#11Mark Gronowski

QB·Iowa·2025

Mark Gronowski is a Dual-Threat QB for Iowa. Mark's 2025 season ranks in the 15th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 366 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 Mark Gronowski'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

166/262 Comp/Att1741 Pass yards10 Pass TD7 INT63.4% Comp %

Rushing

545 Rush yards16 Rush TD130 Carries4.2 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency15
Volume100
Dual-Threat100
Consistency83
Clutch49

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)15th %ile · below avg

Game-to-game consistency83th %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.
▸Peak game: 0.63 EPA/play in Wk 14 vs Nebraska (SP+ 6).

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	vsUAlbany	W34-7	—	8/15	44	1	0	24.5	39	1	0.34
2	@Iowa State	L13-16	9.9	13/24	83	0	1	29.2	37	1	0.08
3	vsMassachusetts	W47-7	-36.6	16/24	179	2	0	70.3	12	1	0.37
4	@Rutgers	W38-28	1.0	12/18	186	0	0	70.5	55	3	0.51
5	vsIndiana	L15-20	32.4	19/25	144	0	1	54.7	7	1	0.27
7	@Wisconsin	W37-0	-4.4	17/24	107	0	1	36.7	9	1	0.06
8	vsPenn State	W25-24	18.1	10/16	68	0	1	84.2	130	2	0.49
9	vsMinnesota	W41-3	1.5	12/19	135	1	0	70.5	24	1	0.18
11	vsOregon	L16-18	25.9	10/18	138	1	0	88.3	25	1	0.34
12	@USC	L21-26	16.9	12/19	132	1	1	68.7	32	1	0.30
13	vsMichigan State	W20-17	-3.4	12/22	147	1	1	39.0	57	0	0.10
14	@Nebraska	W40-16	6.2	9/16	166	1	0	93.2	64	2	0.63
20	vsVanderbilt	W34-27	20.3	16/22	212	2	1	79.5	54	1	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

48.6%

Passing plays

92.0%

Rushing plays

23.0%

Standard downs

44.9%

Passing downs

58.4%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.32
Passing downs: 0.36
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.27 / 0.58

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