Chattanooga
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Honor Huff | 89.0% | +0.9range -0.2 to +1.9Sufficient evidence | +4.6range +3.8 to +5.5Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Trey Bonham | 76.1% | +1.6range +0.3 to +2.9Sufficient evidence | +4.3range +3.7 to +5.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Garrison Keeslar | 68.2% | +2.6range +1.7 to +3.8Sufficient evidence | +4.3range +3.8 to +5.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Bash Wieland | 63.8% | +2.3range +1.2 to +3.5Sufficient evidence | +3.9range +3.4 to +4.5Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jack Kostel | 40.4% | +1.4range +0.2 to +2.7Sufficient evidence | +2.2range +1.9 to +2.6Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Frank Champion | 40.1% | +2.1range +0.8 to +3.3Sufficient evidence | +2.4range +2.0 to +2.8Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Sean Cusano | 32.1% | +0.4range -0.7 to +1.4Sufficient evidence | +1.5range +1.3 to +1.8Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Collin Mulholland | 24.7% | +1.8range +0.7 to +2.9Sufficient evidence | +1.4range +1.2 to +1.6Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Makai Richards | 23.2% | -1.0range -2.0 to +0.0Sufficient evidence | +0.9range +0.7 to +1.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Latif Diouf | 19.8% | +0.4range -0.4 to +1.4Sufficient evidence | +0.9range +0.8 to +1.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Noah Melson | 17.5% | -0.3range -1.3 to +1.3Limited evidence | +0.8range +0.6 to +1.0Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Parker Robison | 5.0% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Houston Holland | 0.1% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Liam Vitters | 0.1% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Ryan Lopez | 0.1% | 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
25 of 31 games passed lineup acceptance (81%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.
- 6 of 31 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 expensesrevenue equals expenses
| Reported revenue | $2,295,183 | Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output. |
|---|---|---|
| Reported expenses | $2,295,183 | 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 | 1 |
| 2 days | 3 |
| 3 or more days | 26 |
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