Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2025 Regular Season
Akron paired 525 primary output with 74.2 efficiency.
Player Stats
Israel Polk 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
- 740
- Receptions
- 58
- Touchdowns
- 8
Season Ledger
Crawlable season-by-season stats
| Season | Team | Games | Rec | Rec Yds | TD | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 Regular Season | Pittsburgh | 1 | 1 | 14 | 0 | 52.3 |
| 2024 Regular Season | Akron | 11 | 24 | 201 | 0 | 47.2 |
| 2025 Regular Season | Akron | 12 | 33 | 525 | 8 | 70.2 |
Player insights
Supporting note
2025 Regular Season role shape
target-driven usage with 74.2 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value is trending up
2025 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 Pittsburgh, Akron.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: UAB
Loss 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.
2025 Regular Season · Akron
Games
12
Receiving Yards / G
43.8
Efficiency
74.2
Usage
15.6
Consistency
54.5
Best Game by takeover score
UAB
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.
Chronological game order.
Game by game trend chart. Wyoming: 13. Nebraska: 4. UAB: 99. Duquesne: 47. Toledo: 16. Central Michigan: 14. Miami (OH): 28. Ball State: 72. Buffalo: 67. Massachusetts: 13. Kent State: 67. Bowling Green: 85
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. Wyoming: 2 by 43.3. Nebraska: 1 by 26.7. UAB: 4 by 100. Duquesne: 2 by 100. Toledo: 2 by 53.3. Central Michigan: 2 by 46.7. Miami (OH): 5 by 37.3. Ball State: 5 by 96. Buffalo: 3 by 100. Massachusetts: 1 by 86.7. Kent State: 4 by 100. Bowling Green: 2 by 100
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins45.2 · Games = 5 · +2.5 vs Losses
Losses42.7 · Games = 7 · -2.5 vs Wins
Next best actions
Keep exploring Israel Polk
Move from the player story into the game log, career arc, team context, and video shelf.