Gardner Webb

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

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for Gardner Webb, 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
Jacob Hogarth	63.8%	-3.4range -4.7 to -1.7Sufficient evidence	+0.8range +0.6 to +0.9Sufficient evidence	$8KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $43KLoading
Colin Hawkins	63.0%	-5.8range -7.2 to -4.2Sufficient evidence	+0.5range +0.3 to +0.7Sufficient evidence	$4KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $25KLoading
Ace Talbert	61.0%	-1.6range -2.8 to -0.8Sufficient evidence	+0.9range +0.8 to +1.0Sufficient evidence	$17KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $77KLoading
Spence Sims	59.3%	-3.2range -4.8 to -1.6Sufficient evidence	+0.7range +0.5 to +0.9Sufficient evidence	$8KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $45KLoading
Jacob Hudson	57.5%	-2.1range -3.5 to -0.5Sufficient evidence	+0.8range +0.7 to +0.9Sufficient evidence	$14KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $67KLoading
Jamias Ferere	45.4%	-2.4range -3.2 to -1.3Sufficient evidence	+0.6range +0.6 to +0.7Sufficient evidence	$9KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $40KLoading
D.J. Jefferson	39.3%	-2.6range -3.7 to -1.1Sufficient evidence	+0.6range +0.5 to +0.7Sufficient evidence	$8KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $38KLoading
Curtis Williams	37.6%	-2.2range -3.0 to -1.1Sufficient evidence	+0.6range +0.5 to +0.6Sufficient evidence	$8KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $38KLoading
NaVuan Peterson	27.1%	-1.1range -2.1 to -0.0Sufficient evidence	+0.5range +0.4 to +0.5Sufficient evidence	$13KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $85KLoading
Riek Riek	23.1%	-1.9range -3.2 to -0.6Sufficient evidence	+0.4range +0.3 to +0.4Sufficient evidence	$7KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $31KLoading
Bo Barber	10.5%	-1.1range -2.1 to -0.1Limited evidence	+0.2range +0.2 to +0.2Limited evidence	$6KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $62KLoading
Julius Clark	8.3%	-1.7range -2.9 to -0.8Limited evidence	+0.1range +0.1 to +0.2Limited evidence	$3KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $13KLoading
Ahmadou Ndiaye	2.1%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$1Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$0 to $3KLoading
Paul Lindberg	0.9%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$1Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$0 to $3KLoading
Cameron Gales	0.7%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$1Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$0 to $3KLoading
Isaiah Hicks	0.4%	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: $190K; 80% Range $69K to $510K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $180K to $205K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 16; 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
Jacob Hogarth	63.8%	$8K	$1K to $43K	7.2%	$8K to $9K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Colin Hawkins	63.0%	$4K	$1K to $25K	2.2%	$4K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ace Talbert	61.0%	$17K	$1K to $77K	11.9%	$17K to $18K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Spence Sims	59.3%	$8K	$1K to $45K	7.2%	$8K to $9K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jacob Hudson	57.5%	$14K	$1K to $67K	10.9%	$14K to $15K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jamias Ferere	45.4%	$9K	$1K to $40K	8.2%	$8K to $9K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
D.J. Jefferson	39.3%	$8K	$1K to $38K	6.9%	$8K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Curtis Williams	37.6%	$8K	$1K to $38K	7.3%	$8K to $9K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
NaVuan Peterson	27.1%	$13K	$1K to $85K	6.9%	$12K to $14K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Riek Riek	23.1%	$7K	$1K to $31K	4.8%	$6K to $7K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Bo Barber	10.5%	$6K	$1K to $62K	3.2%	$6K to $7K	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Julius Clark	8.3%	$3K	$1K to $13K	2.2%	$3K in all four	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ahmadou Ndiaye	2.1%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.6%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Paul Lindberg	0.9%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.6%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Cameron Gales	0.7%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.6%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Isaiah Hicks	0.4%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.6%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$190K	$69K to $510K	100%	$180K to $205K	—

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, Gardner-Webb University (NCAA Division I-FCS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$1,495,968	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$1,495,968
Athletics department expenses	$17,654,126
Athletics department revenue	$17,654,126

Coverage and exclusions

26 of 30 games passed lineup acceptance (87%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

4 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	$1,495,968	Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output.
Reported expenses	$1,495,968	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	6
3 or more days	22

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	2
Longest run of consecutive away games	5

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