TN Martin

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

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for TN Martin, 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
Andrija Bukumirović	75.7%	+2.3range +1.3 to +3.2Sufficient evidence	+6.1range +5.4 to +6.8Sufficient evidence	$43KspeculativeLoading	$14K to $130KLoading
Matas Deniusas	69.1%	+2.0range +0.8 to +3.3Sufficient evidence	+5.4range +4.8 to +6.1Sufficient evidence	$36KspeculativeLoading	$12K to $105KLoading
Filip Petkovski	62.4%	-0.1range -1.5 to +1.4Sufficient evidence	+4.0range +3.3 to +4.6Sufficient evidence	$13KspeculativeLoading	$2K to $46KLoading
Afan Trnka	56.3%	-1.1range -2.8 to +0.6Sufficient evidence	+3.2range +2.5 to +3.9Sufficient evidence	$7KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $32KLoading
Filip Radaković	54.4%	+0.5range -0.6 to +1.5Sufficient evidence	+3.7range +3.2 to +4.2Sufficient evidence	$16KspeculativeLoading	$3K to $47KLoading
Pedro Santos	43.1%	-0.6range -1.8 to +0.5Sufficient evidence	+2.6range +2.2 to +3.0Sufficient evidence	$7KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $28KLoading
Vladimir Khryapa	30.5%	-0.2range -1.4 to +0.9Sufficient evidence	+1.9range +1.7 to +2.2Sufficient evidence	$7KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $22KLoading
Damien King	29.4%	+2.1range +1.0 to +3.0Sufficient evidence	+2.3range +2.0 to +2.5Sufficient evidence	$16KspeculativeLoading	$5K to $47KLoading
Luca Colceag	25.2%	-0.0range -1.4 to +1.2Sufficient evidence	+1.6range +1.3 to +1.8Sufficient evidence	$6KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $20KLoading
AJ Hopkins	21.0%	+0.5range -0.6 to +1.6Sufficient evidence	+1.4range +1.2 to +1.6Sufficient evidence	$7KspeculativeLoading	$2K to $21KLoading
Dragos Lungu	13.6%	+1.2range +0.5 to +1.9Limited evidence	+1.0range +0.9 to +1.1Limited evidence	$6KspeculativeLoading	$2K to $17KLoading
Lamine Niang	13.1%	-1.0range -1.8 to -0.2Limited evidence	+0.7range +0.6 to +0.8Limited evidence	$3KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $9KLoading
Ty Price	4.8%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$1Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$0 to $4KLoading
Ama Sow	1.3%	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: $190K; 80% Range $69K to $495K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $190K to $195K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 14; 2 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
Andrija Bukumirović	75.7%	$43K	$14K to $130K	21.2%	$43K to $44K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Matas Deniusas	69.1%	$36K	$12K to $105K	17.9%	$36K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Filip Petkovski	62.4%	$13K	$2K to $46K	9.1%	$13K to $14K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Afan Trnka	56.3%	$7K	$1K to $32K	5.3%	$7K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Filip Radaković	54.4%	$16K	$3K to $47K	9.7%	$15K to $16K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Pedro Santos	43.1%	$7K	$1K to $28K	5.4%	$7K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Vladimir Khryapa	30.5%	$7K	$1K to $22K	4.7%	$7K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Damien King	29.4%	$16K	$5K to $47K	7.8%	$16K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Luca Colceag	25.2%	$6K	$1K to $20K	4.1%	$6K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
AJ Hopkins	21.0%	$7K	$2K to $21K	4.2%	$7K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Dragos Lungu	13.6%	$6K	$2K to $17K	3.4%	$6K in all four	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Lamine Niang	13.1%	$3K	$1K to $9K	1.8%	$3K in all four	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ty Price	4.8%	$1K	$0 to $4K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Ama Sow	1.3%	$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	—	$190K	$69K to $495K	100%	$190K to $195K	—

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, The University of Tennessee-Martin (NCAA Division I-FCS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$1,540,438
Men's basketball expenses	$1,539,012
Athletics department expenses	$15,610,419
Athletics department revenue	$15,610,419

Coverage and exclusions

27 of 30 games passed lineup acceptance (90%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

3 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 expenses

Reported revenue	$1,540,438	Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output.
Reported expenses	$1,539,012	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	10
3 or more days	17

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	3
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