Skip to content
Matthew Sluka
Matthew Sluka

#9Matthew Sluka

QB·James Madison·2025

Matthew Sluka is a Dual-Threat QB for James Madison. Matthew's 2025 season produced -1.1 total EPA across 39 plays.

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 Matthew Sluka'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
8/11 Comp/Att100 Pass yards3 Pass TD2 INT72.7% Comp %
Rushing
239 Rush yards3 Rush TD42 Carries5.7 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume25
  • Dual-Threat57
  • 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)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency0th %ile · below avg
Key findings
  • ▸Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • ▸Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • ▸High game-to-game variance — boom-or-bust profile.
  • ▸3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • ▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • ▸Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 2.07 from the first to second half of the season.
  • ▸Peak game: 2.04 EPA/play in Wk 14 vs Coastal Carolina (SP+ -15).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

On3 valuation ↗
Contributor

Rotational contributor. Smaller collective or local 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

+3.720−3.72Wk 1 vs Weber State: -0.10 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Louisville: +0.14 EPA/play2Wk 5 vs Georgia Southern: +0.01 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Georgia State: -3.72 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Louisiana: -0.05 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Old Dominion: +0.97 EPA/play8Wk 12 vs App State: +1.65 EPA/play12Wk 14 vs Coastal Carolina: +2.04 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsWeber StateW45-10—3/415117.6301-0.10
2@LouisvilleL14-2812.43/5350152.68310.14
5vsGeorgia SouthernW35-10-9.4—————1000.01
6@Georgia StateW14-7-24.5—————-10-3.72
7vsLouisianaW24-14-10.1—————40-0.05
8vsOld DominionW63-275.91/1181098.53500.97
12vsApp StateW58-10-11.4—————7011.65
14@Coastal CarolinaW59-10-15.11/1321099.6802.04

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
8.7%
Passing plays
5.6%
Rushing plays
10.5%
Standard downs
8.8%
Passing downs
8.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.20
Passing downs
0.48
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.26 / 0.19

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.