Usage Score
28.4
Player Dossier
2019-2024UTSA
Zakhari Franklin
WR • 6'1" • 190 lbs • Cedar Hill, TX, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Zakhari Franklin reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
80.9
Consistency
78
Season Value
61.6
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2022 Postseason · UTSA
19202021212222232424
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 3
- Seasons Tracked
- 10
- Program Path
- UTSA • Ole Miss • Illinois
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Illinois
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.
Zakhari Franklin, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2022 Postseason · UTSA. Zakhari Franklin reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2022 Postseason
UTSA paired 1,137 primary output with 76.6 efficiency.
Supporting note
2024 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 80.9 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2024 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Multi-stop career journey
Production spans 3 team stops, with role shifts visible across UTSA, Ole Miss, Illinois.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Kansas
Win 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.
2024 Postseason · Illinois
Games
12
Receiving Yards / G
54.8
Efficiency
80.9
Usage
28.4
Consistency
78
Best Game by takeover score
South Carolina
Hover a point or expand a game row to keep the active game context visible here.
Game-by-Game Trend
123456789101112
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. South Carolina: 39. Unknown: 28. Kansas: 99. Central Michigan: 66. Nebraska: 50. Penn State: 49. Purdue: 60. Michigan: 26. Oregon: 72. Minnesota: 71. Michigan State: 44. Northwestern: 54
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. South Carolina: 4 by 65. Unknown: 2 by 93.3. Kansas: 9 by 73.3. Central Michigan: 5 by 88. Nebraska: 5 by 66.7. Penn State: 4 by 81.7. Purdue: 4 by 100. Michigan: 2 by 86.7. Oregon: 6 by 80. Minnesota: 5 by 94.7. Michigan State: 7 by 41.9. Northwestern: 3 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins54.8 · n=8 · -9.3 vs Losses
Losses64 · n=3 · +9.3 vs Wins
First Half55.2 · n=6 · +0.7 vs Second Half
Second Half54.5 · n=6 · -0.7 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
12 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Kansas
Best efficiency game
100 vs Northwestern
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tue 12/31 | vs South Carolina | W 21-17 | — | 4 | 39 | 9.8 | 9.80 | 1 | 15 |
| Sat 11/30 | @ Northwestern | W 38-28 | — | 3 | 54 | 18 | 18 | 0 | 43 |
| Sat 11/16 | vs Michigan State | W 38-16 | — | 7 | 44 | 6.3 | 6.30 | 1 | 15 |
| Sat 11/2 | vs Minnesota | L 17-25 | — | 5 | 71 | 14.2 | 14.20 | 1 | 21 |
| Sat 10/26 | @ Oregon | L 9-38 | — | 6 | 72 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 44 |
| Sat 10/19 | vs Michigan | W 21-7 | — | 2 | 26 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 13 |
| Sat 10/12 | vs Purdue | W 50-49 | — | 4 | 60 | 15 | 15 | 1 | 27 |
| Sat 9/28 | @ Penn State | L 7-21 | — | 4 | 49 | 12.3 | 12.30 | 0 | 18 |
| Sat 9/21 | @ Nebraska | W 31-24 | — | 5 | 50 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 17 |
| Sat 9/14 | vs Central Michigan | W 30-9 | — | 5 | 66 | 13.2 | 13.20 | 0 | 23 |
| Sat 9/7 | vs KansasHigh volume | W 23-17 | — | 9 | 99 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 42 |
| Fri 8/30 | vs Unknown | — | — | 2 | 28 | 14 | 14 | 0 | 16 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
UTSA
2019-2022
Opening stop
- 2
Ole Miss
2023
Peak year stop
- 3
Illinois
2024
Final stop
Season Progression
2019202020202021202120222022202320242024
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 Regular Season | UTSA | 491 | 67.8 | 23.3 | — |
| 2020 Postseason | UTSA | 694 | 75.9 | 27.8 | 203 |
| 2020 Regular Season | UTSA | 694 | 75.9 | 27.8 | 0 |
| 2021 Postseason | UTSA | 1,027 | 75.3 | 30.8 | 333 |
| 2021 Regular Season | UTSA | 1,027 | 75.3 | 30.8 | 0 |
| 2022 Postseason | UTSA | 1,137 | 76.6 | 27.5 | 110 |
| 2022 Regular Season | UTSA | 1,137 | 76.6 | 27.5 | 0 |
| 2023 Regular Season | Ole Miss | 38 | 65.6 | 9.5 | -1,099 |
| 2024 Postseason | Illinois | 658 | 80.9 | 28.4 | 620 |
| 2024 Regular Season | Illinois | 658 | 80.9 | 28.4 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Illinois
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
155
Primary metric
155 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Army
138
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
138 receiving yards with a 76.7 efficiency score.
#3
Old Dominion
134
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
134 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
UTEP
126
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
126 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Kansas
99
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
99 receiving yards with a 73.3 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2022 Postseason · UTSA
1,137 primary output · 76.6 efficiency · 27.5 usage
69.8
#2
2022 Regular Season · UTSA
69.8
1,137 primary · 76.6 efficiency · 27.5 usage
#3
2021 Postseason · UTSA
67.6
1,027 primary · 75.3 efficiency · 30.8 usage
Milestones
13
100+ receiving yards
10
8+ catch outings
9
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
2★
Class 2019 · Rating 0.7956
Cedar Hill · Cedar Hill, TX
- Committed To
- UTSA
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2019
Career Facts
3
Career teams
10
Seasons tracked
4,045
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 10 tracked seasons, 61 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.