 (9–29) | 1 | · | 39% |
| Wk 5 · Buffalo | — | 61 | ~44 (37–53) | 4 | · | 72% |
| Wk 6 · Kent State | — | 64 | ~37 (17–53) | 4 | · | 58% |
| Wk 7 · Central Michigan | ✓ TE | 53 | ~31 (14–44) | 1 | · | 58% |
| Wk 8 · Toledo | ✓ TE | 62 | ~38 (18–54) | 1 | · | 61% |
| Season | 3 GS | 535 | 265 (203–370) | 17 | 1 | 50% |
Position Room
9 TEs on the Western Michigan roster, ordered by rec
| # | Player | Pos | Class | Rec | Yds | TD | Tgt share | EPA/play |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 88 | Nate Levicki | TE | SR | 13 | 162 | 1 | 9% | +0.43 |
| 15 | Adam Parks | TE | JR | 10 | 98 | 2 | 8% | +0.43 |
| 83 | Ryan Brotherton | TE | SO | 4 | 46 | 2 | 6% | +0.94 |
| 35 | Enese Tonga | TE | SO | 1 | 12 | 0 | 5% | -0.04 |
| 40 | Nathan Sines | TE | JR | — | — | — | — | — |
| 81 | Michael Dersa | TE | FR | — | — | — | — | — |
| 86 | Ryan Rocheleau | TE | FR | — | — | — | — | — |
| 87 | Brady Rhoad | TE | FR | — | — | — | — | — |
| Brennan Wooten | TE | — | — | — | 4% | -0.32 |
Stats, EPA and usage come from CollegeFootballData.com and refresh daily. FBS ranks only count players with enough volume for the stat to mean something. Qualifying for EPA takes 4+ plays per team game. Western Michigan depth chart →