High Point
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kezza Giffa | 70.0% | +3.0range +2.0 to +4.2Sufficient evidence | +4.4range +3.8 to +5.3Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Kimani Hamilton | 63.6% | +1.6range +0.5 to +2.6Sufficient evidence | +3.4range +2.8 to +4.0Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| D'Maurian Williams | 62.8% | -0.1range -1.2 to +0.8Sufficient evidence | +2.6range +2.1 to +3.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Juslin Bodo Bodo | 56.1% | +4.2range +3.1 to +5.3Sufficient evidence | +3.9range +3.5 to +4.5Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Chase Johnston | 56.1% | +1.2range -0.1 to +2.6Sufficient evidence | +2.8range +2.2 to +3.3Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Bobby Pettiford | 46.9% | +2.3range +1.0 to +3.7Sufficient evidence | +2.6range +2.2 to +3.2Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Trae Benham | 37.3% | +2.0range +0.8 to +3.2Sufficient evidence | +2.0range +1.7 to +2.4Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Abdoulaye Thiam | 32.7% | +1.7range +0.3 to +2.8Sufficient evidence | +1.6range +1.3 to +2.0Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Simon Hildebrandt | 26.0% | -0.6range -2.1 to +1.0Sufficient evidence | +0.9range +0.7 to +1.2Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Terry Anderson | 23.3% | +2.9range +1.4 to +4.4Sufficient evidence | +1.3range +1.1 to +1.6Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Josh Ibukunoluwa | 15.8% | +1.6range +0.5 to +2.5Sufficient evidence | +0.8range +0.6 to +0.9Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Titas Sargiunas | 4.2% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Braden Hausen | 2.3% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Liam Carney | 1.0% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Birgir Irving | 0.7% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Andrew Sineway | 0.7% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| David Fonville | 0.4% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Ivan Matlekovic | 0.3% | 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 expenses
| Reported revenue | $5,483,080 | Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output. |
|---|---|---|
| Reported expenses | $4,676,086 | 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 | 4 |
| 2 days | 3 |
| 3 or more days | 25 |
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 | 3 |
| 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