#15Ethan Vasko

QB·Liberty·2025

Ethan Vasko is a Dual-Threat QB for Liberty. Ethan's 2025 season ranks in the 0th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 349 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 Ethan Vasko'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

151/266 Comp/Att1961 Pass yards10 Pass TD12 INT56.8% Comp %

Rushing

258 Rush yards5 Rush TD100 Carries2.6 Yards/carry

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

Efficiency0
Volume100
Dual-Threat83
Consistency68
Clutch82

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 consistency68th %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.
▸Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
▸Peak game: 0.77 EPA/play in Wk 10 vs Delaware (SP+ -11).

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	vsMaine	W28-7	—	19/33	197	3	0	39.7	63	1	0.16
2	@Jacksonville State	L24-34	-6.7	19/29	335	2	1	47.2	22	0	0.48
3	@Bowling Green	L13-23	-12.6	13/24	194	1	2	37.0	5	0	0.11
4	vsJames Madison	L13-31	12.3	4/10	37	0	0	48.6	52	1	0.15
7	@UTEP	W19-8	-17.5	19/33	243	0	0	69.2	31	1	0.37
8	vsNew Mexico State	W30-27	-15.5	20/30	179	0	2	15.6	19	0	0.04
10	vsDelaware	W59-30	-10.9	14/20	221	2	0	93.2	31	1	0.77
11	vsMissouri State	L17-21	-10.7	18/35	196	0	1	33.4	-4	1	0.12
12	@Florida International	L27-34	-10.5	17/31	218	1	2	39.9	11	0	0.01
13	@Louisiana Tech	L28-34	-1.3	8/21	141	1	4	37.5	28	0	-0.01

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy

Overall

51.9%

Passing plays

93.6%

Rushing plays

21.2%

Standard downs

44.5%

Passing downs

70.9%

EPA by down type

Standard downs: 0.13
Passing downs: 0.34
Pass / Rush EPA: 0.25 / 0.31

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