Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2019 Regular Season
Michigan State paired 284 primary output with 68 efficiency.
Player Stats
Matt Seybert College Stats
Career production, season-by-season totals, and the selected-season workbench are grouped here for stat-first searches.
Stat Footprint
Career production snapshot
- Receiving yards
- 284
- Receptions
- 26
- Touchdowns
- 3
Season Ledger
Crawlable season-by-season stats
| Season | Team | Games | Rec | Rec Yds | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 Regular Season | Buffalo | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - |
| 2016 Regular Season | Michigan State | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - |
| 2017 Regular Season | Michigan State | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - |
| 2018 Regular Season | Michigan State | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | - |
| 2019 Regular Season | Michigan State | 10 | 26 | 284 | 3 | 72.1 |
Player insights
Supporting note
2019 Regular Season role shape
target-driven usage with 68 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2019 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Multi-stop career journey
Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across Buffalo, Michigan State.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Indiana
Win with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 90th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Season Workbench
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.
Season Explorer
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
2019 Regular Season · Michigan State
Games
10
Receiving Yards / G
28.4
Efficiency
68
Usage
13.5
Consistency
75.3
Best Game by takeover score
Indiana
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Active game
Hover over a point
Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.
Game-by-Game Trend
Follow how the selected stat changes from one game to the next. Spikes mark standout outings, while dips show quieter weeks.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Tulsa: 12. Arizona State: 50. Northwestern: 28. Indiana: 43. Ohio State: 37. Wisconsin: 15. Penn State: 10. Illinois: 27. Michigan: 32. Maryland: 30
Volume vs Efficiency
Each dot is a game. Farther right means the player carried more of the workload, and higher means they were more efficient with those chances.
Low volumeHigh quality
High volumeHigh quality
Low volumeLower quality
High volumeLower quality
Volume on the x-axis, quality on the y-axis.
Volume versus efficiency scatter chart. Tulsa: 2 by 40. Arizona State: 2 by 100. Northwestern: 4 by 46.7. Indiana: 3 by 95.6. Ohio State: 2 by 100. Wisconsin: 2 by 50. Penn State: 1 by 66.7. Illinois: 3 by 60. Michigan: 3 by 71.1. Maryland: 4 by 50
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins28.3 · Games = 4 · -0.3 vs Losses
Losses28.5 · Games = 6 · +0.3 vs Wins
Next best actions
Keep exploring Matt Seybert
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.