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.

NIL Model-Implied Valueβ

What this is and is not

This section estimates each player's retrospective contribution to team results from reconstructed on-court lineups. Separately, it publishes a speculative best guess of each player's part of the school's own revenue-sharing budget for men's basketball in 2025–26, with an 80% range (amendment A10). Neither is observed pay, a contract, an offer or a market price.

  • No player-level pay data and no commercial NIL valuation is used or shown. Compensation figures are speculative, unvalidated and exclude third-party and collective deals, non-cash benefits and bonuses. Assumptions, anchors and checks
  • There is no league-wide ranking of players by value or by dollars. Players are reached from team pages and rosters are ordered by possession share.
  • Every point estimate carries a diagnostic resampling range and an evidence-quality label. Ranges are not calibrated intervals.
  • The frozen program-level revenue allocation is still withheld unless the revenue gates pass and the wins-to-revenue elasticity prior agrees with the cross-section. Its published status and reason: suppressed: Elasticity cross-check failed: the wins-to-revenue elasticity prior and the cross-section implied elasticity differ by more than the declared factor, and no gate validates the prior. The speculative compensation estimate is a separate model that does not use it.

Method summary

Model nil-value-v3. Offense and defense effects are fit by ridge regression on accepted lineup stints. Players under 300 on-court possessions share a pooled term and receive no individual value. Ranges come from 200 whole-game resampling refits. Definitions, sources and exclusions are on Methodology.

Promotion gates

Thresholds were declared before any model output. A failed gate stays visible and does not remove the numbers shown on team and player pages; they remain experimental. The post-hoc disclosure is on Methodology.

GateRequirementThresholdObservedScopeResult
L1accepted_game_share>= 0.60.6932023Pass
L1accepted_game_share>= 0.60.7212024Pass
L1accepted_game_share>= 0.60.7482025Pass
L3bound_possession_share>= 0.851.0002023Pass
L3bound_possession_share>= 0.851.0002024Pass
L3bound_possession_share>= 0.851.0002025Pass
L4minutes_within_2_share>= 0.951.0002023Pass
L4minutes_within_2_share>= 0.951.0002024Pass
L4minutes_within_2_share>= 0.951.0002025Pass
L2conference_accepted_share (minimum over conferences)>= 0.40.3852023Fail
L2conference_accepted_share (minimum over conferences)>= 0.40.2892024Fail
L2conference_accepted_share (minimum over conferences)>= 0.40.3602025Fail
P1rmse_gain_vs_box>= 0.020.0772023Pass
P1rmse_gain_vs_box>= 0.020.0662024Pass
P1rmse_gain_vs_box>= 0.020.0522025Pass
P1pooled school-cluster bootstrap lower bound of gain vs box> 00.044pooledPass
P2seasons with incremental gain vs prior rating >= minimum (of 3)>= 23.000pooledPass
P2pooled bootstrap lower bound of incremental gain> 00.031pooledPass
P3interval_coverage_80 within [min, max]within 0.70.7852023Pass
P3interval_coverage_80 within [min, max]within 0.70.7782024Pass
P3interval_coverage_80 within [min, max]within 0.70.8102025Pass
P4worst slice RMSE of the model relative to box baseline<= 0.050.053pooledFail
R1crosswalk coverage (min of school-data rows and registry teams)>= 0.90.981primaryPass
R2conference-blocked CV rmse gain; coefficient positive; interval lower bound above 0; sensitivity same sign>= 0.020.257primaryPass
R3implied per-win elasticity versus prior (report only)report 00.095primaryreport-only
R4temporal hold-out gain on multi-year EADA>= 0.02—not-runNot run
S1rest effect points per rest-day unit (evaluation-pooled)>= 0.30.857evaluationPass

Held-out evaluation with known season rosters

RMSE of team-season net efficiency, lower is better. Lower and smaller is better; "gain" columns are known-roster comparisons, not forecasts made before the season.

Held-out evaluation by season: RMSE of team-season net efficiency for the model and baselines
SeasonUseTeam-seasonsModelBox baselinePrior ratingRaw priorConstantModel + priorGain vs boxGain vs prior (known rosters)80% change coverage (survivors only)Players
2023evaluation3377.1847.7866.7596.9428.8006.5390.0770.0320.7851,833
2024evaluation3337.0867.5897.1507.2459.2046.8280.0660.0450.7781,818
2025evaluation3436.9967.3766.9477.2249.0756.4910.0520.0660.8101,805
2026descriptive3647.6138.0997.4417.7709.7397.0300.0600.0550.7641,808

Dated context figures

School-wide revenue-sharing figures follow. They are reported context only. They are not split by sport and not compared with any individual. The speculative compensation model uses the national total and the cap as budget anchors, with their sources, on the methodology page.

FigureValueAs ofNoteSource
House revenue-sharing cap, 2025-2620,500,000 USD2025-26School-wide cap, no basketball split. Settlement agreement itself not retrieved.Source ↗
House revenue-sharing cap, 2026-27 (about)21,580,000 USD2026-27About; school-wide. 20.5M x 1.04 = 21.32M shows the step is not a flat 4 percent, so nothing is extrapolated.Source ↗
Cap share of revenue, wording conflictCSC states 22 percent; NCAA president letter states 22.5 percent2025-06Unresolved conflict between two NCAA-side sources; both kept.Source ↗
NIL Go cleared deals, all sports46,478 deals worth 582,490,000 USD2026-08-31National, all sports, all Division I. Reported as $582.49M. Context only; never used to price or calibrate.Source ↗

The cap share is reported as 22% by the College Sports Commission and 22.5% in an NCAA president letter. This conflict is unresolved.

NIL methodology, sources and limitations