Usage Score
3.2
Player Dossier
2018-2023Middle Tennessee
Teldrick Ross
CB • 5'11" • 194 lbs • Macon, GA, USA
Ball-hunting defenderSplash play profile
Teldrick Ross shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 22.7 disruption score.
Efficiency
22.7
Consistency
9.1
Season Value
10.4
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season · Middle Tennessee
1819202121222223
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 8
- Program Path
- Middle Tennessee
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Florida Atlantic
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.
Teldrick Ross, CB. Best season Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season · Middle Tennessee. Teldrick Ross shows a ball-hunting defender profile with 22.7 disruption score.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2018 Regular Season
Middle Tennessee paired 0 primary output with 12.5 efficiency.
Supporting note
2023 Regular Season role shape
impact-led usage with 22.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value cooled off
2023 Regular Season fell back from the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Louisiana Tech
Win with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet. 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.
2023 Regular Season · Middle Tennessee
Games
11
Havoc Plays / G
0.5
Efficiency
22.7
Usage
3.2
Consistency
9.1
Best Game by takeover score
Sam Houston
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
1234567891011
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Alabama: 0. Missouri: 0. Unknown: 0. Colorado State: 0. Western Kentucky: 0. Louisiana Tech: 2. Liberty: 0. New Mexico State: 0. Florida International: 0. UTEP: 2. Sam Houston: 1
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. Alabama: 5 by 20.8. Missouri: 3 by 12.5. Unknown: 6 by 25. Colorado State: 4 by 16.7. Western Kentucky: 5 by 20.8. Louisiana Tech: 6 by 45. Liberty: 5 by 20.8. New Mexico State: 4 by 16.7. Florida International: 3 by 12.5. UTEP: 3 by 32.5. Sam Houston: 4 by 26.7
Split Comparison
Wins1.3 · n=3 · +1.2 vs Losses
Losses0.1 · n=7 · -1.2 vs Wins
First Half0.3 · n=6 · -0.3 vs Second Half
Second Half0.6 · n=5 · +0.3 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
11 games
Featured metric
Havoc Plays
Top game by takeover score
Louisiana Tech
Best efficiency game
45 vs Louisiana Tech
| Result | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 11/25 | @ Sam Houston | L 20-23 | 4 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 1 | — | — |
| Sat 11/18 | vs UTEP | W 34-30 | 3 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 2 | — | — |
| Sat 11/11 | vs Florida International | W 40-6 | 3 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 11/4 | @ New Mexico State | L 7-13 | 4 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Tue 10/17 | @ Liberty | L 35-42 | 5 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Tue 10/10 | vs Louisiana Tech | W 31-23 | 6 | 5 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 2 | — | — |
| Thu 9/28 | @ Western Kentucky | L 10-31 | 5 | 4 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/23 | vs Colorado State | L 23-31 | 4 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/16 | vs Unknown | — | 6 | 5 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/9 | @ Missouri | L 19-23 | 3 | 3 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
| Sat 9/2 | @ Alabama | L 7-56 | 5 | 5 | — | 0 | 0 | — | 0 | — | — |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Middle Tennessee
2018-2023
Opening stop
Season Progression
20182019202020212021202220222023
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 Regular Season | Middle Tennessee | 0 | 12.5 | 2.3 | — |
| 2019 Regular Season | Middle Tennessee | 0 | 6.3 | 1 | 0 |
| 2020 Regular Season | Middle Tennessee | 4 | 15.9 | 2.6 | 4 |
| 2021 Postseason | Middle Tennessee | 15 | 29.2 | 4.2 | 11 |
| 2021 Regular Season | Middle Tennessee | 15 | 29.2 | 4.2 | 0 |
| 2022 Postseason | Middle Tennessee | 21 | 39.5 | 7.3 | 6 |
| 2022 Regular Season | Middle Tennessee | 21 | 39.5 | 7.3 | 0 |
| 2023 Regular Season | Middle Tennessee | 5 | 22.7 | 3.2 | -16 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Florida Atlantic
Win with 5 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
5
Primary metric
5 disruption/tackle impact with 61.5 takeover score.
#2
Western Kentucky
4
Primary metric
Loss with 4 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
4 disruption/tackle impact with 56.3 takeover score.
#3
Louisiana Tech
2
Primary metric
Win with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2 disruption/tackle impact with 49.6 takeover score.
#4
Troy
2
Primary metric
Win with 2 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
2 disruption/tackle impact with 49 takeover score.
#5
Toledo
3
Primary metric
Win with 3 impact plays across the defensive snap sheet.
3 disruption/tackle impact with 46.7 takeover score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2018 Regular Season · Middle Tennessee
0 primary output · 12.5 efficiency · 2.3 usage
38.3
#2
2019 Regular Season · Middle Tennessee
35.7
0 primary · 6.3 efficiency · 1 usage
#3
2021 Postseason · Middle Tennessee
28.5
15 primary · 29.2 efficiency · 4.2 usage
Milestones
1
Impact games
0
Splash games
1
10+ tackle games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
2★
Class 2018 · Rating 0.7898
Jones County · Gray, GA
- Committed To
- Middle Tennessee
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2018
Career Facts
1
Career teams
8
Seasons tracked
196
Career Tackles
Data Context
Coverage spans 8 tracked seasons, 47 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.