Rich Smith
Abilene Christian · 2025–26 · 29 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
879:11 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 29
- Minutes per game
- 30:19
- Points per game
- 10.2
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 4.0 / 4.6
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 10.2 | 4.0 | 4.6 | 1.9 | 0.3 | 2.6 | 2.9 |
| Per 40 minutes | 13.5 | 5.3 | 6.1 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 3.5 | 3.8 |
| Season totals | 297 | 116 | 134 | 55 | 8 | 76 | 83 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 104–202 | 51.5% | 7.0 | 9.2 |
| 2P | 101–190 | 53.2% | 6.6 | 8.6 |
| 3P | 3–12 | 25.0%† | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| FT | 86–132 | 65.2% | 4.6 | 6.0 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 52.2% | 57.1% | 5.9% | 65.3% | 1.76 |
Accepted logged appearances only; absent games are not zeroes. † marks a rate on fewer attempts than the floor (field goal 100, three-point 50, free throw 25). Floors are descriptive, not model output. Definitions
Speculative compensation · 2025–26β
Abilene Chr · Low and other · 2025–26 · a best guess at this player's part of the school's own revenue-sharing budget for men's basketball.
- Speculative best guess
- $43K
- 80% range $12K to $135K
- Median share of team pool
- 16.7%
- team pool $250K, 80% range $91K to $665K
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $41K to $44K
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $2K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 77.5%
- Sufficient evidence
- Range driven by assumption, not data
Speculative best guess, not observed pay. It is not a contract, not an offer and not a market price, and it is unvalidated: no pay is held to check it against. Point is the median and the range is the 10th to 90th percentile of 4,000 joint draws of budget and player value; a mixture of assumptions, not a calibrated interval.
Budget anchor. Tier prior from anonymous surveys and sources, scaled so that all non-Power budgets sum to the national total the College Sports Commission reported paid for 2025-26 ($1,770,453,776 over 307 schools) less the Power 4 total, times a men's basketball share; weak anchor.
Assumptions. modelled pool; split by possession share times value over replacement; convexity; shared floor; replacement level; four elasticity scenarios; closure to the national total; opt-out list; exclusions. Each is a declared judgement, not an estimate. Numbers, anchors and checks
Not included. Third-party and collective NIL deals, including deals cleared through NIL Go. Non-cash benefits such as scholarship, cost of attendance, Alston awards and housing. Bonuses and incentive terms. Anything outside the school's own revenue-sharing channel.
Abilene Chr: whole-roster table and pool · School finances (school-reported) · What-if calculator for this player
No revenue-sharing budget existed before the 2025–26 season, so no compensation figure is modelled for earlier seasons.
What-If Calculator · Speculativeβ
Re-runs the 4,000 joint draws with your inputs. The address saves your inputs.
Model-implied value and speculative compensation by seasonβ
| Season | Team | Speculative compensation (best guess) | Compensation 80% range | Split role | Net | Range | Evidence | Range graphic. Position on one axis | Offense | Defense | Wins above replacement | On-court possessions | Sample and flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Abilene Chr | $43Kspeculative | $12K to $135K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +1.3 | +0.1 to +2.6 | Sufficient evidence | +0.4 | +0.9 | +4.7range +4.2 to +5.3 | 2,246 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Abilene Chr | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +1.8 | +0.7 to +3.1 | Sufficient evidence | +0.0 | +1.7 | +3.0range +2.6 to +3.5 | 2,190 | Season detail |
Open circle: limited evidence. Filled circle: sufficient evidence. Vertical line: zero. This table makes no claim about change over time, so it has no change column or trend. Seasons 2011 to 2017 have a point value but no range, so none is shown. Compensation exists for 2025–26 only; earlier rows say that no budget existed. NIL methodology · Compensation methodology
Game log
| Measure | Graphic | Last five | Listed games | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minutes | 28:15 | 30:19 | 20:12–36:25 | |
| Points | 11.4 | 10.2 | 0.0–22.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 57.9% | 51.0% | 0.0%–87.5% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-12 | Utah Tech | L 74–80 | 27:12 | 19 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 8-13 | 0-0 | 3-3 | 61.5% |
| 2026-03-11 | Tarleton St. | W 84–78 | 34:30 | 17 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4-9 | 0-1 | 9-14 | 44.4% |
| 2026-03-07 | UT Arlington | L 57–64 | 28:04 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5-6 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 83.3% |
| 2026-03-05 · NCAA | California Baptist | L 48–87 | 21:06 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 3-4 | — |
| 2026-02-28 | Utah Valley | L 67–74 | 30:24 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 4-4 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-26 | Utah Tech | L 81–85 | 28:56 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-21 | Southern Utah | W 87–83 | 25:31 | 14 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 5-6 | 0-0 | 4-6 | 83.3% |
| 2026-02-16 | Tarleton St. | L 62–65 | 35:33 | 12 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 6-9 | 0-0 | 0-2 | 66.7% |
| 2026-02-14 | Tarleton St. | W 73–59 | 26:51 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 0-3 | 0-1 | 0-2 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-12 | UT Arlington | W 67–63 | 34:44 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 3-10 | 0-1 | 0-3 | 30.0% |
| 2026-02-07 | California Baptist | L 63–65 | 27:39 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 2-6 | 0-0 | 4-4 | 33.3% |
| 2026-02-05 | Utah Valley | L 55–68 | 34:12 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 0-3 | 25.0% |
| 2026-01-31 | Southern Utah | L 76–79 | 31:38 | 18 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 8-12 | 0-1 | 2-5 | 66.7% |
| 2026-01-29 | Utah Tech | L 70–76 | 27:59 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 3-8 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 37.5% |
| 2026-01-17 · NCAA | Southern Utah | L 52–74 | 35:24 | 10 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2-8 | 0-0 | 6-9 | 25.0% |
| 2026-01-15 · NCAA | California Baptist | L 58–74 | 35:00 | 22 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 7-12 | 0-0 | 8-10 | 58.3% |
| 2026-01-10 | UT Arlington | L 72–82 | 36:25 | 15 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5-7 | 0-0 | 5-10 | 71.4% |
| 2026-01-08 | Tarleton St. | W 84–80 | 31:06 | 16 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 6-8 | 0-0 | 4-7 | 75.0% |
| 2026-01-03 | Utah Valley | W 85–68 | 31:22 | 13 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6-13 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 46.2% |
| 2026-01-01 · NCAA | Utah Tech | L 64–79 | 31:30 | 22 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 7-8 | 0-1 | 8-11 | 87.5% |
| 2025-12-22 | Texas Southern | W 75–68 | 36:03 | 14 | 5 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5-8 | 0-1 | 4-5 | 62.5% |
| 2025-12-19 · NCAA | BYU | L 67–85 | 30:36 | 5 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 2-12 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 20.8% |
| 2025-12-06 | New Mexico St. | W 77–69 | 26:25 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 4-5 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 80.0% |
| 2025-12-02 | Pepperdine | W 71–63 | 28:31 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2-3 | 0-1 | 6-8 | 66.7% |
| 2025-11-25 · NCAA | William & Mary | L 58–92 | 27:36 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 33.3% |
| 2025-11-24 | UTSA | W 61–50 | 34:20 | 9 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2-6 | 1-1 | 4-6 | 41.7% |
| 2025-11-18 · NCAA | Texas St. | L 49–63 | 20:12 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 33.3% |
| 2025-11-14 | SFA | L 66–76 | 33:52 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 2-6 | 0-0 | 6-6 | 33.3% |
| 2025-11-06 · NCAA | Omaha | W 73–71 | 26:30 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2-4 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 62.5% |