NIL Valuation Methodology
v1.2 · Published May 2026Most NIL valuations are black boxes. Ours isn't. Here's exactly how we value college quarterbacks — inputs, assumptions, known gaps, and where we've been wrong.
Last updated: May 4, 2026
How It Works
The Formula
PPA Pass
Points added per attempt
Usage Pass
Volume adjustment
SP+ Rating
Team quality factor
×
NIL Est.
Final valuation
PPA Pass
Points added per attempt
↓Usage Pass
Volume adjustment
↓SP+ Rating
Team quality factor
↓×
NIL Valuation Est.
NIL Est. = team_budget
× QB_positional_share
× ( wepa_pass ÷ league_avg_wepa )
× usage_adjustment × sp_plus_factor
floor $75K · ceiling $15MThe formula estimates a quarterback's NIL value by starting with what a program can spend, isolating the QB's typical share, then adjusting up or down based on efficiency (PPA), volume (usage), and the team's overall strength (SP+). A great QB on a mediocre team is worth less than the same player on a playoff contender.
The Inputs
Data Sources & Variables
Input | Source | Description | Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Team Budget | NIL Collective Reports | Estimated total NIL spending capacity for the program | $2M–$20M |
| QB Positional Share | Historical Analysis | Percentage of NIL budget typically allocated to QB position | 25%–35% |
| WEPA Pass | CFB Reference | Win Expected Points Added per pass attempt (opponent-adjusted) | −0.10 to 0.73 |
| League Avg WEPA | CFB Reference | FBS-wide median WEPA for qualifying QBs (dynamic baseline) | ~0.35 |
| Usage Pass Adjustment | Derived | Multiplier based on passing volume relative to league average | 0.8–1.3 |
| SP+ Rating | ESPN/Bill Connelly | Team quality rating used as program-context multiplier | −15 to +30 |
WEPA (Win Expected Points Added) adjusts raw passing efficiency for opponent strength — a QB posting big numbers against weak defenses is discounted accordingly. SP+ provides program-level context: the same efficiency on a playoff contender is worth more than on a rebuilding program.
Raw PPA pass is retained as a secondary diagnostic metric in the data pipeline but is no longer the primary formula input. WEPA is the opponent-adjusted successor.
Validation
How Does It Rank Known Players?
Rather than comparing predictions to a handful of reported deals, we validate by checking whether the model produces sensible orderings for players whose market value is publicly discussed. WEPA-adjusted rankings shift roughly 30% of the top 50 vs. raw PPA — the reordering is the model working as intended.
| Rank | Player | Team | NIL Est. |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Will Howard | Ohio State | $15.0M (ceiling) |
| 2 | Quinn Ewers | Texas | $15.0M (ceiling) |
| 3 | Carson Beck | Georgia | $14.5M |
| 4 | Dillon Gabriel | Oregon | $12.1M |
| 5 | Jalen Milroe | Alabama | $12.1M |
| 6 | Garrett Nussmeier | LSU | $11.9M |
| 7 | Drew Allar | Penn State | $10.1M |
| 8 | Miller Moss | USC | $9.9M |
| 9 | Cameron Ward | Miami | $9.2M |
| 10 | Nico Iamaleava | Tennessee | $9.1M |
| 11 | Jaxson Dart | Ole Miss | $8.7M |
| 12 | Riley Leonard | Notre Dame | $8.6M |
| 13 | Davis Warren | Michigan | $8.5M |
| 14 | Cade Klubnik | Clemson | $8.2M |
| 15 | Marcel Reed | Texas A&M | $8.0M |
| 16 | Jack Tuttle | Michigan | $6.5M |
| 17 | Payton Thorne | Auburn | $6.4M |
| 18 | Gunner Stockton | Georgia | $6.3M |
| 19 | Josh Hoover | TCU | $6.2M |
| 20 | Ethan Garbers | UCLA | $5.8M |
Two players hit the $15M ceiling — this is a known model behavior at the intersection of elite WEPA, high usage, and top-tier program budgets. The ceiling prevents runaway outputs; a social premium signal (planned for v2.0) would further differentiate the top.
Notable Results
Arch Manning · #30 · $4.7M
Backup snaps, small sample — confidence flagged low. Model correctly discounts limited usage. Sanity check: PASS.
Shedeur Sanders · #21 · $5.8M
Our model values him at $5.8M based on efficiency and program budget. Reported deals suggest $4–5M. The gap is now inverted from v1.1 — social brand premium creates complexity in both directions.
Jaxson Dart · #11 · $8.7M
The biggest v1.1 → v1.2 mover. Raw PPA undervalued him against Ole Miss's schedule; WEPA corrects for opponent strength and surfaces his efficiency accurately.
What We Don't Model
Known Limitations
Social following & brand premium
Players like Shedeur Sanders command premiums far beyond on-field value. We call this the 'Shedeur Sanders problem.'
NIL collective variability by school
Some collectives are better funded, organized, or aggressive than others. We use estimates, not actuals.
Transfer destination premium
A QB transferring to a blue-blood may command more than the same player staying at a G5 school.
FCS-origin players
Limited data availability for players transferring up from FCS programs.
In-season performance changes
Valuations are point-in-time. A breakout or benching mid-season isn't reflected until next refresh.
Option offense programs excluded
Quarterbacks at triple-option and heavy-option programs (Air Force, Navy, Army, Georgia Tech) are excluded from v1.1 valuations. These offenses produce structurally atypical pass PPA distributions — every pass attempt is high-leverage by design — making direct comparison with pro-style and spread offense QBs unreliable.
Minimum usage threshold
Only quarterbacks with a pass usage rate of 15% or higher receive a valuation. Below this threshold, sample sizes are too small to produce meaningful PPA estimates — typically backups and emergency QBs with fewer than 20 pass attempts.
Valuation floor
All valuations are floored at $75,000. Any FBS quarterback with qualifying snaps has real NIL market value from local partnerships, camp appearances, and autograph signings regardless of on-field production.
Dual-threat and scramble value
WEPA captures passing efficiency only. Quarterbacks whose value comes from designed runs or broken-play scrambles — Jalen Milroe, Marcel Reed — may be undervalued on efficiency alone. Rush PPA is captured in the data pipeline and is a v2.0 candidate.
These gaps are intentional starting points, not oversights. Version 2 will address social premium. See the changelog.