Skip to content
Owen McCown

#2Owen McCown

QB·UTSA·2025

Owen McCown is a Dual-Threat QB for UTSA. Owen's 2025 season ranks in the 15th percentile nationally by opponent-adjusted EPA per play across 407 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 Owen McCown'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
276/409 Comp/Att2990 Pass yards30 Pass TD7 INT67.5% Comp %
Rushing
24 Rush yards1 Rush TD45 Carries0.5 Yards/carry
Punting
1 Punts40 Punt yards40.0 Yards/punt40 Long1 Inside 20

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

68
Attempts
7.5y
Avg depth
5.0y
After catch
72%
Catch rate

The ball travels 7.5 yards in the air on an average throw 1.0 yards shorter than the median. Another 5.0 comes after the catch.

Where he throws

attempts · completion rate · yards
deep
4
50% · 61y
1
0% · 0y
2
0% · 0y
short
18
89% · 159y
21
62% · 149y
22
82% · 119y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2025 · vs QB peers

  • Efficiency15
  • Volume100
  • Dual-Threat100
  • Consistency74
  • 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)15th %ile · below avg
Game-to-game consistency74th %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.
  • Particularly dangerous on passing downs — efficiency spikes in obvious pass situations.
  • Strong second-half surge — EPA/play improved 0.15 from the first to second half of the season.
  • Peak game: 0.90 EPA/play in Wk 10 vs Tulane (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

+0.9000.90Wk 1 vs Texas A&M: -0.08 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Texas State: +0.24 EPA/play2Wk 3 vs Incarnate Word: +0.47 EPA/play3Wk 4 vs Colorado State: +0.14 EPA/play4Wk 6 vs Temple: +0.20 EPA/play6Wk 7 vs Rice: +0.48 EPA/play7Wk 8 vs North Texas: +0.18 EPA/play8Wk 10 vs Tulane: +0.90 EPA/play10Wk 11 vs South Florida: -0.01 EPA/play11Wk 12 vs Charlotte: +0.27 EPA/play12Wk 13 vs East Carolina: +0.57 EPA/play13Wk 14 vs Army: +0.22 EPA/play14
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+C/ATTPass YdsPass TDINTQBRRush YdsRush TDEPA/play
1@Texas A&ML24-4220.719/321210043.8-80-0.08
2vsTexas StateL36-432.323/432192047.75500.24
3vsIncarnate WordW48-2029/352384078.21000.47
4@Colorado StateW17-16-15.614/271731236.5300.14
6@TempleL21-27-5.125/372342240.8-1500.20
7vsRiceW61-13-14.815/212363087.8-1200.48
8@North TexasL17-5513.811/20841028.5-600.18
10vsTulaneW48-266.331/333704095.2000.90
11@South FloridaL23-5511.616/232001134.6-390-0.01
12@CharlotteW28-7-26.724/373062140.4210.27
13vsEast CarolinaW58-248.024/332485094.71700.57
14vsArmyL24-270.827/402662143.0-500.22
20vsFlorida InternationalW57-20-10.518/282953054.0220

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
49.0%
Passing plays
91.1%
Rushing plays
5.5%
Standard downs
43.9%
Passing downs
60.8%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.24
Passing downs
0.48
Pass / Rush EPA
0.34 / 0.45

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

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.