Algosys College Basketball

Search teams and players

Type a team or player name. Results are alphabetical; players show their 2026 team. Up and Down move, Enter opens the highlighted result or the first one, Esc closes.

Murray St

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

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for Murray 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.
PlayerPossession shareNet and rangeWins above replacement and rangeSpeculative compensation (best guess)Compensation 80% range
Javon Jackson64.5%-0.2range -1.3 to +0.7Sufficient evidence+4.3range +3.7 to +4.8Sufficient evidenceLoadingLoading
Roman Domon62.7%+2.3range +1.3 to +3.6Sufficient evidence+5.3range +4.7 to +5.9Sufficient evidenceLoadingLoading
Fredrick King59.8%+3.1range +1.8 to +4.5Sufficient evidence+5.4range +4.8 to +6.0Sufficient evidenceLoadingLoading
Layne Taylor57.3%+2.7range +1.4 to +4.1Sufficient evidence+5.0range +4.4 to +5.6Sufficient evidenceLoadingLoading
JJ Traynor55.4%-1.5range -2.7 to -0.5Sufficient evidence+3.2range +2.7 to +3.6Sufficient evidenceLoadingLoading
Mason Miller54.9%+1.2range +0.2 to +2.1Sufficient evidence+4.2range +3.7 to +4.7Sufficient evidenceLoadingLoading
KJ Tenner41.9%+0.6range -0.6 to +1.5Sufficient evidence+3.0range +2.6 to +3.4Sufficient evidenceLoadingLoading
Mathis Courbon37.8%+1.1range +0.2 to +2.0Sufficient evidence+2.9range +2.6 to +3.2Sufficient evidenceLoadingLoading
Brayden Shorter37.1%+0.4range -0.4 to +1.5Sufficient evidence+2.7range +2.3 to +3.0Sufficient evidenceLoadingLoading
Dylan Anderson17.2%-0.1range -1.1 to +0.6Sufficient evidence+1.2range +1.0 to +1.3Sufficient evidenceLoadingLoading
Brock Vice11.3%+1.4range +0.7 to +2.2Limited evidence+0.9range +0.8 to +1.0Limited evidenceLoadingLoading

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

Loading Speculative compensation

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.

Loading School finances

Coverage and exclusions

30 of 33 games passed lineup acceptance (91%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

  • 3 of 33 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$4,312,531Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output.
Reported expenses$2,785,564Reported 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 daysGames
First game (no rest value)1
1 day2
3 or more days30

Rest is capped at three days. Descriptive count.

Load summary

Mean games in prior 7 days1.4
Games with fewer rest days than the opponent0
Longest run of consecutive away games2

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