Usage Score
11.3
Player Dossier
2011-2015Central Michigan
TE • 6'4" • Warren, MI, USA
Ben McCord reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Usage Score
11.3
Efficiency
77.1
Consistency
50
Season Value
59.6
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Central Michigan
Snapshot
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.
Ben McCord, TE. Best season Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason · Central Michigan. Ben McCord reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Ben McCord played TE for Central Michigan. Across 5 tracked seasons, Ben McCord recorded 879 receiving yards and 9 touchdowns. His top tracked season came in 2015 with Central Michigan.
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2015 Postseason
Central Michigan paired 612 primary output with 77.1 efficiency.
Supporting note
2015 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 77.1 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: Syracuse
Loss with an explosive receiving profile. It landed in the 100th percentile of the selected season.
Analysis workspace
Filter the strongest season sample, inspect game-level shape, and then drop into the full log without losing the story of the year.
Understand the selected season before dropping into the full game log.
Games
13
Receiving Yards / G
47.1
Efficiency
77.1
Usage
11.3
Consistency
50
Best Game by takeover score
Minnesota
Active game
Hover over a point
Hover or select a game to keep its context visible here without the page shifting around.
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. Minnesota: 42. Oklahoma State: 59. Unknown: 100. Syracuse: 147. Michigan State: 7. Northern Illinois: 19. Western Michigan: 41. Buffalo: 19. Ball State: 23. Akron: 40. Toledo: 4. Kent State: 11. Eastern Michigan: 100
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. Minnesota: 2 by 100. Oklahoma State: 4 by 98.3. Unknown: 2 by 100. Syracuse: 10 by 98. Michigan State: 1 by 46.7. Northern Illinois: 1 by 100. Western Michigan: 4 by 68.3. Buffalo: 2 by 63.3. Ball State: 4 by 38.3. Akron: 3 by 88.9. Toledo: 1 by 26.7. Kent State: 1 by 73.3. Eastern Michigan: 4 by 100
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
13 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
Syracuse
Best efficiency game
100 vs Minnesota
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mon 12/28 | @ Minnesota | L 14-21 | — | 2 | 42 | 21 | 21 | 0 | 26 |
| Fri 11/27 | vs Eastern Michigan100 receiving yards | W 35-28 | — | 4 | 100 | 25 | 25 | 0 | 38 |
| Thu 11/19 | @ Kent State | W 27-14 | — | 1 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 1 | 11 |
| Wed 11/11 | vs Toledo | L 23-28 | — | 1 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| Sat 10/31 | @ Akron | W 14-6 | — | 3 | 40 | 13.3 | 13.30 | 0 | 27 |
| Sat 10/24 | @ Ball State | W 23-21 | — | 4 | 23 | 5.8 | 5.80 | 0 | 9 |
| Sat 10/17 | vs Buffalo | W 51-14 | — | 2 | 19 | 9.5 | 9.50 | 0 | 16 |
| Sat 10/10 | @ Western Michigan2+ TD | L 39-41 | — | 4 | 41 | 10.3 | 10.30 | 2 | 17 |
| Sat 10/3 | vs Northern Illinois | W 29-19 | — | 1 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 0 | 19 |
| Sat 9/26 | @ Michigan State | L 10-30 | — | 1 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
| Sat 9/19 | @ Syracuse100 receiving yards · High volume | L 27-30 | — | 10 | 147 | 14.7 | 14.70 | 1 | 27 |
| Sat 9/12 | vs Unknown100 receiving yards | — | — | 2 | 100 | 50 | 50 | 1 | 83 |
| Thu 9/3 | vs Oklahoma State | L 13-24 | — | 4 | 59 | 14.8 | 14.80 | 0 | 20 |
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
Central Michigan
2011-2015
Opening stop
Season Progression
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 0 | — | — | — |
| 2012 Postseason | Central Michigan | 81 | 49.7 | 8.4 | 81 |
| 2012 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 81 | 49.7 | 8.4 | 0 |
| 2013 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 62 | 45 | 9.1 | -19 |
| 2014 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 124 | 62.1 | 7.2 | 62 |
| 2015 Postseason | Central Michigan | 612 | 77.1 | 11.3 | 488 |
| 2015 Regular Season | Central Michigan | 612 | 77.1 | 11.3 | 0 |
#1 Featured game
Syracuse
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
147
Primary metric
147 receiving yards with a 98 efficiency score.
#2
Buffalo
46
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
46 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#3
Ohio
42
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
42 receiving yards with a 93.3 efficiency score.
#4
Ball State
47
Primary metric
Loss with an explosive receiving profile.
47 receiving yards with a 78.3 efficiency score.
#5
Eastern Michigan
100
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
100 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#1 Season by value score
2015 Postseason · Central Michigan
612 primary output · 77.1 efficiency · 11.3 usage
59.6
#2
2015 Regular Season · Central Michigan
59.6
612 primary · 77.1 efficiency · 11.3 usage
#3
2014 Regular Season · Central Michigan
34.4
124 primary · 62.1 efficiency · 7.2 usage
3
100+ receiving yards
1
8+ catch outings
1
2+ TD games
Recruit Profile
Class 2011 · Rating 0.8267
Cousino Senior · Warren, MI
Career Facts
1
Career teams
7
Seasons tracked
879
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 7 tracked seasons, 30 games, and base opponent context only. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.