Skip to content
Jacob Conover

#3Jacob Conover

Jacob Conover is a Dual-Threat QB for Utah State.

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 Jacob Conover'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
24/39 Comp/Att323 Pass yards4 Pass TD0 INT61.5% Comp %
Rushing
28 Rush yards0 Rush TD8 Carries3.5 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume43
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency0
  • 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 consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among QBs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 0.47 EPA/play in Wk 11 vs Nevada (SP+ -13).

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

+0.6900.69Wk 4 vs McNeese: -0.69 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Vanderbilt: +0.46 EPA/play5Wk 7 vs Hawai'i: +0.27 EPA/play7Wk 11 vs Nevada: +0.47 EPA/play11
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
4vsMcNeeseW48-70/10000.760-0.69
5@VanderbiltL35-5520.311/14922081.4-100.46
7@Hawai'iL26-441.74/10640048.90.27
11vsNevadaW51-14-13.44/8890032.5600.47
20vsWashington StateL21-343.85/6782098.9170

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
14.9%
Passing plays
23.5%
Rushing plays
6.2%
Standard downs
13.4%
Passing downs
18.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.33
Passing downs
1.09
Pass / Rush EPA
0.55 / 0.85

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

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