#4Kemper Hodges

QB·Air Force·2025

Kemper Hodges is a Dual-Threat QB for Air Force. Kemper's 2025 season ranks in the 3th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 63 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 Kemper Hodges'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

6/14 Comp/Att74 Pass yards0 Pass TD0 INT42.9% Comp %

Rushing

207 Rush yards3 Rush TD49 Carries4.2 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency3
Volume39
Dual-Threat100
Consistency69
Clutch0

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 consistency69th %ile · average

Key findings

▸Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
▸4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Production faded as the season progressed — 1.01 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
▸Peak game: 1.32 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Navy (SP+ 6).

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
4	vsBoise State	L37-49	3.1	—	—	—	—	—	5	1	1.21
5	vsHawai'i	L35-44	1.7	—	—	—	—	—	2	1	1.21
6	@Navy	L31-34	6.2	1/1	37	0	0	100.0	1	0	1.32
11	@San José State	W26-16	-14.3	—	—	—	—	—	0	0	-0.33
12	@UConn	L16-26	5.1	4/8	32	0	0	69.4	62	0	0.15
13	vsNew Mexico	L3-20	0.9	1/5	5	0	0	12.9	50	0	0.02
14	@Colorado State	W42-21	-15.6	—	—	—	—	—	87	1	0.54

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

13.5%

Passing plays

16.5%

Rushing plays

13.0%

Standard downs

12.4%

Passing downs

17.0%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.38
Passing downs: 0.02
Pass / Rush EPA: -0.26 / 0.45

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