Skip to content
Noah Fifita

#1Noah Fifita

QB·Arizona·202520233.8 pts line valueDay 3 (Rds 4–7)

Noah Fifita is a 2-year Dual-Threat QB for Arizona. Noah's 2025 season ranks in the 5th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 523 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 Noah Fifita'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
275/429 Comp/Att3228 Pass yards29 Pass TD6 INT64.1% Comp %
Rushing
222 Rush yards3 Rush TD115 Carries1.9 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

29
Attempts
5.7y
Avg depth
7.6y
After catch
76%
Catch rate

The ball travels 5.7 yards in the air on an average throw 2.1 yards shorter than the median. Another 7.6 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
2
100% · 41y
0
0
short
11
91% · 121y
4
25% · 6y
12
75% · 94y
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

  • Efficiency5
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat73
  • Consistency76
  • 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)5th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency76th %ile · above avg
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.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • 4 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 0.08 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 0.88 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Weber State.

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

+0.8800.88Wk 1 vs Hawai'i: +0.04 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Weber State: +0.88 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Kansas State: +0.12 EPA/play3Wk 5 vs Iowa State: +0.07 EPA/play5Wk 6 vs Oklahoma State: +0.32 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs BYU: +0.08 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Houston: +0.46 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Colorado: +0.55 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs Kansas: +0.07 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Cincinnati: +0.45 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Baylor: +0.34 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Arizona State: +0.24 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsHawai'iW40-61.713/231611042.5-1410.04
2vsWeber StateW48-317/223735095.9300.88
3vsKansas StateW23-177.016/331780055.44820.12
5@Iowa StateL14-399.932/482532249.21700.07
6vsOklahoma StateW41-13-15.128/383765166.9-900.32
7vsBYUL27-3315.925/452192161.91500.08
8@HoustonL28-317.424/262692093.51800.46
10@ColoradoW52-17-8.311/192134088.6600.55
11vsKansasW24-204.116/311582041.12500.07
12@CincinnatiW30-244.523/312941077.2-1100.45
13vsBaylorW41-171.414/251831166.83300.34
14@Arizona StateW23-73.928/452861080.81800.24
20vsSMUL19-2413.428/4326531730

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
59.6%
Passing plays
96.2%
Rushing plays
20.5%
Standard downs
52.0%
Passing downs
76.7%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.13
Passing downs
0.46
Pass / Rush EPA
0.26 / 0.27

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

Career · rolling EPA, game by game

Per-game EPA5-game avg
+1.110−0.402025
EPA per play · 2023 — 2025 · 25 games
SeasonTeamLine valueTotal EPA
2023Arizona
10.0
236.2
2025Arizona
3.8
155.1

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.