Lindenwood

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

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for Lindenwood, 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
Anias Futrell	80.1%	+0.8range +0.0 to +1.8Sufficient evidence	+5.3range +4.8 to +5.9Sufficient evidence	$34KspeculativeLoading	$11K to $100KLoading
Jadis Jones	77.4%	+1.7range +0.5 to +3.0Sufficient evidence	+5.6range +5.0 to +6.3Sufficient evidence	$47KspeculativeLoading	$16K to $140KLoading
Mekhi Cooper	77.0%	-2.5range -3.8 to -1.1Sufficient evidence	+3.6range +2.7 to +4.5Sufficient evidence	$6KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $36KLoading
Dontrez Williams	74.9%	+0.1range -1.1 to +1.6Sufficient evidence	+4.7range +4.0 to +5.5Sufficient evidence	$23KspeculativeLoading	$3K to $75KLoading
Milos Nenadic	71.3%	+1.7range +0.6 to +3.1Sufficient evidence	+5.2range +4.6 to +5.9Sufficient evidence	$45KspeculativeLoading	$15K to $135KLoading
Clayton Jackson	60.5%	-0.2range -1.5 to +1.0Sufficient evidence	+3.7range +3.2 to +4.3Sufficient evidence	$16KspeculativeLoading	$2K to $54KLoading
Robert Lewis	37.8%	-1.5range -2.7 to -0.3Sufficient evidence	+2.0range +1.6 to +2.3Sufficient evidence	$6KspeculativeLoading	$1K to $24KLoading
Kevin Anthony	7.3%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$2Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$1K to $4KLoading
Jeremiah Talton	6.5%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$2Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$1K to $4KLoading
Todd Bieg	3.1%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$2Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$1K to $4KLoading
Tidiane d'Almeida	2.4%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$2Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$1K to $4KLoading
Jaylon McDaniel	1.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$2Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$1K to $4KLoading
William Campbell	0.3%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence	Not applicable	$2Kspeculative, floor onlyLoading	$1K 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: $210K; 80% Range $76K to $560K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $170K to $220K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 13; 6 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
Anias Futrell	80.1%	$34K	$11K to $100K	17.1%	$28K to $37K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jadis Jones	77.4%	$47K	$16K to $140K	21.3%	$39K to $50K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Mekhi Cooper	77.0%	$6K	$1K to $36K	3.5%	$5K to $6K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Dontrez Williams	74.9%	$23K	$3K to $75K	13.6%	$19K to $25K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Milos Nenadic	71.3%	$45K	$15K to $135K	20.0%	$36K to $48K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Clayton Jackson	60.5%	$16K	$2K to $54K	9.9%	$13K to $17K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Robert Lewis	37.8%	$6K	$1K to $24K	3.7%	$5K to $6K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Kevin Anthony	7.3%	$2K	$1K to $4K	0.8%	$1K to $2K	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Jeremiah Talton	6.5%	$2K	$1K to $4K	0.8%	$1K to $2K	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Todd Bieg	3.1%	$2K	$1K to $4K	0.8%	$1K to $2K	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Tidiane d'Almeida	2.4%	$2K	$1K to $4K	0.8%	$1K to $2K	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Jaylon McDaniel	1.6%	$2K	$1K to $4K	0.8%	$1K to $2K	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
William Campbell	0.3%	$2K	$1K to $4K	0.8%	$1K to $2K	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$210K	$76K to $560K	100%	$170K to $220K	—

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, Lindenwood University (NCAA Division I-FCS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$1,241,973	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$1,241,973
Athletics department expenses	$21,376,019
Athletics department revenue	$21,376,019

Coverage and exclusions

26 of 30 games passed lineup acceptance (87%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

4 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 expensesrevenue equals expenses

Reported revenue	$1,241,973	Reported by the school; not NIL pay and not a model output.
Reported expenses	$1,241,973	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	1
2 days	9
3 or more days	19

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	2
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