Alonza Barnett

QB·James Madison·2025

Alonza Barnett is a Dual-Threat QB for James Madison. Alonza's 2025 season ranks in the 10th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 453 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 Alonza Barnett'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

216/370 Comp/Att2806 Pass yards23 Pass TD8 INT58.4% Comp %

Rushing

589 Rush yards15 Rush TD127 Carries4.6 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency10
Volume100
Dual-Threat100
Consistency70
Clutch27

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)10th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency70th %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.
▸High game-to-game consistency — reliable floor each week.
▸4 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Peak game: 0.91 EPA/play in Wk 10 vs Texas State (SP+ 2).

NIL Market Tier· 2025

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	Rush TD	EPA/play
1	vsWeber State	W45-10	—	14/22	130	1	0	91.6	30	1	0.34
2	@Louisville	L14-28	12.4	15/25	102	1	0	23.7	-23	0	-0.15
4	@Liberty	W31-13	-9.0	17/25	213	1	1	83.2	45	2	0.39
5	vsGeorgia Southern	W35-10	-9.4	11/22	148	1	0	47.3	32	1	0.30
6	@Georgia State	W14-7	-24.5	11/22	74	0	0	19.2	1	1	-0.17
7	vsLouisiana	W24-14	-10.1	26/40	290	3	1	58.7	28	0	0.42
8	vsOld Dominion	W63-27	5.9	17/25	295	2	0	96.3	153	4	0.83
10	@Texas State	W52-20	2.3	12/18	264	4	1	93.8	98	1	0.91
11	@Marshall	W35-23	-4.5	14/24	270	3	1	61.0	32	0	0.54
12	vsApp State	W58-10	-11.4	22/35	303	0	1	58.1	0	2	0.25
13	vsWashington State	W24-20	3.8	9/18	144	1	1	30.7	32	0	0.24
14	@Coastal Carolina	W59-10	-15.1	15/21	207	3	1	63.5	31	1	0.28
15	vsTroy	W31-14	-4.8	10/25	93	1	1	25.2	85	1	-0.08
20	@Oregon	L34-51	25.9	23/48	273	2	0	58.4	45	1	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

49.1%

Passing plays

95.7%

Rushing plays

18.8%

Standard downs

42.7%

Passing downs

63.7%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.35
Passing downs: 0.29
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.29 / 0.48

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