#13Thomas Gotkowski

QB·Miami (OH)·2025

Thomas Gotkowski is a Dual-Threat QB for Miami (OH). Thomas's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 113 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 Thomas Gotkowski'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

38/86 Comp/Att575 Pass yards4 Pass TD1 INT44.2% Comp %

Rushing

115 Rush yards1 Rush TD31 Carries3.7 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat72
Consistency85
Clutch97

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 consistency85th %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.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Peak game: 0.51 EPA/play in Wk 5 vs Lindenwood.

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
5	vsLindenwood	W38-0	—	—	—	—	—	—	20	0	0.51
13	@Buffalo	W37-20	-7.5	13/23	185	1	0	62.0	26	1	0.22
14	vsBall State	W45-24	-23.0	12/24	226	3	0	58.3	44	0	0.45
15	vsWestern Michigan	L13-23	-1.4	7/17	92	0	0	33.6	9	0	0.11
20	vsFresno State	L3-18	1.8	6/22	72	0	1	11.6	16	0	—

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

36.5%

Passing plays

65.0%

Rushing plays

14.6%

Standard downs

31.7%

Passing downs

46.7%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.04
Passing downs: 0.33
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.16 / 0.26

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