Skip to content
Xavier Ward

#7Xavier Ward

Xavier Ward is a Clutch Passer for San José State. Xavier's 2025 season produced -23.2 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 Xavier Ward'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
12/32 Comp/Att116 Pass yards0 Pass TD4 INT37.5% Comp %
Rushing
17 Rush yards0 Rush TD6 Carries2.8 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency0
  • Volume54
  • Dual-Threat0
  • Consistency80
  • Clutch100
Player type
Clutch Passer

Elevates on passing downs — 3rd-and-medium, two-minute drills, and pressure situations are where this QB is best.

3rd-down precisionLate-game valueHigh passing-down EPA
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)0th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency80th %ile · above avg
Key findings
  • Below-average efficiency vs QB peers — value comes through volume, not per-play impact.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.

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

+2.1602.16Wk 7 vs Wyoming: -1.25 EPA/play7Wk 11 vs Air Force: -2.16 EPA/play11Wk 14 vs Fresno State: -0.20 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
7@WyomingL28-35-11.33/1015015.840-1.25
11vsAir ForceL16-26-3.21/17000.0-20-2.16
14vsFresno StateL14-411.88/21940314.8150-0.20

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
18.9%
Passing plays
24.6%
Rushing plays
8.6%
Standard downs
17.9%
Passing downs
21.3%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.81
Passing downs
-0.17
Pass / Rush EPA
-0.52 / -0.95

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.