Mercer
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahmad Robinson | 84.8% | +1.5range +0.5 to +2.4Sufficient evidence | +4.2range +3.7 to +4.9Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Tyler Johnson | 83.3% | -0.7range -1.7 to +0.4Sufficient evidence | +3.2range +2.7 to +3.8Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Alex Holt | 68.7% | +1.3range -0.0 to +2.6Sufficient evidence | +3.4range +2.9 to +4.0Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Cam Bryant | 66.2% | -1.2range -2.2 to -0.2Sufficient evidence | +2.4range +1.9 to +2.9Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Brady Shoulders | 64.3% | +1.3range -0.1 to +2.6Sufficient evidence | +3.2range +2.7 to +3.8Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jah Quinones | 30.2% | -2.1range -3.1 to -0.9Sufficient evidence | +0.9range +0.7 to +1.2Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Marcus Overstreet | 29.3% | +0.5range -0.6 to +2.0Sufficient evidence | +1.4range +1.1 to +1.7Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Angel Montas Jr. | 22.3% | -1.8range -2.7 to -0.5Sufficient evidence | +0.7range +0.6 to +1.0Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Laurynas Vaistaras | 21.1% | -1.0range -1.8 to -0.1Sufficient evidence | +0.8range +0.7 to +1.0Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jah Nze | 20.2% | -0.1range -1.0 to +0.8Sufficient evidence | +0.9range +0.7 to +1.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| TJ Grant | 9.4% | -2.0range -2.9 to -0.9Limited evidence | +0.3range +0.2 to +0.4Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Alex Koch | 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
22 of 31 games passed lineup acceptance (71%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.
- 9 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 | $2,346,280 | Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output. |
|---|---|---|
| Reported expenses | $2,346,280 | 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 |
| 3 or more days | 28 |
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