Quinnipiac
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amarri Monroe | 81.6% | +1.8range +1.1 to +2.6Sufficient evidence | +5.3range +4.8 to +6.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Paul Otieno | 76.6% | +2.6range +1.4 to +3.6Sufficient evidence | +5.4range +4.7 to +6.2Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Khaden Bennett | 67.5% | +2.4range +1.2 to +3.5Sufficient evidence | +4.7range +4.0 to +5.5Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jaden Zimmerman | 63.8% | +1.2range -0.1 to +2.7Sufficient evidence | +3.9range +3.2 to +4.7Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Alexis Reyes | 62.4% | +0.3range -0.8 to +1.4Sufficient evidence | +3.4range +2.8 to +4.1Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Savion Lewis | 58.6% | -0.1range -1.1 to +1.0Sufficient evidence | +3.0range +2.5 to +3.6Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Ryan Mabrey | 29.0% | -1.2range -2.2 to -0.3Sufficient evidence | +1.2range +1.0 to +1.5Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Doug Young | 25.1% | +0.0range -1.1 to +1.5Sufficient evidence | +1.3range +1.1 to +1.6Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Grant Randall | 17.4% | -1.9range -2.9 to -1.1Limited evidence | +0.7range +0.5 to +0.8Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Richie Springs | 17.1% | -0.9range -1.6 to -0.2Limited evidence | +0.8range +0.6 to +0.9Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Quinn Guth | 0.5% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Akintola Akinniyi | 0.5% | 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
20 of 32 games passed lineup acceptance (63%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.
- 12 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 | $2,778,760 | Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output. |
|---|---|---|
| Reported expenses | $2,778,760 | 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 |
| 2 days | 11 |
| 3 or more days | 20 |
Rest is capped at three days. Descriptive count.
Load summary
| Mean games in prior 7 days | 1.3 |
|---|---|
| Games with fewer rest days than the opponent | 1 |
| Longest run of consecutive away games | 5 |
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