Skip to content
Kyle McCord

#6Kyle McCord

QB·Ohio State·2024202310.6 pts line valueDay 2 (Rds 2–3)

Kyle McCord is a 2-year Dual-Threat QB for Ohio State. Kyle's 2023 season ranks in the 88th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 346 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 Kyle McCord'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.

2023 Production

Passing
229/348 Comp/Att3170 Pass yards24 Pass TD6 INT65.8% Comp %
Rushing
-65 Rush yards0 Rush TD32 Carries-2.0 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency88
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat53
  • Consistency89
  • Clutch87
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)88th %ile · above avg
Game-to-game consistency89th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Above-average efficiency for the QB position (88th percentile).
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 9 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 — 0.10 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.89 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Western Kentucky (SP+ -2).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

On3 valuation ↗
Starter

Meaningful starter. Local collective + position-group 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.

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

+0.8900.89Wk 1 vs Indiana: +0.40 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Youngstown State: +0.83 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Western Kentucky: +0.89 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Notre Dame: +0.26 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Maryland: +0.63 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Purdue: +0.72 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Penn State: +0.26 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Wisconsin: +0.60 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Rutgers: +0.43 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Michigan State: +0.80 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Minnesota: +0.45 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Michigan: +0.60 EPA/play13
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1@IndianaW23-3-7.420/332390180.6800.40
2vsYoungstown StateW35-714/202583090.0100.83
3vsWestern KentuckyW63-10-2.019/233183095.7100.89
4@Notre DameW17-1420.121/372400089.5000.26
6vsMarylandW37-1711.019/293202081.9-2000.63
7@PurdueW41-7-7.316/282763088.4-1100.72
8vsPenn StateW20-1223.522/352861087.2-1000.26
9@WisconsinW24-109.417/262262256.0-2000.60
10@RutgersW35-163.519/261893179.8-600.43
11vsMichigan StateW38-3-6.824/313353098.10.80
12vsMinnesotaW37-30.420/302122064.0-500.45
13@MichiganL24-3031.318/302712289.4-300.60

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
48.5%
Passing plays
92.7%
Rushing plays
5.2%
Standard downs
40.7%
Passing downs
69.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.46
Passing downs
0.70
Pass / Rush EPA
0.57 / 0.17

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+0.990−0.272024
EPA per play · 2023 — 2024 · 25 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2023Ohio State
10.6
239.4
2024Syracuse
12.1
321.4

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.