#1Noah Kim

QB·Michigan State·2023

Noah Kim is a Dual-Threat QB for Michigan State. Noah's 2023 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 164 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 Noah Kim'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

91/160 Comp/Att1090 Pass yards6 Pass TD6 INT56.9% Comp %

Rushing

53 Rush yards0 Rush TD27 Carries2.0 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2023 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat62
Consistency65
Clutch100

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 consistency65th %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.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Peak game: 0.89 EPA/play in Wk 2 vs Richmond.

NIL Market Tier· 2023

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

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
1	vsCentral Michigan	W31-7	-19.1	18/31	279	2	0	52.0	0	0.37
2	vsRichmond	W45-14	—	18/22	292	3	0	70.4	21	0.89
3	vsWashington	L7-41	16.4	12/31	136	0	1	22.2	-9	-0.17
4	vsMaryland	L9-31	11.0	18/32	190	1	2	32.1	6	0.19
5	@Iowa	L16-26	5.8	25/44	193	0	3	39.8	35	0.18

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

53.1%

Passing plays

89.1%

Rushing plays

15.0%

Standard downs

43.9%

Passing downs

71.1%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.06
Passing downs: 0.42
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.22 / 0.21

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