Skip to content
Josh Hoover

#10Josh Hoover

QB·TCU·202520248.4 pts line valueDay 2 (Rds 2–3)

Josh Hoover is a 2-year Dual-Threat QB for TCU. Josh's 2025 season ranks in the 85th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 455 plays — a above-average 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 Josh Hoover'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
272/413 Comp/Att3472 Pass yards29 Pass TD13 INT65.9% Comp %
Rushing
4 Rush yards2 Rush TD55 Carries0.1 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency85
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat51
  • Consistency74
  • 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 consistency74th %ile · average
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.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 5 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 — 0.28 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 1.09 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Abilene Christian.

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.

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
Kyle McCordSyracuse0.50912.1321.4

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

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+1.0901.09Wk 1 vs North Carolina: +0.50 EPA/play1Wk 3 vs Abilene Christian: +1.09 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs SMU: +0.53 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Arizona State: +0.22 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Colorado: +0.63 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Kansas State: +0.13 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Baylor: +0.34 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs West Virginia: +0.12 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Iowa State: +0.37 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs BYU: -0.23 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Houston: +0.12 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Cincinnati: +0.72 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1@North CarolinaW48-14-6.627/362842178.4300.50
3vsAbilene ChristianW42-2121/273374097.41.09
4vsSMUW35-2413.422/403795185.92700.53
5@Arizona StateL24-273.920/322420245.8-3810.22
6vsColoradoW35-21-8.323/332754078.22010.63
7@Kansas StateL28-417.026/473763227.8-300.13
8vsBaylorW42-361.422/312313076.1-200.34
9@West VirginiaW23-17-6.824/392471059.0-300.12
11vsIowa StateL17-209.934/503191275.81100.37
12@BYUL13-4415.910/231830246.8-60-0.23
13@HoustonW17-147.424/332932380.6-200.12
14vsCincinnatiW45-234.519/223064096.9-300.72

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
55.9%
Passing plays
97.9%
Rushing plays
10.2%
Standard downs
47.6%
Passing downs
73.9%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.22
Passing downs
0.62
Pass / Rush EPA
0.44 / 0.16

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.230−0.362025
EPA per play · 2024 — 2025 · 25 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2024TCU
9.8
261.0
2025TCU
8.4
197.8

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.