Federiko Federiko
Only corroborated player-season records; not complete career coverage.
Observed career performance
2185:37 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 121
- Minutes per game
- 18:04
- Points per game
- 4.5
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 4.2 / 0.6
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 4.5 | 4.2 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 2.2 |
| Per 40 minutes | 10.0 | 9.3 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 4.8 |
| Season totals | 546 | 510 | 74 | 48 | 129 | 79 | 265 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 221–329 | 67.2% | 2.7 | 6.0 |
| 2P | 221–329 | 67.2% | 2.7 | 6.0 |
| 3P | 0–0 | — | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| FT | 104–200 | 52.0% | 1.7 | 3.7 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 67.2% | 65.5% | 0.0% | 60.8% | 0.94 |
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 Federiko Federiko | Pittsburgh | 30 | 24:39 | 7.0 | 5.5 | 0.4 | 11.4 | — | 63.5% | 67.9% |
| 2024 Federiko Federiko | Pittsburgh | 27 | 21:04 | 4.8 | 5.4 | 1.1 | 9.1 | — | 42.0% | 62.0%† |
| 2025 Federiko Federiko | Texas Tech | 33 | 18:35 | 4.5 | 4.2 | 0.5 | 9.8 | — | 50.9% | 68.7%† |
| 2026 Federiko Federiko | Texas A&M | 31 | 8:31 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 8.6 | — | 46.9% | 58.1%† |
Career identity corroborated by repeated game, team and individual-statistic matches. Unlinked seasons are excluded.
Speculative compensation · 2025–26β
Texas A&M · Power 4 · 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
- $145K
- 80% range $77K to $245K
- Median share of team pool
- 4.2%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.55M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $145K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $23K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 19.7%
- Sufficient evidence
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. House-settlement $20.5M cap (College Sports Commission, 2026-10-01) times a modelled utilisation of about 97 percent times a men's basketball share of about 18 percent (school statements and an industry study); Power 4 schools are at or near the cap nationally.
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.
Texas A&M: 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 | Texas A&M | $145Kspeculative | $77K to $245K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +2.5 | +1.1 to +4.0 | Sufficient evidence | +1.0 | +1.5 | +1.5range +1.3 to +1.8 | 985 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Texas Tech | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +3.6 | +2.3 to +5.1 | Sufficient evidence | +1.0 | +2.6 | +2.9range +2.6 to +3.5 | 2,036 | Season detail | |
| 2024 | Pittsburgh | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +3.9 | +2.3 to +5.3 | Sufficient evidence | +1.0 | +2.9 | +3.5range +2.9 to +4.0 | 1,855 | Season detail | |
| 2023 | Pittsburgh | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +3.1 | +2.0 to +4.2 | Sufficient evidence | +1.0 | +2.2 | +4.2range +3.6 to +4.8 | 2,339 | Season detail |
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