#16Bryson Barnes

QB·Utah State·2025

Bryson Barnes is a Dual-Threat QB for Utah State. Bryson's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 544 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 Bryson Barnes'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

211/356 Comp/Att2802 Pass yards18 Pass TD5 INT59.3% Comp %

Rushing

740 Rush yards10 Rush TD189 Carries3.9 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat85
Consistency76
Clutch88

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 consistency76th %ile · above avg

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.
▸3 high-impact games (EPA/play > 0.4) this season — elite ceiling.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Peak game: 0.73 EPA/play in Wk 4 vs McNeese.

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

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	vsUTEP	W28-16	-17.5	19/28	233	1	0	45.8	29	1	0.19
2	@Texas A&M	L22-44	20.7	15/30	169	2	0	19.0	-4	0	-0.04
3	vsAir Force	W49-30	-3.2	17/22	287	2	0	78.0	44	3	0.66
4	vsMcNeese	W48-7	—	19/27	293	3	1	90.7	128	2	0.73
5	@Vanderbilt	L35-55	20.3	15/22	161	3	0	77.1	48	0	0.32
7	@Hawai'i	L26-44	1.7	14/26	175	1	1	28.5	64	0	0.01
8	vsSan José State	W30-25	-14.3	22/31	326	1	0	62.7	54	1	0.24
9	@New Mexico	L14-33	0.9	13/23	164	1	1	24.6	4	0	0.18
11	vsNevada	W51-14	-13.4	20/27	288	3	0	88.9	40	0	0.52
12	@UNLV	L26-29	4.3	19/38	256	1	0	65.7	124	1	0.27
13	@Fresno State	W28-17	1.8	16/30	150	0	1	70.6	113	0	0.28
14	vsBoise State	L24-25	3.1	13/31	184	0	0	33.0	89	1	0.10
20	vsWashington State	L21-34	3.8	9/21	116	0	1	5.7	7	1	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

63.4%

Passing plays

89.7%

Rushing plays

36.9%

Standard downs

58.7%

Passing downs

72.9%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.14
Passing downs: 0.38
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.22 / 0.33

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