Usage Score
11.5
Player Dossier
2024-2025Texas A&M
Ashton Bethel-Roman
WR • 6'0" • 185 lbs • Missouri City, TX, USA
Vertical playmakerExplosive finisher
Ashton Bethel-Roman reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Efficiency
91.7
Consistency
59.8
Season Value
65.7
Career Arc
Value trend by season
Best season by value score: 2025 Postseason · Texas A&M
242525
Snapshot
- Career Teams
- 1
- Seasons Tracked
- 3
- Program Path
- Texas A&M
- Peak Game
- Peak game by takeover score: South Carolina
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.
Ashton Bethel-Roman, WR. Best season Best season by value score: 2025 Postseason · Texas A&M. Ashton Bethel-Roman reads as a vertical playmaker based on recent role and receiving efficiency.
Ashton Bethel-Roman played WR for Texas A&M. Across 2 tracked seasons, Ashton Bethel-Roman recorded 547 receiving yards, 1 tackles, and 6 touchdowns. His top tracked season came in 2025 with Texas A&M.
Player insights
Lead takeaway
Best season by value score: 2025 Postseason
Texas A&M paired 503 primary output with 91.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
2025 Postseason role shape
target-driven usage with 91.7 efficiency.
Supporting note
Career value stayed steady
2025 Regular Season tracked close to the prior stop by season value score.
Supporting note
Peak game by takeover score: South Carolina
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.
2025 Postseason · Texas A&M
Games
10
Receiving Yards / G
50.3
Efficiency
91.7
Usage
11.5
Consistency
59.8
Best Game by takeover score
Miami
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. Miami: 44. UTSA: 20. Utah State: 48. Auburn: 18. Arkansas: 83. LSU: 47. Missouri: 26. South Carolina: 139. Unknown: 61. Texas: 17
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. Miami: 4 by 73.3. UTSA: 1 by 100. Utah State: 3 by 100. Auburn: 1 by 100. Arkansas: 4 by 100. LSU: 1 by 100. Missouri: 2 by 86.7. South Carolina: 4 by 100. Unknown: 2 by 100. Texas: 2 by 56.7
Split Comparison
Compare how this player performed across different situations. "Games" shows how many matchups are included in each split.
Wins54.4 · Games = 7 · +23.9 vs Losses
Losses30.5 · Games = 2 · -23.9 vs Wins
First Half42.6 · Games = 5 · -15.4 vs Second Half
Second Half58 · Games = 5 · +15.4 vs First Half
Game Log
Dense stat lines with inline explanations and season-linked highlights.
10 games
Featured metric
Receiving Yards
Top game by takeover score
South Carolina
Best efficiency game
100 vs Unknown
| Result | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 12/20 | vs Miami | L 3-10 | — | 4 | 44 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 15 |
| Sat 11/29 | @ Texas | L 17-27 | — | 2 | 17 | 8.5 | 8.50 | 0 | 11 |
| Sat 11/22 | vs Unknown2+ TD | — | — | 2 | 61 | 30.5 | 30.50 | 2 | 58 |
| Sat 11/15 | vs South Carolina100 receiving yards | W 31-30 | — | 4 | 139 | 34.8 | 34.80 | 1 | 76 |
| Sat 11/8 | @ Missouri | W 38-17 | — | 2 | 26 | 13 | 13 | 1 | 22 |
| Sat 10/25 | @ LSU | W 49-25 | — | 1 | 47 | 47 | 47 | 0 | 47 |
| Sat 10/18 | @ Arkansas | W 45-42 | — | 4 | 83 | 20.8 | 20.80 | 1 | 37 |
| Sat 9/27 | vs Auburn | W 16-10 | — | 1 | 18 | 18 | 18 | 0 | 18 |
| Sat 9/6 | vs Utah State | W 44-22 | — | 3 | 48 | 16 | 16 | 0 | 25 |
| Sat 8/30 | vs UTSA | W 42-24 | — | 1 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 20 |
Career Arc
Track team changes, role shifts, and season-to-season movement.
- 1
Texas A&M
2024-2025
Opening stop
Season Progression
202420252025
| Season | Team | Primary | Efficiency | Usage | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 44 | 68.9 | 8.7 | — |
| 2025 Postseason | Texas A&M | 503 | 91.7 | 11.5 | 459 |
| 2025 Regular Season | Texas A&M | 503 | 91.7 | 11.5 | 0 |
Signature Performances
Top Games
#1 Featured game
South Carolina
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
139
Primary metric
139 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#2
New Mexico State
35
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
35 receiving yards with a 77.8 efficiency score.
#3
Arkansas
83
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
83 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#4
Unknown
61
Primary metric
Game with an explosive receiving profile.
61 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
#5
Utah State
48
Primary metric
Win with an explosive receiving profile.
48 receiving yards with a 100 efficiency score.
Top Seasons
#1 Season by value score
2025 Postseason · Texas A&M
503 primary output · 91.7 efficiency · 11.5 usage
65.7
#2
2025 Regular Season · Texas A&M
65.7
503 primary · 91.7 efficiency · 11.5 usage
#3
2024 Regular Season · Texas A&M
37.7
44 primary · 68.9 efficiency · 8.7 usage
Milestones
1
100+ receiving yards
0
8+ catch outings
1
2+ TD games
Bio, Recruit, and Data Context
Recruit Profile
4★
Class 2024 · Rating 0.9167
Ridge Point · Missouri City, TX
- Committed To
- Texas A&M
- Commit Date
- Jan 1, 2024
Career Facts
1
Career teams
3
Seasons tracked
547
Career Receiving Yards
Data Context
Coverage spans 3 tracked seasons, 12 games, and SP opponent-strength context when available. Derived metrics fall back to raw production when share or rating context is missing.