Arizona St

2026 · descriptive season · nil-value-v3 · Team results

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for Arizona St, 2026: retrospective net points per 100 possessions and, for 2025–26 only, a speculative compensation best guess. Players are listed by possession share, not by value or dollars.
Player	Possession share	Net and range	Wins above replacement and range	Speculative compensation (best guess)	Compensation 80% range
Maurice Odum	84.7%	+1.6range +0.6 to +2.6Sufficient evidence	+5.1range +4.6 to +5.6Sufficient evidence	$660KspeculativeLoading	$395K to $1.05MLoading
Massamba Diop	74.1%	+2.5range +0.9 to +4.0Sufficient evidence	+4.9range +4.2 to +5.4Sufficient evidence	$725KspeculativeLoading	$415K to $1.45MLoading
Noah Meeusen	61.9%	+1.1range -0.3 to +2.5Sufficient evidence	+3.7range +3.2 to +4.2Sufficient evidence	$405KspeculativeLoading	$145K to $670KLoading
Anthony Johnson	61.3%	+0.5range -0.6 to +1.9Sufficient evidence	+3.5range +3.0 to +4.0Sufficient evidence	$355KspeculativeLoading	$86K to $605KLoading
Santiago Trouet	59.9%	-1.3range -2.4 to -0.1Sufficient evidence	+2.9range +2.4 to +3.2Sufficient evidence	$165KspeculativeLoading	$24K to $375KLoading
Andrija Grbovic	50.9%	+1.0range -0.2 to +1.8Sufficient evidence	+3.1range +2.7 to +3.4Sufficient evidence	$325KspeculativeLoading	$120K to $550KLoading
Bryce Ford	45.2%	-0.6range -2.0 to +0.4Sufficient evidence	+2.4range +2.0 to +2.6Sufficient evidence	$165KspeculativeLoading	$26K to $320KLoading
Allen Mukeba	41.7%	+2.1range +1.1 to +3.4Sufficient evidence	+2.8range +2.5 to +3.1Sufficient evidence	$380KspeculativeLoading	$235K to $735KLoading
Marcus Adams Jr.	12.3%	+0.1range -0.9 to +1.2Limited evidence	+0.7range +0.6 to +0.8Limited evidence	$83KspeculativeLoading	$34K to $140KLoading
Trevor Best	7.9%	-2.4range -3.1 to -1.6Limited evidence	+0.3range +0.3 to +0.4Limited evidence	$41KspeculativeLoading	$20K to $73KLoading
Kash Polk	0.1%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$28Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$17K to $47KLoading
Quentin McCoy	0.1%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$28Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$17K to $47KLoading

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.

Team pool and per-player compensation · 2025–26β

Team Pool: $3.55M; 80% Range $2.55M to $4.95M
Tier: Power 4; medium evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $3.55M in all four; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 12; 2 floor only

Players in possession-share order
Player	Poss. Share	Speculative Best Guess	80% Range	Median % of Team Pool	Scenarios Z1 to Z4	Floor Part	Evidence and Flags
Maurice Odum	84.7%	$660K	$395K to $1.05M	18.1%	$660K in all four	$28K	Sufficient evidence
Massamba Diop	74.1%	$725K	$415K to $1.45M	19.4%	$725K in all four	$28K	Sufficient evidence
Noah Meeusen	61.9%	$405K	$145K to $670K	11.9%	$405K in all four	$28K	Sufficient evidence
Anthony Johnson	61.3%	$355K	$86K to $605K	10.7%	$355K in all four	$28K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Santiago Trouet	59.9%	$165K	$24K to $375K	5.0%	$165K in all four	$28K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Andrija Grbovic	50.9%	$325K	$120K to $550K	9.6%	$325K in all four	$28K	Sufficient evidence
Bryce Ford	45.2%	$165K	$26K to $320K	5.0%	$165K in all four	$28K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Allen Mukeba	41.7%	$380K	$235K to $735K	10.3%	$380K in all four	$28K	Sufficient evidence
Marcus Adams Jr.	12.3%	$83K	$34K to $140K	2.5%	$83K in all four	$28K	Limited evidence
Trevor Best	7.9%	$41K	$20K to $73K	1.2%	$41K in all four	$28K	Limited evidence
Kash Polk	0.1%	$28K	$17K to $47K	0.8%	$28K in all four	$28K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimate
Quentin McCoy	0.1%	$28K	$17K to $47K	0.8%	$28K in all four	$28K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimate
Team Pool	—	$3.55M	$2.55M to $4.95M	100%	$3.55M in all four	—

What-if calculator on the team page

School Finances · School-Reported (EADA)

Self-reported to the U.S. Department of Education. Expenses cover coaching, travel, aid and operations, not player pay.

School-reported finances, 2024-25, Arizona State University Campus Immersion (NCAA Division I-FBS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$10,063,114	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$10,063,114
Athletics department expenses	$149,346,605
Athletics department revenue	$149,346,605

Coverage and exclusions

31 of 32 games passed lineup acceptance (97%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

1 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 (alternate pairing to repo season 2026; 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	$10,063,114	Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output.
Reported expenses	$10,063,114	Reported by the school.

EADA link: matched by a manual override chosen by the model author. Its checks (IPEDS identity, state, home-venue city) confirm only that the pick is self-consistent. They are not independent proof that this school is the same program. If the match were wrong, these figures would belong to a different school.manual EADA match, not independently verified

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	29

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	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