Butler
2025 · 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jahmyl Telfort | 88.2% | +2.8range +1.7 to +3.9Sufficient evidence | +5.5range +4.9 to +6.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Pierre Brooks | 83.0% | +1.0range -0.1 to +2.0Sufficient evidence | +4.3range +3.7 to +5.0Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Patrick McCaffery | 81.1% | +0.1range -0.9 to +1.0Sufficient evidence | +3.8range +3.2 to +4.4Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Finley Bizjack | 68.5% | +0.2range -1.0 to +1.4Sufficient evidence | +3.2range +2.7 to +3.9Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Andre Screen | 50.1% | +1.7range +0.4 to +2.9Sufficient evidence | +2.9range +2.4 to +3.3Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Kolby King | 43.1% | +0.8range -0.3 to +1.7Sufficient evidence | +2.2range +1.9 to +2.6Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Landon Moore | 37.6% | -1.0range -1.9 to -0.1Sufficient evidence | +1.5range +1.3 to +1.8Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Boden Kapke | 33.6% | +1.3range +0.2 to +2.5Sufficient evidence | +1.9range +1.6 to +2.2Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Augusto Cassia | 8.6% | +1.5range +1.1 to +2.0Limited evidence | +0.5range +0.5 to +0.6Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Evan Haywood | 5.9% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Ethan McComb | 0.4% | 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
29 of 33 games passed lineup acceptance (88%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.
- 4 of 33 audited games did not pass lineup acceptance; per-game reasons are counted for the whole season (see methodology), not per team
Program revenueβ
EADA year 2024-25 (primary pairing to repo season 2025; fiscal-year mapping unconfirmed) · self-reported by the school, no external review · EADA revenue is any money used to pay expenses
| Reported revenue | $12,918,057 | Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output. |
|---|---|---|
| Reported expenses | $9,560,281 | Reported by the school. |
EADA link: matched to the registry school by a unique institution name and state.
No model-implied dollar range is shown (status: suppressed). The published dollar status could not be loaded; see NIL methodology for the reason.
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 | 2 |
| 3 or more days | 30 |
Rest is capped at three days. Descriptive count.
Load summary
| Mean games in prior 7 days | 1.5 |
|---|---|
| Games with fewer rest days than the opponent | 1 |
| Longest run of consecutive away games | 2 |
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