Cincinnati
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dillon Mitchell | 70.9% | +4.3range +3.0 to +5.6Sufficient evidence | +5.5range +4.8 to +6.2Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jizzle James | 67.8% | +2.5range +1.2 to +3.7Sufficient evidence | +4.4range +3.8 to +5.2Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Aziz Bandaogo | 65.8% | +2.6range +1.6 to +3.7Sufficient evidence | +4.4range +3.8 to +5.0Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Simas Lukosius | 62.9% | +2.4range +0.9 to +3.6Sufficient evidence | +4.1range +3.4 to +4.7Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Day Day Thomas | 59.6% | +0.6range -0.5 to +1.8Sufficient evidence | +3.1range +2.7 to +3.8Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Dan Skillings Jr. | 47.5% | +0.3range -0.8 to +1.3Sufficient evidence | +2.4range +2.0 to +2.9Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Josh Reed | 41.8% | +1.3range +0.4 to +2.1Sufficient evidence | +2.4range +2.1 to +2.8Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Tyler Betsey | 26.1% | -0.8range -2.1 to +0.2Sufficient evidence | +1.1range +0.9 to +1.4Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Arrinten Page | 19.7% | +0.2range -0.7 to +1.0Sufficient evidence | +1.0range +0.9 to +1.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Connor Hickman | 17.8% | +1.0range +0.1 to +1.8Sufficient evidence | +1.0range +0.9 to +1.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| CJ Fredrick | 13.9% | +0.0range -0.9 to +0.8Limited evidence | +0.7range +0.6 to +0.8Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Rayvon Griffith | 5.7% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Halvine Dzellat | 0.7% | 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
30 of 33 games passed lineup acceptance (91%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.
- 3 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 expensesrevenue equals expenses
| Reported revenue | $12,321,038 | Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output. |
|---|---|---|
| Reported expenses | $12,321,038 | 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 | 1 |
| 3 or more days | 30 |
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 | 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