Player Stats

Caleb Spann 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

Tackles
179
TFL
7.5
Sacks
1.5
Passes defended
15

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesTacklesTFLSacksQB HurPDTDOverall
2021 Regular SeasonCentral Michigan23-0--038.9
2022 Regular SeasonCentral Michigan72020-4044
2023 Regular SeasonCentral Michigan114110-2020.8
2024 Regular SeasonCentral Michigan126141.5-5055.4
2025 PostseasonCentral Michigan136-0--030.1
2025 Regular SeasonCentral Michigan13480.50-4030.1

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2024 Regular Season

Central Michigan paired 10.5 primary output with 29.9 efficiency.

Supporting note

2025 Postseason role shape

impact-led usage with 21.5 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2025 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: Michigan

Loss 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 compare the statistical profile without scrolling through the full player page.

Season Explorer

Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.

2025 Postseason · Central Michigan

Games

13

Havoc Plays / G

0.4

Efficiency

21.5

Usage

4

Consistency

12.8

Best Game by takeover score

Michigan

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.

12345678910111213

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Northwestern: 0. San José State: 0. Pittsburgh: 0. Michigan: 2. Wagner: 0. Eastern Michigan: 0.5. Akron: 1. Bowling Green: 0. Massachusetts: 1. Western Michigan: 0. Buffalo: 0. Kent State: 0. Toledo: 1

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. Northwestern: 6 by 25. San José State: 4 by 16.7. Pittsburgh: 5 by 20.8. Michigan: 6 by 45. Wagner: 1 by 4.2. Eastern Michigan: 7 by 34.2. Akron: 6 by 35. Bowling Green: 4 by 16.7. Massachusetts: 1 by 14.2. Western Michigan: 5 by 20.8. Buffalo: 3 by 12.5. Kent State: 4 by 16.7. Toledo: 2 by 18.3

Split Comparison

Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.

Wins0.2 · Games = 7 · -0.5 vs Losses
Losses0.7 · Games = 6 · +0.5 vs Wins