Tulsa
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keaston Willis | 82.4% | +0.9range +0.6 to +1.3Sufficient evidence | +3.8range +3.5 to +4.2Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Dwon Odom | 80.2% | +1.6range +0.7 to +2.5Sufficient evidence | +4.0range +3.6 to +4.5Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Isaiah Barnes | 76.2% | +0.6range +0.2 to +0.9Sufficient evidence | +3.4range +3.1 to +3.8Sufficient evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Braeden Carrington | 63.2% | +0.5range -0.5 to +1.4Limited evidence | +2.9range +2.5 to +3.3Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Ian Smikle | 56.7% | +0.9range +0.3 to +1.6Limited evidence | +2.7range +2.4 to +3.1Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Tyshawn Archie | 44.2% | +0.4range -0.3 to +1.1Limited evidence | +2.0range +1.7 to +2.3Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jared Garcia | 41.9% | +1.8range +1.0 to +2.4Limited evidence | +2.3range +2.0 to +2.5Limited evidence | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jesaiah McWright | 29.1% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Justin Amadi | 25.9% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Jaye Nash | 0.1% | Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence | Not applicable | None: no budget that season | — |
| Tyler Behrend | 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
6 of 31 games passed lineup acceptance (19%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.
- 25 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 | $6,355,122 | Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output. |
|---|---|---|
| Reported expenses | $6,355,122 | 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 | 1.4 |
|---|---|
| Games with fewer rest days than the opponent | 1 |
| 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