#4Austin Smith

QB·Eastern Michigan·2023

Austin Smith is a Dual-Threat QB for Eastern Michigan. Austin's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 360 plays — a developing rate for the QB.

What projects, and what doesn't · QBs · held out 2019-2025

How well one season predicts the next, measured on seasons the model never trained on. 1.00 would be perfectly predictable; 0.00 means last year told us nothing.

Usage share (volume)0.46
Beats guessing the QB average by 16%. n=2,421 QB seasons
EPA per play (efficiency)0.05
Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=1,965 QB seasons
Total EPA (value)0.51
Beats guessing the QB average by 20%. n=1,965 QB seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Austin Smith's projection is a projection of opportunity — how much of the offense he runs through. How well he converts it is something this model does not claim to know a year in advance, and the number above is why.

2023 Production

Passing

171/298 Comp/Att1775 Pass yards9 Pass TD7 INT57.4% Comp %

Rushing

134 Rush yards2 Rush TD101 Carries1.3 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat61
Consistency53
Clutch63

Player type

Dual-Threat QB

A genuine rushing threat who stresses defenses horizontally. Extends plays with legs and forces extra gap assignments.

Rushing threatScrambles for valueStresses defensive structure

Peer percentiles

Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency53th %ile · average

Key findings

▸Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
▸High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.13 from the first to second half of the season.
▸Peak game: 0.37 EPA/play in Wk 13 vs Buffalo (SP+ -15).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

On3 valuation ↗

Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group deals.

Tier is a model estimate based on position, school brand, performance rank, and usage — not a reported deal. NIL deals are private. For a real market valuation, see On3's NIL profile, which factors in social following and actual deal tracking.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	C/ATT	Pass Yds	Pass TD	INT	QBR	Rush Yds	Rush TD	EPA/play
1	vsHoward	W33-23	—	19/28	175	1	1	43.2	27	0	0.30
2	@Minnesota	L6-25	0.4	9/20	71	0	1	25.1	-12	0	-0.20
3	vsMassachusetts	W19-17	-17.5	13/26	157	1	0	38.5	45	0	0.08
4	@Jacksonville State	L0-21	-1.6	6/11	53	0	1	5.7	-11	0	-0.28
5	@Central Michigan	L23-26	-19.1	20/26	186	1	0	49.7	71	1	0.34
6	vsBall State	W24-10	-14.9	18/28	192	2	0	40.9	-20	0	0.14
7	vsKent State	W28-14	-26.3	9/25	118	1	0	16.0	19	0	0.23
8	@Northern Illinois	L13-20	-7.5	14/26	151	0	2	18.0	-10	0	0.14
9	vsWestern Michigan	L21-45	-15.9	15/25	231	1	1	11.9	-13	0	0.32
11	@Toledo	L23-49	3.7	9/24	86	0	1	20.3	25	0	-0.06
12	vsAkron	W30-27	-21.6	20/32	214	1	0	54.8	-16	0	0.15
13	@Buffalo	W24-11	-15.2	19/27	141	1	0	73.1	29	1	0.37

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

53.1%

Passing plays

89.4%

Rushing plays

20.7%

Standard downs

45.9%

Passing downs

67.4%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.12
Passing downs: 0.23
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.15 / 0.20

Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).