Hofstra
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cruz Davis | 85.3% | +0.6range -0.9 to +2.0Sufficient evidence | +4.6range +3.6 to +5.5Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jean Aranguren | 81.4% | +1.3range -0.0 to +2.5Sufficient evidence | +4.7range +4.1 to +5.5Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| German Plotnikov | 60.6% | +1.7range +0.4 to +2.9Sufficient evidence | +3.8range +3.2 to +4.3Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Michael Graham | 56.9% | -1.5range -2.8 to -0.4Sufficient evidence | +2.3range +1.7 to +2.9Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| TJ Gadsden | 46.7% | -1.2range -2.1 to -0.0Sufficient evidence | +2.0range +1.6 to +2.5Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Khalil Farmer | 43.8% | -2.0range -3.0 to -0.9Sufficient evidence | +1.6range +1.2 to +2.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Silas Sunday | 34.1% | +3.0range +1.8 to +4.3Sufficient evidence | +2.5range +2.1 to +2.8Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jaquan Sanders | 31.9% | -0.9range -2.1 to +0.3Sufficient evidence | +1.4range +1.1 to +1.8Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| KiJan Robinson | 31.6% | -1.4range -2.9 to -0.3Sufficient evidence | +1.3range +0.9 to +1.6Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Joshua DeCady | 14.5% | -0.2range -1.1 to +0.9Limited evidence | +0.7range +0.6 to +0.9Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Eric Parnell | 13.0% | -0.1range -0.7 to +0.5Limited evidence | +0.7range +0.6 to +0.8Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jayden Henriquez | 0.0% | 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
27 of 31 games passed lineup acceptance (87%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.
- 4 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 | $4,334,986 | Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output. |
|---|---|---|
| Reported expenses | $4,334,986 | 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 | 3 |
| 2 days | 8 |
| 3 or more days | 19 |
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 | 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