#2McCae Hillstead

QB·Utah State·2023

McCae Hillstead is a Dual-Threat QB for Utah State. McCae's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 100 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 McCae Hillstead'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.

2023 Production

Passing

94/158 Comp/Att1062 Pass yards11 Pass TD8 INT59.5% Comp %

Rushing

36 Rush yards0 Rush TD44 Carries0.8 Yards/carry

Air yards

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

Attempts

9.7y

Avg depth

4.4y

After catch

54%

Catch rate

The ball travels 9.7 yards in the air on an average throw — 1.2 yards deeper than the median. Another 4.4 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards

deep

0% · 0y

—

short

63% · 58y

67% · 35y

54% · 70y

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 · 2023 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume97
Dual-Threat98
Consistency63
Clutch41

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 consistency63th %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.
▸Peak game: 0.43 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs James Madison (SP+ 12).

NIL Market Tier· 2023

On3 valuation ↗

Star

Top-10 nationally. Multiple mid-to-large collective deals expected.

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

EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost

Wk	Opponent	Result	Opp SP+	C/ATT	Pass Yds	Pass TD	INT	QBR	Rush Yds	EPA/play
2	vsIdaho State	W78-28	—	3/5	18	0	0	88.5	17	0.16
3	@Air Force	L21-39	5.9	18/27	202	3	0	78.2	6	0.29
4	vsJames Madison	L38-45	11.8	25/47	399	4	3	28.0	-26	0.43
5	@UConn	W34-33	-15.6	6/11	111	1	2	8.2	26	0.32
8	@San José State	L21-42	-3.4	17/29	160	2	2	42.6	10	—
10	@San Diego State	W32-24	-10.3	12/16	62	0	0	51.1	14	—
12	vsBoise State	L10-45	5.9	6/12	53	0	1	2.5	-8	-0.25
20	vsGeorgia State	L22-45	-6.8	7/11	57	1	0	17.3	-3	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

34.1%

Passing plays

57.3%

Rushing plays

7.4%

Standard downs

27.4%

Passing downs

47.7%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.30
Passing downs: 0.30
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.29 / 0.39

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