Player Stats

Tion Green 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
2,367
Rushing yards
2,072
Receiving yards
295
Touchdowns
20

Season Ledger

Crawlable season-by-season stats

SeasonTeamGamesScrimmageRush YdsRec YdsTDOverall
2012 Regular SeasonCincinnati370700138.4
2013 PostseasonCincinnati11330048.8
2013 Regular SeasonCincinnati1142140912748.8
2014 Regular SeasonCincinnati313311815139.2
2015 PostseasonCincinnati1339327068
2015 Regular SeasonCincinnati1379169794968
2016 Regular SeasonCincinnati12910743167277

Player insights

Lead takeaway

Best season by value score: 2016 Regular Season

Cincinnati paired 910 primary output with 47.3 efficiency.

Supporting note

2016 Regular Season role shape

backfield-heavy usage with 47.3 efficiency.

Supporting note

Career value is trending up

2016 Regular Season improved on the prior stop by season value score.

Supporting note

Peak game by takeover score: UT Martin

Win with 108 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.

2016 Regular Season · Cincinnati

Games

12

Scrimmage Yards / G

75.8

Efficiency

47.3

Usage

28.8

Consistency

78.4

Best Game by takeover score

UT Martin

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. UT Martin: 108. Purdue: 92. Houston: 20. Miami (OH): 101. South Florida: 107. UConn: 18. East Carolina: 75. Temple: 62. BYU: 104. UCF: 93. Memphis: 58. Tulsa: 72

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. UT Martin: 18 by 62.9. Purdue: 20 by 39.9. Houston: 9 by 20.2. Miami (OH): 22 by 47.9. South Florida: 14 by 81.8. UConn: 7 by 26.3. East Carolina: 16 by 49.1. Temple: 12 by 47.7. BYU: 21 by 52.7. UCF: 18 by 53.2. Memphis: 15 by 37.5. Tulsa: 16 by 48.7

Split Comparison

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

Wins94 · Games = 4 · +27.3 vs Losses
Losses66.8 · Games = 8 · -27.3 vs Wins