Mo Njie
Only corroborated player-season records; not complete career coverage.
Observed career performance
734:00 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 72
- Minutes per game
- 10:12
- Points per game
- 2.8
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 2.7 / 0.1
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 2.8 | 2.7 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 1.7 |
| Per 40 minutes | 11.0 | 10.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 2.1 | 3.6 | 6.6 |
| Season totals | 202 | 193 | 9 | 7 | 39 | 66 | 121 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 79–135 | 58.5% | 1.9 | 7.4 |
| 2P | 74–125 | 59.2% | 1.7 | 6.8 |
| 3P | 5–10 | 50.0%† | 0.1 | 0.5 |
| FT | 39–70 | 55.7% | 1.0 | 3.8 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60.4% | 60.9% | 7.4% | 51.9% | 0.14 |
Combined corroborated seasons only; not complete career coverage. † marks a rate on fewer attempts than the floor (field goal 100, three-point 50, free throw 25). Floors are descriptive, not model output. Definitions
Linked seasons
| Season | Team | G | MPG | Pts | Reb | Ast | Pts/40 | 3P% | FT% | TS% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 Mo Njie | E Michigan | 19 | 18:51 | 6.2 | 5.5 | 0.3 | 13.1 | 60.0%† | 54.5% | 69.2%† |
| 2023 Mo Njie | SMU | 21 | 5:21 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 10.7 | — | 57.1%† | 53.3%† |
| 2024 Mo Njie | SMU | 7Few games | 2:43 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 12.6 | — | — | 50.0%† |
| 2025 Mo Njie | UT San Antonio | 7Few games | 14:25 | 3.7 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 10.3 | 0.0%† | 75.0%† | 55.3%† |
| 2026 Mo Njie | UTSA | 18 | 7:59 | 1.3 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 6.4 | 100.0%† | 46.7%† | 48.7%† |
Career identity corroborated by repeated game, team and individual-statistic matches. Unlinked seasons are excluded.
Speculative compensation · 2025–26β
UT San Antonio · Mid and high major · 2025–26 · a best guess at this player's part of the school's own revenue-sharing budget for men's basketball.
- Speculative best guess
- $15K
- 80% range $3K to $48K
- Median share of team pool
- 2.9%
- team pool $765K, 80% range $320K to $1.70M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $12K to $17K
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $5K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 13.3%
- Limited evidence
- Limited evidence
- Range driven by assumption, not data
Speculative best guess, not observed pay. It is not a contract, not an offer and not a market price, and it is unvalidated: no pay is held to check it against. Point is the median and the range is the 10th to 90th percentile of 4,000 joint draws of budget and player value; a mixture of assumptions, not a calibrated interval.
Budget anchor. Tier prior from anonymous surveys and sources, scaled so that all non-Power budgets sum to the national total the College Sports Commission reported paid for 2025-26 ($1,770,453,776 over 307 schools) less the Power 4 total, times a men's basketball share; weak anchor.
Assumptions. modelled pool; split by possession share times value over replacement; convexity; shared floor; replacement level; four elasticity scenarios; closure to the national total; opt-out list; exclusions. Each is a declared judgement, not an estimate. Numbers, anchors and checks
Not included. Third-party and collective NIL deals, including deals cleared through NIL Go. Non-cash benefits such as scholarship, cost of attendance, Alston awards and housing. Bonuses and incentive terms. Anything outside the school's own revenue-sharing channel.
UT San Antonio: whole-roster table and pool · School finances (school-reported) · What-if calculator for this player
No revenue-sharing budget existed before the 2025–26 season, so no compensation figure is modelled for earlier seasons.
Model-implied value and speculative compensation by seasonβ
| Season | Team | Speculative compensation (best guess) | Compensation 80% range | Split role | Net | Range | Evidence | Range graphic. Position on one axis | Offense | Defense | Wins above replacement | On-court possessions | Sample and flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | UT San Antonio | $15Kspeculative | $3K to $48K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | -2.1 | -3.1 to -1.3 | Limited evidence | -2.1 | +0.0 | +0.3range +0.3 to +0.4 | 499 | Limited evidence: 300 to 599 on-court possessions. Season detail | |
| 2025 | UT San Antonio | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | -0.4 | -1.2 to +0.3 | Limited evidence | -0.8 | +0.4 | +0.4range +0.4 to +0.5 | 367 | Limited evidence: 300 to 599 on-court possessions. Season detail | |
| 2024 | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | No model-implied value is published: fewer than 300 on-court possessions, or the team’s games were outside the lineup audit. | Not applicable | |||||||
| 2023 | SMU | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | -2.9 | -4.0 to -2.0 | Limited evidence | -1.8 | -1.1 | +0.2range +0.1 to +0.3 | 398 | Limited evidence: 300 to 599 on-court possessions. Season detail | |
| 2022 | E Michigan | None: no budget that season | — | development: in model selection | -0.5 | -2.0 to +0.7 | Sufficient evidence | -2.1 | +1.6 | Not computed for this season | 1,155 | ||
Open circle: limited evidence. Filled circle: sufficient evidence. Vertical line: zero. This table makes no claim about change over time, so it has no change column or trend. Seasons 2011 to 2017 have a point value but no range, so none is shown. Compensation exists for 2025–26 only; earlier rows say that no budget existed. NIL methodology · Compensation methodology