Skip to content
Bryce Underwood

#19Bryce Underwood

Bryce Underwood is a Dual-Threat QB for Michigan. Bryce's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 417 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 Bryce Underwood'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
202/335 Comp/Att2428 Pass yards11 Pass TD9 INT60.3% Comp %
Rushing
392 Rush yards6 Rush TD88 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.

37
Attempts
11.5y
Avg depth
6.2y
After catch
54%
Catch rate

The ball travels 11.5 yards in the air on an average throw 3.0 yards deeper than the median. Another 6.2 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
2
0% · 0y
2
50% · 28y
5
0% · 0y
short
7
71% · 52y
6
50% · 34y
15
73% · 120y
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
  • Consistency69
  • Clutch67
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 consistency69th %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.
  • 4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
  • 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: 0.79 EPA/play in Wk 3 vs Central Michigan (SP+ -9).

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

+0.7900.79Wk 1 vs New Mexico: +0.43 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Oklahoma: -0.01 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Central Michigan: +0.79 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Nebraska: +0.06 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Wisconsin: +0.35 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs USC: +0.27 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs Washington: +0.39 EPA/play8Wk 9 vs Michigan State: -0.01 EPA/play9Wk 10 vs Purdue: +0.09 EPA/play10Wk 12 vs Northwestern: +0.44 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs Maryland: +0.43 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Ohio State: -0.22 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1vsNew MexicoW34-170.921/312511054.2-500.43
2@OklahomaL13-2418.39/241420040.2-10-0.01
3vsCentral MichiganW63-3-8.816/252351197.111420.79
4@NebraskaW30-276.212/221050072.36110.06
6vsWisconsinW24-10-4.419/282701067.11200.35
7@USCL13-3116.915/242072161.8-400.27
8vsWashingtonW24-718.421/272302063.72500.39
9@Michigan StateW31-20-3.48/17860038.5261-0.01
10vsPurdueW21-16-6.113/221450147.64400.09
12vsNorthwesternW24-225.821/322800284.63010.44
13@MarylandW45-200.616/232152094.72000.43
14vsOhio StateL9-2730.18/18630149.210-0.22
20vsTexasL27-4116.223/421992369.4691

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
49.5%
Passing plays
98.6%
Rushing plays
14.1%
Standard downs
42.1%
Passing downs
67.5%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.19
Passing downs
0.33
Pass / Rush EPA
0.21 / 0.48

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.