Usage Score
33.4
Player Dossier
2008-2011Notre Dame
Michael Floyd
WR • 6'3" • Saint Paul, MN, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Michael Floyd reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
71.8
Consistency
73.3
Season Value
69.6
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason · Notre Dame
08080910101111
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 7
- Program Path
- Notre Dame
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Western Michigan
Scouting Read
Best season and peak-game context are pinned here so the rest of the page can stay analytical without losing the headline story.
Michael Floyd, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason · Notre Dame. Michael Floyd reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2010 Postseason
Notre Dame paired 1,025 primary output with 83.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
2011 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 71.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2011 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Michigan
Loss with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Season Workbench
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2011 Postseason · Notre Dame
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
88.2
Efficiency
71.8
Usage
33.4
Consistency
73.3
Best Game by takeover score
Florida State
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
12345678910111213
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Florida State: 41. South Florida: 154. Michigan: 159. Michigan State: 84. Pittsburgh: 27. Purdue: 137. Air Force: 78. USC: 28. Navy: 121. Wake Forest: 44. Maryland: 90. Boston College: 92. Stanford: 92
Volume vs Efficiency
Low volume / high quality
High volume / high quality
Low volume / lower quality
High volume / lower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Florida State: 5 by 54.7. South Florida: 12 by 85.6. Michigan: 13 by 81.5. Michigan State: 6 by 93.3. Pittsburgh: 4 by 45. Purdue: 12 by 76.1. Air Force: 6 by 86.7. USC: 4 by 46.7. Navy: 6 by 100. Wake Forest: 5 by 58.7. Maryland: 9 by 66.7. Boston College: 10 by 61.3. Stanford: 8 by 76.7
Split Comparison
Wins84.1 · n=8 · -10.7 vs Losses
Losses94.8 · n=5 · +10.7 vs Wins
First Half97.1 · n=7 · +19.3 vs Second Half
Second Half77.8 · n=6 · -19.3 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Michigan
Best efficiency game
100 vs Navy
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 12/29 | vs Florida State | L 14-18 | — | 5 | 41 | 8.2 | 8.20 | 1 | 13 |
| Sun 11/27 | @ StanfordHigh volume | L 14-28 | — | 8 | 92 | 11.5 | 11.50 | 1 | 25 |
| Sat 11/19 | vs Boston CollegeHigh volume | W 16-14 | — | 10 | 92 | 8.6 | 9.20 | 0 | 18 |
| Sun 11/13 | vs MarylandHigh volume | W 45-21 | — | 9 | 90 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 31 |
| Sun 11/6 | @ Wake Forest | W 24-17 | — | 5 | 44 | 8.8 | 8.80 | 1 | 16 |
| Sat 10/29 | vs Navy100 receiving yards | W 56-14 | — | 6 | 121 | 18.7 | 20.20 | 1 | 56 |
| Sat 10/22 | vs USC | L 17-31 | — | 4 | 28 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 13 |
| Sat 10/8 | vs Air Force | W 59-33 | — | 6 | 78 | 13 | 13 | 1 | 34 |
| Sun 10/2 | @ Purdue100 receiving yards · High volume | W 38-10 | — | 12 | 137 | 11.4 | 11.40 | 1 | 35 |
| Sat 9/24 | @ Pittsburgh | W 15-12 | — | 4 | 27 | 6.8 | 6.80 | 0 | 13 |
| Sat 9/17 | vs Michigan State | W 31-13 | — | 6 | 84 | 14 | 14 | 0 | 33 |
| Sun 9/11 | @ Michigan100 receiving yards · High volume | L 31-35 | — | 13 | 159 | 12.2 | 12.20 | 0 | 25 |
| Sat 9/3 | vs South Florida100 receiving yards · High volume | L 20-23 | — | 12 | 154 | 12.8 | 12.80 | 2 | 26 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Notre Dame
2008-2011
Opening stop
Season Progression
2008200820092010201020112011
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 Postseason | Notre Dame | 719 | 83.1 | 21.8 | — |
| 2008 Regular Season | Notre Dame | 719 | 83.1 | 21.8 | 0 |
| 2009 Regular Season | Notre Dame | 795 | 96.4 | 23.6 | 76 |
| 2010 Postseason | Notre Dame | 1,025 | 83.8 | 31.1 | 230 |
| 2010 Regular Season | Notre Dame | 1,025 | 83.8 | 31.1 | 0 |
| 2011 Postseason | Notre Dame | 1,147 | 71.8 | 33.4 | 122 |
| 2011 Regular Season | Notre Dame | 1,147 | 71.8 | 33.4 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Western Michigan
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
157
Primary metric
157 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Michigan
159
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
159 receiving yards with a 81.5 efficiency score.
#3
Nevada
189
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
189 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
South Florida
154
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
154 receiving yards with a 85.6 efficiency score.
#5
Washington
107
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
107 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2010 Postseason · Notre Dame
1,025 primary output · 83.8 efficiency · 31.1 usage
70.3
#2
2010 Regular Season · Notre Dame
70.3
1,025 primary · 83.8 efficiency · 31.1 usage
#3
2011 Postseason · Notre Dame
69.6
1,147 primary · 71.8 efficiency · 33.4 usage
Milestones
17
100+ receiving yards
13
8+ catch outings
8
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
5★
Class 2008 · Rating 0.9914
Cretin Derham Hall · Saint Paul, MN
- Committed To
- Notre Dame
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2008
Career Facts
1
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
3,686
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 42 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.