Skip to content
Alessio Milivojevic
Alessio Milivojevic

#11Alessio Milivojevic

Alessio Milivojevic is a Clutch Passer for Michigan State. Alessio's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 190 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 Alessio Milivojevic'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
111/173 Comp/Att1267 Pass yards10 Pass TD3 INT64.2% Comp %
Rushing
-59 Rush yards1 Rush TD31 Carries-1.9 Yards/carry
Punting
3 Punts108 Punt yards36.0 Yards/punt49 Long2 Inside 20

Air yards

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

52
Attempts
8.0y
Avg depth
2.9y
After catch
69%
Catch rate

The ball travels 8.0 yards in the air on an average throw 0.5 yards shorter than the median. Another 2.9 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
0
0
1
0% · 0y
short
18
78% · 109y
11
45% · 72y
22
77% · 180y
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-Threat46
  • Consistency70
  • 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 consistency70th %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.
  • High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Production faded as the season progressed — 0.22 EPA/play decline from first to second half.
  • Peak game: 0.81 EPA/play in Wk 6 vs Nebraska (SP+ 6).

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

+0.8100.81Wk 6 vs Nebraska: +0.81 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs UCLA: +0.11 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Indiana: +0.29 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Michigan: +0.19 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Minnesota: +0.28 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Penn State: -0.21 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Iowa: +0.23 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Maryland: +0.40 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsWestern MichiganW23-6-1.40/10010.0
6@NebraskaL27-386.26/7711099.4110.81
7vsUCLAL13-38-8.78/181001016.2900.11
8@IndianaL13-3832.43/5500087.6900.29
9vsMichiganL20-3112.45/6601083.8-700.19
10@MinnesotaL20-231.520/283111046.7-5300.28
12vsPenn StateL10-2818.117/271280015.1-200-0.21
13@IowaL17-2019.725/422552168.6-1100.23
14vsMarylandW38-280.627/392924178.41300.40

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
38.2%
Passing plays
62.4%
Rushing plays
8.1%
Standard downs
35.9%
Passing downs
43.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.02
Passing downs
0.54
Pass / Rush EPA
0.22 / 0.13

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.