Skip to content
Jordan Travis
Jordan Travis

#13Jordan Travis

QB·Florida State·20232022202111.6 pts line valueDay 2 (Rds 2–3)

Jordan Travis is a 3-year Dual-Threat QB for Florida State. Jordan's 2022 season ranks in the 85th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 429 plays — a above-average rate for the QB. Jordan's production has improved each season, a positive development trajectory.

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 Jordan Travis'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.

2022 Production

Passing
226/353 Comp/Att3214 Pass yards24 Pass TD5 INT64.0% Comp %
Rushing
417 Rush yards7 Rush TD82 Carries5.1 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2022 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency85
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency90
  • 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)85th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency90th %ile · elite
Career trajectory:↑ Rising
Key findings
  • ▸Above-average efficiency for the QB position (85th percentile).
  • ▸High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • ▸Career trajectory is upward — WEPA value has improved season over season.
  • ▸High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • ▸10 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • ▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • ▸Peak game: 0.73 EPA/play in Wk 12 vs Louisiana (SP+ 2).

NIL Market Tier· 2022

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.

Historical Comparables · QB · efficiency + volume + value

Players from 2013–2025 matched on EPA efficiency, play volume, and adjusted value tier — not just one metric.

PlayerTeamWEPA/playLine valTotal EPA
Stetson BennettGeorgia0.63512.5323.0
Tanner MordecaiSMU0.63014.0321.5
Kaidon SalterLiberty0.71114.7345.6
Malik CunninghamLouisville0.68114.7341.6
Blake SimsAlabama0.69615.4329.4

Comps are statistical — efficiency, volume, and value tier all factor in. Style and conference context differ.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.730−0.73Wk 1 vs Duquesne: +0.59 EPA/play1Wk 1 vs LSU: +0.59 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs Louisville: +0.56 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Boston College: +0.72 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Wake Forest: +0.29 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs NC State: +0.38 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Clemson: +0.10 EPA/play7Wk 9 vs Georgia Tech: +0.57 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Miami: +0.66 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Syracuse: +0.44 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Louisiana: +0.73 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Florida: +0.43 EPA/play13Wk 1 vs Oklahoma: +0.67 EPA/play1
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsDuquesneW47-7—11/152070084.21110.59
1vsLSUW24-2316.220/3326020—3100.59
3@LouisvilleW35-319.013/171572177.4-1000.56
4vsBoston CollegeW44-14-14.916/263211094.51600.72
5vsWake ForestL21-318.223/352813067.1200.29
6@NC StateL17-196.815/301811266.610800.38
7vsClemsonL28-3417.624/422542071.06410.10
9vsGeorgia TechW41-16-11.824/383963090.4-700.57
10@MiamiW45-3-2.710/122023198.91000.66
11@SyracuseW38-32.521/231553085.32110.44
12vsLouisianaW49-172.09/141121096.63820.73
13vsFloridaW45-3810.413/302701087.58320.43
1vsOklahomaW35-3215.427/3841821—5000.67

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
48.1%
Passing plays
88.8%
Rushing plays
13.9%
Standard downs
42.2%
Passing downs
61.6%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.33
Passing downs
0.68
Pass / Rush EPA
0.41 / 0.73

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+0.970−0.2620222023
EPA per play · 2021 — 2023 · 34 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2021Florida State
10.1
328.3
2022Florida State
11.6
269.6
2023Florida State
6.9
217.2

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.