South Dakota

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

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for South Dakota, 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
Jordan Crawford	79.3%	-1.2range -2.1 to -0.2Sufficient evidence	+3.6range +3.2 to +4.1Sufficient evidence	$14KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $62KLoading
Uzziah Buntyn	74.1%	-0.1range -1.1 to +1.1Sufficient evidence	+3.8range +3.4 to +4.3Sufficient evidence	$30KspeculativeLoading	$4K to $95KLoading
Cameron Fens	66.0%	+1.2range +0.4 to +2.1Sufficient evidence	+3.8range +3.5 to +4.2Sufficient evidence	$51KspeculativeLoading	$16K to $170KLoading
Vince Buzelis	48.8%	-0.7range -1.7 to +0.4Sufficient evidence	+2.4range +2.0 to +2.7Sufficient evidence	$13KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $48KLoading
Isaac Bruns	42.9%	-2.3range -3.5 to -0.9Sufficient evidence	+1.8range +1.4 to +2.1Sufficient evidence	$5KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $27KLoading
Silas Bennion	38.3%	+1.4range +0.3 to +2.4Sufficient evidence	+2.3range +2.1 to +2.6Sufficient evidence	$33KspeculativeLoading	$10K to $120KLoading
Ethan Kizer	34.9%	-0.5range -1.2 to +0.3Sufficient evidence	+1.8range +1.6 to +2.0Sufficient evidence	$10KspeculativeLoading	$2K to $36KLoading
Evan Anderson	28.4%	-0.8range -1.7 to +0.2Sufficient evidence	+1.4range +1.2 to +1.6Sufficient evidence	$8KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $29KLoading
Jake Brack	27.7%	-1.8range -2.7 to -0.9Sufficient evidence	+1.2range +1.0 to +1.4Sufficient evidence	$4KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $20KLoading
Jesse Mcintosh	27.2%	-1.6range -2.7 to -0.1Sufficient evidence	+1.2range +1.0 to +1.5Sufficient evidence	$5KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $24KLoading
Shey Eberwein	18.1%	-2.5range -3.4 to -1.7Sufficient evidence	+0.7range +0.6 to +0.8Sufficient evidence	$3KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $12KLoading
Trent Hudgens Jr.	11.1%	+0.1range -0.5 to +0.7Limited evidence	+0.6range +0.6 to +0.7Limited evidence	$6KspeculativeLoading	$2K to $18KLoading
Ashton Smith	1.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$1Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$0 to $4KLoading
Caleb Kizer	1.5%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$1Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$0 to $4KLoading
Porter Ihnen	0.3%	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: $225K; 80% Range $85K to $600K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $210K to $230K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 15; 3 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
Jordan Crawford	79.3%	$14K	$1K to $62K	10.3%	$13K to $15K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Uzziah Buntyn	74.1%	$30K	$4K to $95K	14.8%	$28K to $31K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Cameron Fens	66.0%	$51K	$16K to $170K	20.2%	$48K to $53K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Vince Buzelis	48.8%	$13K	$1K to $48K	8.1%	$12K to $13K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Isaac Bruns	42.9%	$5K	$1K to $27K	3.2%	$5K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Silas Bennion	38.3%	$33K	$10K to $120K	12.5%	$31K to $34K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ethan Kizer	34.9%	$10K	$2K to $36K	6.3%	$10K to $11K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Evan Anderson	28.4%	$8K	$1K to $29K	4.9%	$7K to $8K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jake Brack	27.7%	$4K	$1K to $20K	2.7%	$4K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jesse Mcintosh	27.2%	$5K	$1K to $24K	3.5%	$5K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Shey Eberwein	18.1%	$3K	$1K to $12K	1.0%	$3K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Trent Hudgens Jr.	11.1%	$6K	$2K to $18K	2.8%	$6K in all four	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ashton Smith	1.6%	$1K	$0 to $4K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Caleb Kizer	1.5%	$1K	$0 to $4K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Porter Ihnen	0.3%	$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	—	$225K	$85K to $600K	100%	$210K to $230K	—

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, University of South Dakota (NCAA Division I-FCS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$1,925,861	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$1,925,861
Athletics department expenses	$23,720,055
Athletics department revenue	$23,720,055

Coverage and exclusions

24 of 28 games passed lineup acceptance (86%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

4 of 28 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	$1,925,861	Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output.
Reported expenses	$1,925,861	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
2 days	4
3 or more days	23

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