Col Charleston
2024 · evaluation season · nil-value-v3 · Team results
Roster valuesβ
| Player | Possession share | Net and range | Wins above replacement and range | Speculative compensation (best guess) | Compensation 80% range |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reyne Smith | 65.1% | +3.7range +2.0 to +5.2Sufficient evidence | +4.7range +3.8 to +5.6Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| CJ Fulton | 59.7% | +2.1range +0.8 to +3.3Sufficient evidence | +3.6range +3.0 to +4.3Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Ben Burnham | 57.2% | +4.2range +2.8 to +5.9Sufficient evidence | +4.4range +3.7 to +5.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Ante Brzovic | 57.0% | +2.2range +1.0 to +3.6Sufficient evidence | +3.5range +2.9 to +4.2Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Frankie Policelli | 55.0% | +2.3range +0.9 to +3.5Sufficient evidence | +3.4range +2.8 to +4.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Bryce Butler | 52.4% | -1.6range -3.3 to +0.1Sufficient evidence | +1.7range +1.0 to +2.5Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Kobe Rodgers | 48.4% | +2.8range +1.7 to +4.0Sufficient evidence | +3.2range +2.6 to +3.7Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| James Scott | 39.4% | +1.9range +0.6 to +3.2Sufficient evidence | +2.3range +1.9 to +2.7Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jordan Crawford | 25.5% | -1.1range -2.0 to +0.1Sufficient evidence | +0.9range +0.7 to +1.2Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Khalil London | 24.7% | -1.9range -3.4 to -0.4Sufficient evidence | +0.7range +0.5 to +1.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Mayar Wol | 7.7% | -0.6range -1.3 to +0.1Limited evidence | +0.3range +0.2 to +0.4Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Evan Kilminster | 6.5% | -2.7range -3.6 to -1.9Limited evidence | +0.2range +0.1 to +0.2Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jack Miller | 0.3% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Spencer Legg | 0.3% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Adam Comer | 0.3% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Dylan Ritter | 0.3% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
Ranges are the 10th to 90th percentile of whole-game resampling draws. They are not calibrated intervals. Compensation is a speculative best guess of a share of the school's own revenue-sharing budget, not observed pay.
Coverage and exclusions
32 of 34 games passed lineup acceptance (94%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.
- 2 of 34 audited games did not pass lineup acceptance; per-game reasons are counted for the whole season (see methodology), not per team
Program revenueβ
No program revenue was published for this team.
Schedule loadβ
Counts are descriptive and associational, with neutral formatting. Consecutive away games is the only travel proxy; distance, time zones and injuries are not modeled.
Rest days before each game
| Rest days | Games |
|---|---|
| First game (no rest value) | 1 |
| 1 day | 4 |
| 2 days | 9 |
| 3 or more days | 20 |
Rest is capped at three days. Descriptive count.
Load summary
| Mean games in prior 7 days | 1.4 |
|---|---|
| Games with fewer rest days than the opponent | 1 |
| Longest run of consecutive away games | 3 |
Association between rest and margin, all teams
Pooled association passes the declared test (gate S1); not causal and not specific to this team · 0.86 points of margin associated with each extra rest day, range +0.33 to +1.41
This is an association, not a causal lever, pooled across Division I and not specific to this team.
Manifest 13921361a27d · NIL methodology