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.

Creighton

2024 · evaluation season · nil-value-v3 · Team results

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for Creighton, 2024: retrospective net points per 100 possessions and, for 2025–26 only, a speculative compensation best guess. Players are listed by possession share, not by value or dollars.
PlayerPossession shareNet and rangeWins above replacement and rangeSpeculative compensation (best guess)Compensation 80% range
Trey Alexander91.3%+3.6range +2.7 to +4.4Sufficient evidence+6.2range +5.6 to +7.1Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Baylor Scheierman88.3%+6.3range +5.3 to +7.5Sufficient evidence+7.8range +7.1 to +8.7Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Ryan Kalkbrenner84.1%+5.6range +4.6 to +6.7Sufficient evidence+7.0range +6.2 to +7.9Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Steven Ashworth78.2%+3.8range +2.6 to +4.8Sufficient evidence+5.4range +4.7 to +6.2Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Mason Miller53.6%+3.0range +1.7 to +4.1Sufficient evidence+3.3range +2.8 to +3.7Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Francisco Farabello52.3%-0.4range -2.0 to +1.0Sufficient evidence+2.0range +1.4 to +2.7Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Isaac Traudt19.3%+1.8range +0.7 to +2.9Sufficient evidence+1.0range +0.8 to +1.2Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Fredrick King13.6%+0.2range -0.6 to +1.0Limited evidence+0.5range +0.4 to +0.6Limited evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Jasen Green9.9%+0.0range -0.6 to +0.8Limited evidence+0.4range +0.3 to +0.5Limited evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Josiah Dotzler5.5%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidenceNot applicableNone: no budget that season—
Johnathan Lawson3.9%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidenceNot applicableNone: 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

31 of 35 games passed lineup acceptance (89%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

  • 4 of 35 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 daysGames
First game (no rest value)1
1 day1
2 days1
3 or more days32

Rest is capped at three days. Descriptive count.

Load summary

Mean games in prior 7 days1.4
Games with fewer rest days than the opponent0
Longest run of consecutive away games2

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