SF Austin

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

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for SF Austin, 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
Keon Thompson	76.3%	+1.7range +1.0 to +2.5Sufficient evidence	+5.6range +5.1 to +6.2Sufficient evidence	$28KspeculativeLoading	$9K to $83KLoading
Lateef Patrick Jr	74.3%	+2.8range +1.6 to +4.0Sufficient evidence	+6.0range +5.2 to +6.8Sufficient evidence	$38KspeculativeLoading	$13K to $105KLoading
Chrishawn Christmas	74.0%	+3.0range +2.0 to +4.4Sufficient evidence	+6.1range +5.4 to +7.0Sufficient evidence	$40KspeculativeLoading	$15K to $115KLoading
Jerald Colonel	63.3%	+3.9range +2.9 to +5.1Sufficient evidence	+5.6range +5.0 to +6.3Sufficient evidence	$45KspeculativeLoading	$15K to $130KLoading
Narit Chotikavanic	55.7%	+1.2range +0.1 to +2.2Sufficient evidence	+3.8range +3.3 to +4.2Sufficient evidence	$17KspeculativeLoading	$4K to $53KLoading
Kam Burton	48.4%	+2.3range +1.5 to +3.3Sufficient evidence	+3.6range +3.3 to +4.1Sufficient evidence	$22KspeculativeLoading	$8K to $62KLoading
Ahamed Mohammed	37.3%	+0.9range +0.0 to +1.8Sufficient evidence	+2.4range +2.1 to +2.7Sufficient evidence	$11KspeculativeLoading	$3K to $34KLoading
Gediminas Alisas	34.8%	+0.1range -0.9 to +1.0Sufficient evidence	+2.0range +1.8 to +2.3Sufficient evidence	$8KspeculativeLoading	$2K to $27KLoading
Christian Green	13.9%	-1.6range -2.4 to -0.8Limited evidence	+0.6range +0.5 to +0.7Limited evidence	$3KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $10KLoading
Marcus Scurry	11.6%	-1.0range -1.8 to -0.2Limited evidence	+0.6range +0.5 to +0.7Limited evidence	$3KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $10KLoading
Eltramon Smith Jr.	8.4%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$2Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$1K to $5KLoading
Tichyque Musaka	1.1%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$2Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$1K to $5KLoading
Harris Dar	0.8%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$2Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$1K to $5KLoading
Bryceson Melvin	0.2%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$2Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$1K to $5KLoading

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: $230K; 80% Range $85K to $625K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $225K to $240K; 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
Keon Thompson	76.3%	$28K	$9K to $83K	13.5%	$27K to $29K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Lateef Patrick Jr	74.3%	$38K	$13K to $105K	15.9%	$36K to $39K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Chrishawn Christmas	74.0%	$40K	$15K to $115K	17.1%	$39K to $42K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jerald Colonel	63.3%	$45K	$15K to $130K	17.9%	$43K to $46K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Narit Chotikavanic	55.7%	$17K	$4K to $53K	8.7%	$17K to $18K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Kam Burton	48.4%	$22K	$8K to $62K	9.9%	$22K to $23K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ahamed Mohammed	37.3%	$11K	$3K to $34K	5.6%	$11K in all four	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Gediminas Alisas	34.8%	$8K	$2K to $27K	4.1%	$8K in all four	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Christian Green	13.9%	$3K	$1K to $10K	1.2%	$3K in all four	$2K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Marcus Scurry	11.6%	$3K	$1K to $10K	1.3%	$3K in all four	$2K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Eltramon Smith Jr.	8.4%	$2K	$1K to $5K	0.7%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Tichyque Musaka	1.1%	$2K	$1K to $5K	0.7%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Harris Dar	0.8%	$2K	$1K to $5K	0.7%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Bryceson Melvin	0.2%	$2K	$1K to $5K	0.7%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$230K	$85K to $625K	100%	$225K to $240K	—

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, Stephen F Austin State University (NCAA Division I-FCS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$2,403,896	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$2,403,896
Athletics department expenses	$22,450,088
Athletics department revenue	$22,450,088

Coverage and exclusions

25 of 32 games passed lineup acceptance (78%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

7 of 32 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	$2,403,896	Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output.
Reported expenses	$2,403,896	Reported by the school.

EADA link: matched by a manual override chosen by the model author. Its checks (IPEDS identity, state, home-venue city) confirm only that the pick is self-consistent. They are not independent proof that this school is the same program. If the match were wrong, these figures would belong to a different school.manual EADA match, not independently verified

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	9
3 or more days	21

Rest is capped at three days. Descriptive count.

Load summary

Mean games in prior 7 days	1.5
Games with fewer rest days than the opponent	1
Longest run of consecutive away games	4

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