Grambling
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mikale Stevenson | 81.3% | +1.1range +0.6 to +1.5Limited evidence | +3.9range +3.6 to +4.4Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Kintavious Dozier | 75.0% | +0.1range -0.4 to +0.6Limited evidence | +3.2range +2.8 to +3.7Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Antwan Burnett | 72.1% | +1.4range +0.7 to +2.0Limited evidence | +3.7range +3.3 to +4.1Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| P.J. Eason | 68.3% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Ernest Ross | 53.2% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Louis Hutchinson | 50.5% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| PJ Edwards | 49.1% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| James Flippin | 30.9% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Dupree Fletcher | 9.5% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Solomon Ray | 8.7% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Samuel Onu | 1.4% | 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
3 of 31 games passed lineup acceptance (10%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.
- 28 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 | $1,482,689 | Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output. |
|---|---|---|
| Reported expenses | $1,482,689 | 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 | 11 |
| 3 or more days | 17 |
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 | 2 |
| Longest run of consecutive away games | 6 |
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