Skip to content
Bear Bachmeier

#47Bear Bachmeier

QB·BYU·20255.5 pts line value

Bear Bachmeier is a Dual-Threat QB for BYU. Bear's 2025 season ranks in the 23th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 522 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 Bear Bachmeier'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.

2025 Production

Passing
251/387 Comp/Att3033 Pass yards15 Pass TD7 INT64.9% Comp %
Rushing
527 Rush yards11 Rush TD147 Carries3.6 Yards/carry

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

20
Attempts
7.4y
Avg depth
7.1y
After catch
80%
Catch rate

The ball travels 7.4 yards in the air on an average throw about the median for the position. Another 7.1 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
1
0% · 0y
1
100% · 33y
0
short
6
67% · 41y
5
80% · 56y
7
100% · 68y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency23
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat92
  • Consistency75
  • Clutch64
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)23th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency75th %ile · above avg
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.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 5 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.18 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.88 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Portland State.

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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

+0.8800.88Wk 1 vs Portland State: +0.88 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Stanford: +0.03 EPA/play2Wk 4 vs East Carolina: +0.72 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Colorado: +0.37 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs West Virginia: +0.60 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Arizona: +0.20 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Utah: +0.19 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Iowa State: +0.39 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Texas Tech: +0.04 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs TCU: +0.49 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Cincinnati: +0.19 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs UCF: +0.53 EPA/play14Wk 15 vs Texas Tech: -0.15 EPA/play15
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsPortland StateW69-07/11973066.53220.88
2vsStanfordW27-3-11.817/271750024.9710.03
4@East CarolinaW34-138.018/252461085.92610.72
5@ColoradoW24-21-8.319/271792077.69800.37
6vsWest VirginiaW38-24-6.818/253511187.94310.60
7@ArizonaW33-2712.012/291721273.78920.20
8vsUtahW24-2122.213/221661087.46410.19
9@Iowa StateW41-279.922/353072084.34910.39
11@Texas TechL7-2927.623/381881155.81200.04
12vsTCUW44-138.323/332961093.25910.49
13@CincinnatiW26-144.515/251270068.84610.19
14vsUCFW41-21-1.221/252891087.0400.53
15vsTexas TechL7-3427.616/271150230.5-20-0.15
20vsGeorgia TechW25-219.327/383251184.200

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
56.6%
Passing plays
96.9%
Rushing plays
26.3%
Standard downs
51.6%
Passing downs
68.6%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.27
Passing downs
0.39
Pass / Rush EPA
0.30 / 0.36

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+0.980−0.25
EPA per play · 2025 · 14 games

Chart shows per-game EPA (bars) and rolling 5-game average (line). Season breaks marked with dashed lines. Line value = est. points over replacement per game.

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.