Player Stats

Vance McDonald 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

Receiving yards
1,504
Receptions
119
Touchdowns
15

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesRecRec YdsTDOverall
2009 Regular SeasonRice512118043.1
2010 Regular SeasonRice828396870.5
2011 Regular SeasonRice1243532570.5
2012 PostseasonRice10125069.9
2012 Regular SeasonRice1035433269.9

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2010 Regular Season

Rice paired 396 primary output with 74.9 efficiency.

Supporting note

2012 Postseason role shape

target-driven usage with 79.3 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2012 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: UTEP

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

Season Explorer

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

2012 Postseason · Rice

Games

10

Receiving Yards / G

45.8

Efficiency

79.3

Usage

17.4

Consistency

56.3

Best Game by takeover score

UTEP

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.

12345678910

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Air Force: 25. UCLA: 26. Kansas: 72. Louisiana Tech: 35. Marshall: 54. Houston: 41. Memphis: 11. UTSA: 10. SMU: 85. UTEP: 99

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. Air Force: 1 by 100. UCLA: 2 by 86.7. Kansas: 4 by 100. Louisiana Tech: 4 by 58.3. Marshall: 4 by 90. Houston: 2 by 100. Memphis: 2 by 36.7. UTSA: 1 by 66.7. SMU: 7 by 81. UTEP: 9 by 73.3

Split Comparison

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

Wins58.2 · Games = 5 · +24.8 vs Losses
Losses33.4 · Games = 5 · -24.8 vs Wins