Usage Score
27
Player Dossier
2019-2023UTEP
Jacob Cowing
WR • 5'11" • 175 lbs • Maricopa, AZ, USA
Alpha targetPossession profile
Jacob Cowing reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
55.8
Consistency
50.5
Season Value
48.2
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason · UTEP
19202121222323
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 2
- Seasons Tracked
- 7
- Program Path
- UTEP • Arizona
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: North Texas
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.
Jacob Cowing, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason · UTEP. Jacob Cowing reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2021 Postseason
UTEP paired 1,354 primary output with 89.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
2023 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 55.8 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2023 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Multi-stop career journey
Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across UTEP, Arizona.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Arizona State
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.
2023 Postseason · Arizona
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
64.5
Efficiency
55.8
Usage
27
Consistency
50.5
Best Game by takeover score
Oklahoma
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. Oklahoma: 152. Unknown: 38. Mississippi State: 31. UTEP: 84. Stanford: 85. Washington: 61. USC: 88. Washington State: 29. Oregon State: 36. UCLA: 49. Colorado: 24. Utah: 5. Arizona State: 157
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. Oklahoma: 7 by 100. Unknown: 3 by 84.4. Mississippi State: 7 by 29.5. UTEP: 10 by 56. Stanford: 8 by 70.8. Washington: 8 by 50.8. USC: 10 by 58.7. Washington State: 8 by 24.2. Oregon State: 6 by 40. UCLA: 8 by 40.8. Colorado: 3 by 53.3. Utah: 2 by 16.7. Arizona State: 9 by 100
Split Comparison
Wins69 · n=9 · +9 vs Losses
Losses60 · n=3 · -9 vs Wins
First Half77 · n=7 · +27 vs Second Half
Second Half50 · n=6 · -27 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
Arizona State
Best efficiency game
100 vs Oklahoma
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fri 12/29 | @ Oklahoma100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 38-24 | — | 7 | 152 | 21.7 | 21.70 | 2 | 57 |
| Sat 11/25 | @ Arizona State100 receiving yards · High volume | W 59-23 | — | 9 | 157 | 17.4 | 17.40 | 1 | 37 |
| Sat 11/18 | vs Utah | W 42-18 | — | 2 | 5 | 4.7 | 2.50 | 0 | 7 |
| Sat 11/11 | @ Colorado | W 34-31 | — | 3 | 24 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 13 |
| Sun 11/5 | vs UCLAHigh volume | W 27-10 | — | 8 | 49 | 6.1 | 6.10 | 1 | 18 |
| Sun 10/29 | vs Oregon State | W 27-24 | — | 6 | 36 | 5.7 | 6 | 0 | 14 |
| Sat 10/14 | @ Washington StateHigh volume | W 44-6 | — | 8 | 29 | 3.7 | 3.60 | 0 | 10 |
| Sun 10/8 | @ USCHigh volume · 2+ TD | L 41-43 | — | 10 | 88 | 8.8 | 8.80 | 4 | 25 |
| Sun 10/1 | vs WashingtonHigh volume | L 24-31 | — | 8 | 61 | 7.6 | 7.60 | 1 | 13 |
| Sat 9/23 | @ StanfordHigh volume | W 21-20 | — | 8 | 85 | 10.6 | 10.60 | 0 | 25 |
| Sun 9/17 | vs UTEPHigh volume | W 31-10 | — | 10 | 84 | 8.4 | 8.40 | 1 | 16 |
| Sat 9/9 | @ Mississippi State | L 24-31 | — | 7 | 31 | 4.3 | 4.40 | 1 | 17 |
| Sun 9/3 | vs Unknown | — | — | 3 | 38 | 12.7 | 12.70 | 1 | 30 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
UTEP
2019-2021
Opening stop
- 2
Arizona
2022-2023
Final stop
Season Progression
2019202020212021202220232023
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 Regular Season | UTEP | 550 | 87.3 | 17.5 | — |
| 2020 Regular Season | UTEP | 691 | 91.7 | 33.7 | 141 |
| 2021 Postseason | UTEP | 1,354 | 89.3 | 34.2 | 663 |
| 2021 Regular Season | UTEP | 1,354 | 89.3 | 34.2 | 0 |
| 2022 Regular Season | Arizona | 1,026 | 72.7 | 30.3 | -328 |
| 2023 Postseason | Arizona | 839 | 55.8 | 27 | -187 |
| 2023 Regular Season | Arizona | 839 | 55.8 | 27 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
North Texas
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
118
Primary metric
118 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
New Mexico
174
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
174 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Rice
170
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
170 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Louisiana Tech
166
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
166 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Charlotte
145
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
145 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2021 Postseason · UTEP
1,354 primary output · 89.3 efficiency · 34.2 usage
71.9
#2
2021 Regular Season · UTEP
71.9
1,354 primary · 89.3 efficiency · 34.2 usage
#3
2020 Regular Season · UTEP
62.9
691 primary · 91.7 efficiency · 33.7 usage
Milestones
19
100+ receiving yards
13
8+ catch outings
4
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
2★
Class 2019 · Rating 0.7683
Maricopa · Maricopa, AZ
- Committed To
- UTEP
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2019
Career Facts
2
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
4,460
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 57 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.