Usage Score
27.5
Player Dossier
2020-2024Louisiana Tech
Tre Harris
WR • 6'2" • 205 lbs • Lafayette, LA, USA
Alpha targetExplosive finisher
Tre Harris reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
80.6
Consistency
64.4
Season Value
65.4
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2024 Regular Season · Ole Miss
202122232324
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 2
- Seasons Tracked
- 6
- Program Path
- Louisiana Tech • Ole Miss
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: Georgia Southern
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.
Tre Harris, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2024 Regular Season · Ole Miss. Tre Harris reads as a alpha target based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2024 Regular Season
Ole Miss paired 1,063 primary output with 96.3 efficiency.
Supporting note
2022 Regular Season role shape
target-driven usage with 80.6 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2024 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Multi-stop career journey
Production spans 2 team stops, with role shifts visible across Louisiana Tech, Ole Miss.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: Middle Tennessee
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.
2022 Regular Season · Louisiana Tech
Games
12
Receiving Yards / G
79.5
Efficiency
80.6
Usage
27.5
Consistency
64.4
Best Game by takeover score
UAB
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. Missouri: 37. Unknown: 91. Clemson: 56. South Alabama: 85. UTEP: 126. North Texas: 129. Rice: 92. Florida International: 49. Middle Tennessee: 157. UTSA: 49. Charlotte: 20. UAB: 63
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. Missouri: 6 by 41.1. Unknown: 5 by 100. Clemson: 4 by 93.3. South Alabama: 6 by 94.4. UTEP: 5 by 100. North Texas: 6 by 100. Rice: 8 by 76.7. Florida International: 3 by 100. Middle Tennessee: 7 by 100. UTSA: 5 by 65.3. Charlotte: 5 by 26.7. UAB: 6 by 70
Split Comparison
Wins141.5 · n=2 · +77.1 vs Losses
Losses64.4 · n=9 · -77.1 vs Wins
First Half87.3 · n=6 · +15.7 vs Second Half
Second Half71.7 · n=6 · -15.7 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
Middle Tennessee
Best efficiency game
100 vs Middle Tennessee
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 11/26 | vs UAB | L 27-37 | — | 6 | 63 | 10.5 | 10.50 | 1 | 20 |
| Sat 11/19 | @ Charlotte | L 21-26 | — | 5 | 20 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 8 |
| Sat 11/12 | @ UTSA | L 7-51 | — | 5 | 49 | 9.8 | 9.80 | 0 | 16 |
| Sat 11/5 | vs Middle Tennessee100 receiving yards · 2+ TD | W 40-24 | — | 7 | 157 | 22.4 | 22.40 | 2 | 44 |
| Sat 10/29 | @ Florida International | L 34-42 | — | 3 | 49 | 16.3 | 16.30 | 0 | 41 |
| Sat 10/22 | vs RiceHigh volume · 2+ TD | L 41-42 | — | 8 | 92 | 10.6 | 11.50 | 3 | 32 |
| Sat 10/15 | @ North Texas100 receiving yards | L 27-47 | — | 6 | 129 | 17.9 | 21.50 | 1 | 58 |
| Sat 10/8 | vs UTEP100 receiving yards | W 41-31 | — | 5 | 126 | 25.2 | 25.20 | 1 | 64 |
| Sat 9/24 | @ South Alabama | L 14-38 | — | 6 | 85 | 14.2 | 14.20 | 0 | 43 |
| Sun 9/18 | @ Clemson | L 20-48 | — | 4 | 56 | 14 | 14 | 1 | 26 |
| Sat 9/10 | vs Unknown | — | — | 5 | 91 | 18.2 | 18.20 | 1 | 40 |
| Fri 9/2 | @ Missouri | L 24-52 | — | 6 | 37 | 5.3 | 6.20 | 0 | 11 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Louisiana Tech
2020-2022
Opening stop
- 2
Ole Miss
2023-2024
Final stop
Season Progression
202020212022202320232024
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 Postseason | Louisiana Tech | 20 | 100 | 5.3 | — |
| 2021 Regular Season | Louisiana Tech | 572 | 81.3 | 17.3 | 552 |
| 2022 Regular Season | Louisiana Tech | 954 | 80.6 | 27.5 | 382 |
| 2023 Postseason | Ole Miss | 985 | 88.6 | 23.8 | 31 |
| 2023 Regular Season | Ole Miss | 985 | 88.6 | 23.8 | 0 |
| 2024 Regular Season | Ole Miss | 1,063 | 96.3 | 33.4 | 78 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
Georgia Southern
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
225
Primary metric
225 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
Texas A&M
213
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
213 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Middle Tennessee
157
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
157 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Kentucky
176
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
176 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
SMU
102
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
102 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2024 Regular Season · Ole Miss
1,063 primary output · 96.3 efficiency · 33.4 usage
75.4
#2
2022 Regular Season · Louisiana Tech
65.4
954 primary · 80.6 efficiency · 27.5 usage
#3
2023 Postseason · Ole Miss
63.9
985 primary · 88.6 efficiency · 23.8 usage
Milestones
15
100+ receiving yards
8
8+ catch outings
6
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
3★
Class 2020 · Rating 0.8181
Comeaux · Lafayette, LA
- Committed To
- Louisiana Tech
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2020
Career Facts
2
Career teams
6
Seasons tracked
3,594
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 6 tracked seasons, 44 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.