Ark Pine Bluff

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

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for Ark Pine Bluff, 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
Quion Williams	91.4%	-0.6range -1.4 to +0.4Sufficient evidence	+4.1range +3.6 to +4.6Sufficient evidence	$20KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $67KLoading
Trevon Payton	85.2%	-2.3range -3.4 to -0.9Sufficient evidence	+3.2range +2.6 to +3.7Sufficient evidence	$6KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $34KLoading
Alex Mirhosseini	78.5%	-1.3range -2.4 to -0.0Sufficient evidence	+3.3range +2.8 to +3.9Sufficient evidence	$11KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $45KLoading
Milhan Charles	75.1%	+0.1range -1.1 to +1.2Sufficient evidence	+3.7range +3.2 to +4.1Sufficient evidence	$27KspeculativeLoading	$4K to $115KLoading
Jaquan Scott	70.2%	-0.1range -1.0 to +0.9Sufficient evidence	+3.4range +3.0 to +3.8Sufficient evidence	$24KspeculativeLoading	$4K to $90KLoading
Ramel Lloyd Jr.	35.2%	-0.5range -1.9 to +1.0Sufficient evidence	+1.7range +1.4 to +2.0Sufficient evidence	$9KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $38KLoading
Ahmad Johnson	23.3%	-2.3range -3.3 to -1.2Sufficient evidence	+0.9range +0.8 to +1.1Sufficient evidence	$2KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $11KLoading
Kyle Brown	12.8%	-2.0range -2.6 to -1.0Limited evidence	+0.5range +0.5 to +0.6Limited evidence	$2KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $7KLoading
Dennis Asoro	11.4%	-0.9range -1.9 to +0.0Limited evidence	+0.5range +0.5 to +0.6Limited evidence	$3KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $10KLoading
Jai’chaunn Hayes	9.0%	-2.0range -2.7 to -1.2Limited evidence	+0.4range +0.3 to +0.4Limited evidence	$2KspeculativeLoading	$0 to $6KLoading
Anthony Sellars	5.8%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$1Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$0 to $3KLoading
Trejon Ware	1.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$1Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$0 to $3KLoading
Travis Pourciau	0.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$1Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$0 to $3KLoading
Harrison Pickett	0.1%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$1Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$0 to $3KLoading

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: $140K; 80% Range $51K to $380K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $130K to $145K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 14; 4 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
Quion Williams	91.4%	$20K	$1K to $67K	17.7%	$19K to $21K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Trevon Payton	85.2%	$6K	$1K to $34K	7.3%	$5K to $6K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Alex Mirhosseini	78.5%	$11K	$1K to $45K	12.2%	$10K to $11K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Milhan Charles	75.1%	$27K	$4K to $115K	17.7%	$25K to $29K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jaquan Scott	70.2%	$24K	$4K to $90K	15.9%	$22K to $25K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ramel Lloyd Jr.	35.2%	$9K	$1K to $38K	7.5%	$9K to $10K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ahmad Johnson	23.3%	$2K	$1K to $11K	2.2%	$2K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Kyle Brown	12.8%	$2K	$1K to $7K	1.9%	$2K in all four	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Dennis Asoro	11.4%	$3K	$1K to $10K	2.6%	$3K in all four	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jai’chaunn Hayes	9.0%	$2K	$0 to $6K	1.3%	$2K in all four	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Anthony Sellars	5.8%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Trejon Ware	1.6%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Travis Pourciau	0.6%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Harrison Pickett	0.1%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$140K	$51K to $380K	100%	$130K to $145K	—

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, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff (NCAA Division I-FCS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$731,790	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$731,790
Athletics department expenses	$9,302,196
Athletics department revenue	$9,302,196

Coverage and exclusions

28 of 30 games passed lineup acceptance (93%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

2 of 30 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	$731,790	Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output.
Reported expenses	$731,790	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	9
3 or more days	20

Rest is capped at three days. Descriptive count.

Load summary

Mean games in prior 7 days	1.6
Games with fewer rest days than the opponent	2
Longest run of consecutive away games	11

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