#8Cutter Boley

QB·Kentucky·2025

Cutter Boley is a Dual-Threat QB for Kentucky. Cutter's 2025 season ranks in the 3th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 308 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 Cutter Boley'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

198/301 Comp/Att2160 Pass yards15 Pass TD12 INT65.8% Comp %

Rushing

85 Rush yards2 Rush TD66 Carries1.3 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency3
Volume100
Dual-Threat76
Consistency61
Clutch2

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)3th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency61th %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.
▸3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Peak game: 0.72 EPA/play in Wk 9 vs Tennessee (SP+ 15).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗

Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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
2	vsOle Miss	L23-30	24.0	1/3	38	0	0	7.7	14	0	-0.02
3	vsEastern Michigan	W48-23	-14.7	12/21	240	2	0	41.7	24	0	0.66
5	@South Carolina	L13-35	5.9	10/19	124	0	2	10.9	-31	0	-0.30
6	@Georgia	L14-35	24.1	25/41	225	2	1	76.9	-5	0	0.10
8	vsTexas	L13-16	16.2	31/39	258	0	1	80.9	45	1	0.40
9	vsTennessee	L34-56	15.0	26/35	330	5	1	86.3	31	0	0.72
10	@Auburn	W10-3	11.6	18/29	161	1	2	60.5	7	0	0.09
11	vsFlorida	W38-7	3.5	18/23	168	2	1	94.2	11	0	0.31
12	vsTennessee Tech	W42-10	—	18/21	236	1	0	87.7	24	1	0.66
13	@Vanderbilt	L17-45	20.3	26/44	280	2	2	29.6	-6	0	0.21
14	@Louisville	L0-41	12.4	13/26	100	0	2	19.1	-29	0	-0.11

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

48.7%

Passing plays

87.1%

Rushing plays

11.5%

Standard downs

39.3%

Passing downs

68.8%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.37
Passing downs: 0.18
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.32 / 0.28

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