Clemson
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaeden Zackery | 87.5% | +4.6range +3.4 to +5.6Sufficient evidence | +6.9range +6.1 to +7.8Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Chase Hunter | 81.7% | +2.7range +1.6 to +3.8Sufficient evidence | +5.3range +4.6 to +6.2Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Ian Schieffelin | 81.3% | +5.4range +4.4 to +6.2Sufficient evidence | +6.8range +6.2 to +7.6Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Viktor Lakhin | 60.7% | +5.0range +3.8 to +6.1Sufficient evidence | +4.8range +4.3 to +5.4Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Chauncey Wiggins | 57.4% | -0.8range -2.4 to +0.5Sufficient evidence | +2.2range +1.7 to +2.8Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Dillon Hunter | 47.9% | +4.2range +3.1 to +5.4Sufficient evidence | +3.4range +3.1 to +4.0Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jake Heidbreder | 31.0% | +0.1range -0.9 to +1.1Sufficient evidence | +1.4range +1.1 to +1.6Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Del Jones | 26.9% | +0.3range -0.8 to +1.5Sufficient evidence | +1.2range +1.0 to +1.5Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Myles Foster | 12.9% | -0.4range -1.5 to +0.4Limited evidence | +0.5range +0.4 to +0.6Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Christian Reeves | 9.2% | +0.5range -0.2 to +1.4Limited evidence | +0.4range +0.4 to +0.5Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Asa Thomas | 2.0% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Daniel Nauseef | 0.4% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Matt Kelly | 0.4% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Andrew Latiff | 0.4% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jackson Roberts | 0.2% | 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 34 games passed lineup acceptance (88%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.
- 4 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
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 | $12,592,738 | Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output. |
|---|---|---|
| Reported expenses | $12,592,738 | 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 |
| 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 | 0 |
| 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