Skip to content
Baylor Hayes

#10Baylor Hayes

QB·Tulsa·2025

Baylor Hayes is a Clutch Passer for Tulsa. Baylor's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 406 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 Baylor Hayes'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
186/316 Comp/Att2159 Pass yards12 Pass TD6 INT58.9% Comp %
Rushing
188 Rush yards3 Rush TD95 Carries2.0 Yards/carry
Punting
2 Punts73 Punt yards36.5 Yards/punt51 Long0 Inside 20

Air yards

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

23
Attempts
8.1y
Avg depth
6.4y
After catch
74%
Catch rate

The ball travels 8.1 yards in the air on an average throw about the median for the position. Another 6.4 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
1
0% · 0y
1
100% · 47y
1
100% · 56y
short
6
83% · 57y
7
43% · 24y
7
100% · 43y
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-Threat3
  • Consistency45
  • 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 consistency45th %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.
  • 3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Peak game: 0.72 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs New Mexico State (SP+ -16).

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

+0.7200.72Wk 2 vs New Mexico State: +0.72 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Navy: +0.03 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Oklahoma State: +0.25 EPA/play4Wk 5 vs Tulane: -0.29 EPA/play5Wk 8 vs East Carolina: -0.09 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Temple: +0.45 EPA/play9Wk 11 vs Florida Atlantic: +0.05 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Oregon State: +0.42 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Army: +0.12 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs UAB: -0.09 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
2@New Mexico StateL14-21-15.514/171351189.22210.72
3vsNavyL23-426.222/371891120.2510.03
4@Oklahoma StateW19-12-15.123/362191066.12300.25
5vsTulaneL14-316.318/362451115.4-90-0.29
8@East CarolinaL27-418.023/412512023.0230-0.09
9vsTempleL37-38-5.119/312963067.31800.45
11@Florida AtlanticL21-40-8.724/462350229.74710.05
12vsOregon StateW31-14-15.912/191631088.54300.42
13@ArmyW26-250.820/312671056.1600.12
14vsUABL24-31-15.811/221591113.1100-0.09

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
51.5%
Passing plays
90.9%
Rushing plays
18.3%
Standard downs
47.8%
Passing downs
59.4%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
-0.04
Passing downs
0.35
Pass / Rush EPA
0.14 / -0.09

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.