Player Stats

Kenneth Farrow 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

Scrimmage yards
3,521
Rushing yards
2,975
Receiving yards
546
Touchdowns
37

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesScrimmageRush YdsRec YdsTDOverall
2011 Regular SeasonHouston00000-
2012 Regular SeasonHouston12631466165353.6
2013 PostseasonHouston1128280155.1
2013 Regular SeasonHouston11599486113655.1
2014 PostseasonHouston1314510342276.1
2014 Regular SeasonHouston131,0419341071376.1
2015 PostseasonHouston12990068.9
2015 Regular SeasonHouston121,0689491191268.9

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2014 Postseason

Houston paired 1,186 primary output with 55.8 efficiency.

Supporting note

2015 Postseason role shape

backfield-heavy usage with 52.6 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value stayed steady

2015 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: UCF

Win with 195 yards from scrimmage and efficient touch value. 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.

2015 Postseason · Houston

Games

12

Scrimmage Yards / G

89.8

Efficiency

52.6

Usage

24

Consistency

63.7

Best Game by takeover score

UCF

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.

123456789101112

Chronological game order.

Game by game trend chart. Florida State: 9. Tennessee Tech: 64. Louisville: 119. Texas State: 68. Tulsa: 159. SMU: 68. Tulane: 77. UCF: 195. Vanderbilt: 82. Cincinnati: 114. Memphis: 78. UConn: 44

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. Florida State: 3 by 31.3. Tennessee Tech: 13 by 48.4. Louisville: 28 by 42.9. Texas State: 17 by 41.7. Tulsa: 19 by 84.9. SMU: 12 by 46.3. Tulane: 15 by 55.8. UCF: 14 by 100. Vanderbilt: 16 by 53.4. Cincinnati: 31 by 37.4. Memphis: 12 by 55.8. UConn: 15 by 32.8

Split Comparison

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

Wins93.9 · Games = 11 · +49.9 vs Losses
Losses44 · Games = 1 · -49.9 vs Wins