Algosys College Basketball

Search teams and players

Type a team or player name. Results are alphabetical; players show their 2026 team. Up and Down move, Enter opens the highlighted result or the first one, Esc closes.

Rankings / Athletes / Mika Adams-Woods

Mika Adams-Woods

Only corroborated player-season records; not complete career coverage.

Observed career performance

2791:56 minutes logged

Games logged
101
Minutes per game
27:39
Points per game
7.9
Rebounds / assists per game
2.3 / 2.6
Box line on three bases
BasisPtsRebAstStlBlkTOPF
Per game7.92.32.60.80.21.21.8
Per 40 minutes11.43.43.71.10.31.82.6
Season totals7982352588021125179
Shooting with attempts
ShotMade–att.PctAtt/GAtt/40
FG274–69039.7%6.89.9
2P167–35547.0%3.55.1
3P107–33531.9%3.34.8
FT143–17084.1%1.72.4
Derived rates (computed here from the box line, not published statistics)
eFG%Estimated TS%3PA / FGAFTA / FGAAST / TO
47.5%52.2%48.6%24.6%2.06

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

Linked seasons, per-game and shooting rates. † marks a rate on fewer attempts than the declared floor.
SeasonTeamGMPGPtsRebAstPts/403P%FT%TS%
2020Cincinnati 2522:294.82.31.78.634.6%73.5%55.0%†
2021Cincinnati 1830:089.12.21.912.131.1%92.1%55.1%
2022Cincinnati 2927:329.02.43.113.027.0%84.4%48.1%
2023Cincinnati 2930:398.72.33.211.436.0%85.3%53.6%

Career identity corroborated by repeated game, team and individual-statistic matches. Unlinked seasons are excluded.

Speculative compensation · 2025–26β

No speculative compensation is published for this player: there is no current-season team to read a pool from.

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

Net points per 100 possessions by season, newest first. The speculative compensation best guess for 2025–26 only sits right after the team, so it is the first figure after the season. Ordered by season, not by value or dollars. Compensation is a best guess of a share of the school’s own revenue-sharing budget, not observed pay.
SeasonTeamSpeculative compensation (best guess)Compensation 80% rangeSplit roleNetRangeEvidencePosition on one axisOffenseDefenseWins above replacementOn-court possessionsSample and flags
2023CincinnatiNone: no budget that season—evaluation: examined, post hoc+3.1+1.8 to +4.5Sufficient evidence+0.7+2.4+4.6range +3.8 to +5.42,802Season detail
2022CincinnatiNone: no budget that season—development: in model selection+2.7+1.9 to +3.7Sufficient evidence+0.6+2.1Not computed for this season2,783
2021CincinnatiNone: no budget that season—development: in model selection+1.4+0.3 to +2.8Sufficient evidence+0.1+1.3Not computed for this season1,9502020-21 season, shortened by COVID-19 cancellations; kept in the model fit with this flag.
2020CincinnatiNone: no budget that season—development: in model selection+0.9-0.8 to +2.1Sufficient evidence+0.5+0.4Not computed for this season1,914

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