Creighton

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

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for Creighton, 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
Josh Dix	82.0%	+2.3range +0.8 to +3.6Sufficient evidence	+6.4range +5.5 to +7.1Sufficient evidence	$575KspeculativeLoading	$270K to $1.15MLoading
Jasen Green	68.1%	+2.0range +0.8 to +3.5Sufficient evidence	+5.3range +4.7 to +6.0Sufficient evidence	$450KspeculativeLoading	$200K to $900KLoading
Nik Graves	66.4%	+2.3range +0.7 to +4.0Sufficient evidence	+5.3range +4.6 to +6.0Sufficient evidence	$475KspeculativeLoading	$215K to $980KLoading
Austin Swartz	47.1%	-0.7range -2.2 to +0.6Sufficient evidence	+2.9range +2.4 to +3.4Sufficient evidence	$120KspeculativeLoading	$17K to $325KLoading
Isaac Traudt	47.0%	+3.5range +2.1 to +5.0Sufficient evidence	+4.2range +3.7 to +4.7Sufficient evidence	$470KspeculativeLoading	$225K to $1.10MLoading
Blake Harper	46.0%	+0.3range -1.2 to +1.6Sufficient evidence	+3.1range +2.6 to +3.6Sufficient evidence	$175KspeculativeLoading	$29K to $390KLoading
Fedor Zugic	41.2%	-0.8range -2.2 to +0.7Sufficient evidence	+2.5range +2.0 to +3.0Sufficient evidence	$105KspeculativeLoading	$17K to $280KLoading
Ty Davis	27.7%	-0.6range -2.1 to +0.5Sufficient evidence	+1.7range +1.4 to +2.0Sufficient evidence	$77KspeculativeLoading	$16K to $210KLoading
Owen Freeman	22.5%	+3.1range +1.8 to +4.3Sufficient evidence	+2.0range +1.8 to +2.2Sufficient evidence	$215KspeculativeLoading	$105K to $470KLoading
Hudson Greer	22.0%	-1.1range -1.9 to -0.4Sufficient evidence	+1.3range +1.1 to +1.5Sufficient evidence	$53KspeculativeLoading	$14K to $155KLoading
Kerem Konan	18.6%	+0.5range -0.5 to +1.1Sufficient evidence	+1.3range +1.1 to +1.4Sufficient evidence	$84KspeculativeLoading	$27K to $180KLoading
Jackson McAndrew	5.9%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$20Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$10K to $39KLoading
Shane Thomas	4.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$20Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$10K to $39KLoading
Liam McChesney	0.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$20Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$10K to $39KLoading
Josh Townley-Thomas	0.4%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$20Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$10K to $39KLoading

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: $3.10M; 80% Range $1.75M to $5.45M
Tier: Big East and Gonzaga; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $3.00M to $3.35M; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 15; 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
Josh Dix	82.0%	$575K	$270K to $1.15M	18.1%	$555K to $615K	$20K	Sufficient evidence
Jasen Green	68.1%	$450K	$200K to $900K	14.6%	$435K to $480K	$20K	Sufficient evidence
Nik Graves	66.4%	$475K	$215K to $980K	15.1%	$460K to $510K	$20K	Sufficient evidence
Austin Swartz	47.1%	$120K	$17K to $325K	4.5%	$115K to $130K	$20K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Isaac Traudt	47.0%	$470K	$225K to $1.10M	14.0%	$455K to $505K	$20K	Sufficient evidence
Blake Harper	46.0%	$175K	$29K to $390K	6.4%	$170K to $185K	$20K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Fedor Zugic	41.2%	$105K	$17K to $280K	4.1%	$100K to $110K	$20K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ty Davis	27.7%	$77K	$16K to $210K	3.0%	$75K to $83K	$20K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Owen Freeman	22.5%	$215K	$105K to $470K	6.6%	$210K to $235K	$20K	Sufficient evidence
Hudson Greer	22.0%	$53K	$14K to $155K	2.0%	$51K to $56K	$20K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Kerem Konan	18.6%	$84K	$27K to $180K	3.1%	$82K to $91K	$20K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jackson McAndrew	5.9%	$20K	$10K to $39K	0.7%	$19K to $21K	$20K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimate
Shane Thomas	4.6%	$20K	$10K to $39K	0.7%	$19K to $21K	$20K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimate
Liam McChesney	0.6%	$20K	$10K to $39K	0.7%	$19K to $21K	$20K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimate
Josh Townley-Thomas	0.4%	$20K	$10K to $39K	0.7%	$19K to $21K	$20K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimate
Team Pool	—	$3.10M	$1.75M to $5.45M	100%	$3.00M to $3.35M	—

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, Creighton University (NCAA Division I without football)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$19,767,613
Men's basketball expenses	$14,019,614
Athletics department expenses	$41,012,865
Athletics department revenue	$41,012,865

Coverage and exclusions

32 of 34 games passed lineup acceptance (94%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

2 of 34 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 expenses

Reported revenue	$19,767,613	Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output.
Reported expenses	$14,019,614	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	29

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	0
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