Charleston So

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

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for Charleston So, 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
A'lahn Sumler	69.4%	+0.8range -0.3 to +2.3Sufficient evidence	+4.4range +3.9 to +5.0Sufficient evidence	$27KspeculativeLoading	$7K to $84KLoading
Jesse Hafemeister	66.5%	-0.0range -1.3 to +1.3Sufficient evidence	+3.9range +3.3 to +4.4Sufficient evidence	$15KspeculativeLoading	$2K to $51KLoading
Brycen Blaine	53.8%	+0.7range -0.2 to +1.7Sufficient evidence	+3.4range +3.0 to +3.8Sufficient evidence	$19KspeculativeLoading	$6K to $58KLoading
Jacob Taylor	49.6%	-0.4range -1.6 to +0.6Sufficient evidence	+2.8range +2.4 to +3.1Sufficient evidence	$9KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $33KLoading
Nate Brafford	47.4%	+0.4range -0.7 to +1.7Sufficient evidence	+2.9range +2.5 to +3.3Sufficient evidence	$15KspeculativeLoading	$3K to $46KLoading
Luke Williams	45.3%	+1.5range +0.5 to +2.5Sufficient evidence	+3.1range +2.8 to +3.4Sufficient evidence	$22KspeculativeLoading	$7K to $70KLoading
Reis Jones	45.3%	+0.1range -1.2 to +1.6Sufficient evidence	+2.7range +2.3 to +3.2Sufficient evidence	$12KspeculativeLoading	$2K to $41KLoading
Lase Olalere	40.3%	+2.0range +0.6 to +3.1Sufficient evidence	+2.9range +2.4 to +3.2Sufficient evidence	$23KspeculativeLoading	$7K to $80KLoading
Armari Carraway	28.6%	-1.3range -2.9 to +0.1Sufficient evidence	+1.5range +1.2 to +1.7Sufficient evidence	$4KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $16KLoading
Jaquias Franklin	24.9%	-0.4range -1.7 to +0.8Sufficient evidence	+1.4range +1.2 to +1.6Sufficient evidence	$6KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $19KLoading
Trent Coleman	19.4%	+0.5range -0.6 to +1.6Sufficient evidence	+1.2range +1.1 to +1.4Sufficient evidence	$7KspeculativeLoading	$2K to $22KLoading
Devin Brafford	9.2%	+0.7range -0.1 to +1.3Limited evidence	+0.6range +0.5 to +0.6Limited evidence	$4KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $12KLoading
A.J. Gladieux	0.1%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$1Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$0 to $4KLoading
Easton Hupp	0.1%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$1Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$0 to $4KLoading

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: $190K; 80% Range $70K to $495K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $185K to $200K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 14; 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
A'lahn Sumler	69.4%	$27K	$7K to $84K	14.6%	$27K to $29K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jesse Hafemeister	66.5%	$15K	$2K to $51K	10.4%	$15K to $16K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Brycen Blaine	53.8%	$19K	$6K to $58K	10.8%	$19K to $20K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jacob Taylor	49.6%	$9K	$1K to $33K	6.7%	$9K to $10K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Nate Brafford	47.4%	$15K	$3K to $46K	8.8%	$14K to $15K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Luke Williams	45.3%	$22K	$7K to $70K	11.0%	$22K to $24K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Reis Jones	45.3%	$12K	$2K to $41K	7.9%	$12K to $13K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Lase Olalere	40.3%	$23K	$7K to $80K	11.0%	$22K to $24K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Armari Carraway	28.6%	$4K	$1K to $16K	2.9%	$4K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jaquias Franklin	24.9%	$6K	$1K to $19K	3.9%	$6K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Trent Coleman	19.4%	$7K	$2K to $22K	4.2%	$7K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Devin Brafford	9.2%	$4K	$1K to $12K	2.4%	$4K to $5K	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
A.J. Gladieux	0.1%	$1K	$0 to $4K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Easton Hupp	0.1%	$1K	$0 to $4K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$190K	$70K to $495K	100%	$185K to $200K	—

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, Charleston Southern University (NCAA Division I-FCS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$1,688,815	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$1,688,815
Athletics department expenses	$14,999,113
Athletics department revenue	$14,999,113

Coverage and exclusions

29 of 29 games passed lineup acceptance (100%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

No exclusions were recorded.

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	$1,688,815	Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output.
Reported expenses	$1,688,815	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	1
2 days	3
3 or more days	24

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	2
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