#15Byrd Ficklin

QB·Utah·2025

Byrd Ficklin is a Dual-Threat QB for Utah. Byrd's 2025 season ranks in the 100th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 55 plays — a elite 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 Byrd Ficklin'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

21/35 Comp/Att301 Pass yards3 Pass TD0 INT60.0% Comp %

Rushing

513 Rush yards10 Rush TD61 Carries8.4 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency100
Volume31
Dual-Threat100
Consistency62
Clutch100

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)100th %ile · elite

Game-to-game consistency62th %ile · average

Key findings

▸Top-10% efficiency among QBs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
▸7 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 0.22 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 1.86 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs Baylor (SP+ 1).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗

Elite

Top-3 player at position nationally. Collective + national brand 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	@UCLA	W43-10	-8.7	—	—	—	—	—	20	0	1.07
2	vsCal Poly	W63-9	—	4/4	53	0	0	99.9	55	2	1.09
4	vsTexas Tech	L10-34	27.6	—	—	—	—	—	6	0	0.84
5	@West Virginia	W48-14	-6.8	4/4	53	1	0	63.7	10	0	0.50
7	vsArizona State	W42-10	3.9	1/1	32	0	0	100.0	4	1	0.49
8	@BYU	L21-24	15.9	—	—	—	—	—	16	0	0.09
9	vsColorado	W53-7	-8.3	10/22	140	2	0	74.3	151	1	0.36
10	vsCincinnati	W45-14	4.5	—	—	—	—	—	14	1	0.22
12	@Baylor	W55-28	1.4	2/3	23	0	0	100.0	166	2	1.86
13	vsKansas State	W51-47	7.0	0/1	0	0	0	99.8	54	3	1.01
14	@Kansas	W31-21	4.1	—	—	—	—	—	7	0	-1.16
20	vsNebraska	W44-22	6.2	—	—	—	—	—	10	0	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

11.0%

Passing plays

10.3%

Rushing plays

11.7%

Standard downs

11.1%

Passing downs

10.9%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.55
Passing downs: 1.08
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.64 / 0.75

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