St Louis

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

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for St Louis, 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
Robbie Avila	67.5%	+7.4range +5.8 to +8.9Sufficient evidence	+6.6range +5.8 to +7.3Sufficient evidence	$180KspeculativeLoading	$70K to $460KLoading
Quentin Jones	67.2%	+4.4range +2.9 to +5.9Sufficient evidence	+5.2range +4.4 to +5.9Sufficient evidence	$100KspeculativeLoading	$40K to $255KLoading
Dion Brown	60.4%	+2.1range +0.4 to +3.9Sufficient evidence	+3.7range +3.1 to +4.4Sufficient evidence	$53KspeculativeLoading	$15K to $150KLoading
Trey Green	58.6%	+3.1range +1.5 to +4.6Sufficient evidence	+4.0range +3.3 to +4.6Sufficient evidence	$67KspeculativeLoading	$24K to $165KLoading
Amari McCottry	57.9%	+2.0range +0.5 to +3.2Sufficient evidence	+3.5range +3.0 to +4.0Sufficient evidence	$50KspeculativeLoading	$15K to $135KLoading
Ishan Sharma	54.9%	+4.0range +2.4 to +5.3Sufficient evidence	+4.0range +3.3 to +4.5Sufficient evidence	$76KspeculativeLoading	$30K to $185KLoading
Brady Dunlap	40.4%	+4.0range +2.8 to +5.4Sufficient evidence	+2.8range +2.4 to +3.1Sufficient evidence	$59KspeculativeLoading	$24K to $145KLoading
Kellen Thames	39.5%	+3.4range +1.8 to +4.9Sufficient evidence	+2.6range +2.2 to +3.0Sufficient evidence	$52KspeculativeLoading	$18K to $130KLoading
Paul Otieno	38.0%	+2.1range +0.6 to +3.5Sufficient evidence	+2.2range +1.8 to +2.6Sufficient evidence	$35KspeculativeLoading	$11K to $94KLoading
Jax Kerr	6.7%	-0.1range -1.3 to +0.8Limited evidence	+0.3range +0.2 to +0.3Limited evidence	$8KspeculativeLoading	$3K to $21KLoading
Cam Hutson	5.2%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$5Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$2K to $14KLoading
Isaac Holmes	1.8%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$5Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$2K to $14KLoading
Jaden Schertz	1.8%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$5Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$2K to $14KLoading

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: $725K; 80% Range $315K to $1.70M
Tier: Mid and high major; low to medium evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $665K to $900K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 13; 3 floor only

The widest scenario range, $405K to $2.05M, is wider than the 80% Range above (soft check S5). Methodology

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
Robbie Avila	67.5%	$180K	$70K to $460K	22.8%	$160K to $220K	$5K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Quentin Jones	67.2%	$100K	$40K to $255K	14.1%	$93K to $125K	$5K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Dion Brown	60.4%	$53K	$15K to $150K	8.4%	$49K to $66K	$5K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Trey Green	58.6%	$67K	$24K to $165K	10.1%	$61K to $83K	$5K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Amari McCottry	57.9%	$50K	$15K to $135K	7.9%	$46K to $62K	$5K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ishan Sharma	54.9%	$76K	$30K to $185K	10.9%	$69K to $94K	$5K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Brady Dunlap	40.4%	$59K	$24K to $145K	8.3%	$54K to $73K	$5K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Kellen Thames	39.5%	$52K	$18K to $130K	7.5%	$47K to $64K	$5K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Paul Otieno	38.0%	$35K	$11K to $94K	5.4%	$32K to $43K	$5K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jax Kerr	6.7%	$8K	$3K to $21K	1.2%	$7K to $10K	$5K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Cam Hutson	5.2%	$5K	$2K to $14K	0.8%	$5K to $7K	$5K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Isaac Holmes	1.8%	$5K	$2K to $14K	0.8%	$5K to $7K	$5K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Jaden Schertz	1.8%	$5K	$2K to $14K	0.8%	$5K to $7K	$5K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$725K	$315K to $1.70M	100%	$665K to $900K	—

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, Saint Louis University (NCAA Division I without football)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$7,230,593	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$7,230,593
Athletics department expenses	$29,626,637
Athletics department revenue	$29,626,637

Coverage and exclusions

33 of 34 games passed lineup acceptance (97%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

1 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 expensesrevenue equals expenses

Reported revenue	$7,230,593	Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output.
Reported expenses	$7,230,593	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	2
2 days	1
3 or more days	30

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