Drexel
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kobe MaGee | 83.7% | +0.5range -0.5 to +1.4Sufficient evidence | +5.1range +4.3 to +5.9Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Cole Hargrove | 80.3% | +2.4range +1.5 to +3.3Sufficient evidence | +6.1range +5.4 to +7.0Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Yame Butler | 77.7% | +1.6range +0.8 to +2.6Sufficient evidence | +5.4range +4.9 to +6.2Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jason Drake | 63.3% | -0.1range -1.2 to +1.0Sufficient evidence | +3.6range +3.1 to +4.3Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Shane Blakeney | 61.5% | -0.6range -1.5 to +0.4Sufficient evidence | +3.2range +2.6 to +3.9Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Victor Panov | 55.5% | +2.6range +1.7 to +3.6Sufficient evidence | +4.3range +3.9 to +4.9Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Villiam Garcia Adsten | 35.5% | -0.9range -2.0 to +0.1Sufficient evidence | +1.7range +1.4 to +2.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Kevon Vanderhorst | 16.5% | -0.9range -1.7 to +0.1Sufficient evidence | +0.8range +0.7 to +1.0Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Clem Edomwonyin | 8.4% | -2.1range -2.8 to -1.5Limited evidence | +0.3range +0.3 to +0.4Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Josh Reed | 7.9% | -1.7range -2.3 to -0.8Limited evidence | +0.3range +0.3 to +0.4Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Horace Simmons | 6.1% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Ralph Akuta | 3.5% | 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 32 games passed lineup acceptance (91%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.
- 3 of 32 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 | $3,099,674 | Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output. |
|---|---|---|
| Reported expenses | $3,099,674 | 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 | 8 |
| 3 or more days | 21 |
Rest is capped at three days. Descriptive count.
Load summary
| Mean games in prior 7 days | 1.7 |
|---|---|
| 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