Usage Score
16.2
Player Dossier
2015-2018Kansas
Jeremiah Booker
WR • 6'2" • 212 lbs • College Station, TX, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Jeremiah Booker reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
72.1
Consistency
62.4
Season Value
62.2
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season · Kansas
15161718
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 4
- Program Path
- Kansas
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: West Virginia
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.
Jeremiah Booker, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season · Kansas. Jeremiah Booker reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Jeremiah Booker played WR for Kansas. Across 4 tracked seasons, Jeremiah Booker recorded 922 receiving yards and 7 touchdowns. His top tracked season came in 2018 with Kansas.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season
Kansas paired 344 primary output with 72.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
2018 Regular Season role shape
target-driven usage with 72.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2018 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: West Virginia
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.
2018 Regular Season · Kansas
Games
10
Receiving Yards / G
34.4
Efficiency
72.1
Usage
16.2
Consistency
62.4
Best Game by takeover score
Texas
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. Unknown: 19. Rutgers: 32. Baylor: 25. Oklahoma State: 22. West Virginia: 63. Texas Tech: 18. TCU: 49. Kansas State: 35. Oklahoma: 58. Texas: 23
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. Unknown: 3 by 42.2. Rutgers: 3 by 71.1. Baylor: 3 by 55.6. Oklahoma State: 1 by 100. West Virginia: 4 by 100. Texas Tech: 3 by 40. TCU: 3 by 100. Kansas State: 4 by 58.3. Oklahoma: 5 by 77.3. Texas: 2 by 76.7
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins40.5 · Games = 2 · +5.6 vs Losses
Losses34.9 · Games = 7 · -5.6 vs Wins
First Half32.2 · Games = 5 · -4.4 vs Second Half
Second Half36.6 · Games = 5 · +4.4 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
10 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
West Virginia
Best efficiency game
100 vs TCU
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 11/23 | vs Texas | L 17-24 | — | 2 | 23 | 11.5 | 11.50 | 0 | 15 |
| Sun 11/18 | @ Oklahoma | L 40-55 | — | 5 | 58 | 11.6 | 11.60 | 1 | 22 |
| Sat 11/10 | @ Kansas State | L 17-21 | — | 4 | 35 | 8.8 | 8.80 | 1 | 10 |
| Sat 10/27 | vs TCU | W 27-26 | — | 3 | 49 | 16.3 | 16.30 | 0 | 34 |
| Sat 10/20 | @ Texas Tech | L 16-48 | — | 3 | 18 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 7 |
| Sat 10/6 | @ West Virginia | L 22-38 | — | 4 | 63 | 15.8 | 15.80 | 0 | 35 |
| Sat 9/29 | vs Oklahoma State | L 28-48 | — | 1 | 22 | 22 | 22 | 1 | 22 |
| Sat 9/22 | @ Baylor | L 7-26 | — | 3 | 25 | 8.3 | 8.30 | 1 | 10 |
| Sat 9/15 | vs Rutgers | W 55-14 | — | 3 | 32 | 10.7 | 10.70 | 1 | 25 |
| Sat 9/1 | vs Unknown | — | — | 3 | 19 | 6.3 | 6.30 | 0 | 8 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Kansas
2015-2018
Opening stop
Season Progression
2015201620172018
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 Regular Season | Kansas | 228 | 60.7 | 13.6 | — |
| 2016 Regular Season | Kansas | 63 | 53.5 | 14.5 | -165 |
| 2017 Regular Season | Kansas | 287 | 80.3 | 13.1 | 224 |
| 2018 Regular Season | Kansas | 344 | 72.1 | 16.2 | 57 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
West Virginia
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
63
Primary metric
63 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Unknown
66
Primary metric
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
66 receiving yards with a 88 efficiency score.
#3
Baylor
27
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
27 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Ohio
59
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
59 receiving yards with a 98.3 efficiency score.
#5
Oklahoma
58
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
58 receiving yards with a 77.3 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2018 Regular Season · Kansas
344 primary output · 72.1 efficiency · 16.2 usage
62.2
#2
2017 Regular Season · Kansas
62
287 primary · 80.3 efficiency · 13.1 usage
#3
2015 Regular Season · Kansas
50
228 primary · 60.7 efficiency · 13.6 usage
Milestones
0
100+ receiving yards
0
8+ catch outings
0
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2015 · Rating 0.8086
College Station · College Station, TX
- Committed To
- Kansas
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2015
Career Facts
1
Career teams
4
Seasons tracked
922
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 4 tracked seasons, 28 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.