Skip to content
Nico Iamaleava

#9Nico Iamaleava

QB·UCLA·2025

Nico Iamaleava is a Dual-Threat QB for UCLA. Nico's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 409 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 Nico Iamaleava'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
208/323 Comp/Att1928 Pass yards13 Pass TD7 INT64.4% Comp %
Rushing
505 Rush yards4 Rush TD112 Carries4.5 Yards/carry

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

21
Attempts
7.3y
Avg depth
5.4y
After catch
67%
Catch rate

The ball travels 7.3 yards in the air on an average throw 0.5 yards shorter than the median. Another 5.4 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
0
1
100% · 43y
1
100% · 33y
short
5
60% · 15y
9
44% · 32y
5
100% · 61y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency68
  • Clutch92
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 consistency68th %ile · average
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • High-volume role — one of the team's most-used QBs by play share.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.17 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.56 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Penn State (SP+ 18).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.5600.56Wk 1 vs Utah: +0.10 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs UNLV: +0.33 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs New Mexico: +0.20 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Northwestern: +0.23 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Penn State: +0.56 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Michigan State: +0.28 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Maryland: +0.24 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Indiana: +0.00 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Nebraska: +0.48 EPA/play11Wk 13 vs Washington: -0.27 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs USC: +0.10 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsUtahL10-4322.211/221361150.44700.10
2@UNLVL23-304.329/412551175.15910.33
3vsNew MexicoL10-350.922/342171126.93300.20
5@NorthwesternL14-175.819/271801059.96500.23
6vsPenn StateW42-3718.117/241662096.712830.56
7@Michigan StateW38-13-3.416/241803053.6300.28
8vsMarylandW20-170.621/352211251.32500.24
9@IndianaL6-5632.413/271130218.42800.00
11vsNebraskaL21-286.217/251912089.18600.48
13vsWashingtonL14-4818.416/26690018.4160-0.27
14@USCL10-2916.927/382001059.41500.10

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
63.0%
Passing plays
96.3%
Rushing plays
26.7%
Standard downs
57.0%
Passing downs
76.2%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.13
Passing downs
0.39
Pass / Rush EPA
0.11 / 0.71

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.