Aiden Sherrell
Alabama · 2025–26 · 34 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
816:51 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 34
- Minutes per game
- 24:01
- Points per game
- 11.1
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 6.2 / 1.1
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 11.1 | 6.2 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 2.1 |
| Per 40 minutes | 18.6 | 10.3 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 3.7 | 1.6 | 3.4 |
| Season totals | 379 | 210 | 39 | 20 | 76 | 32 | 70 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 130–241 | 53.9% | 7.1 | 11.8 |
| 2P | 103–161 | 64.0% | 4.7 | 7.9 |
| 3P | 27–80 | 33.8% | 2.4 | 3.9 |
| FT | 92–129 | 71.3% | 3.8 | 6.3 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 59.5% | 63.6% | 33.2% | 53.5% | 1.22 |
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
Alabama · Power 4 · 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
- $675K
- 80% range $425K to $1.25M
- Median share of team pool
- 18.3%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.55M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $675K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $19K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 58.8%
- Sufficient evidence
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. House-settlement $20.5M cap (College Sports Commission, 2026-10-01) times a modelled utilisation of about 97 percent times a men's basketball share of about 18 percent (school statements and an industry study); Power 4 schools are at or near the cap nationally.
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.
Alabama: 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 | Alabama | $675Kspeculative | $425K to $1.25M | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +6.3 | +4.7 to +7.6 | Sufficient evidence | +3.2 | +3.1 | +6.8range +6.1 to +7.3 | 2,895 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Alabama | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +2.4 | +1.2 to +3.7 | Sufficient evidence | +1.6 | +0.8 | +1.4range +1.2 to +1.7 | 1,102 | 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 | 26:33 | 24:01 | 9:03–38:04 | |
| Points | 11.8 | 11.1 | 3.0–26.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 63.0% | 61.9% | 0.0%–150.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-27 | Michigan | L 77–90 | 32:16 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4-11 | 2-5 | 0-0 | 45.5% |
| 2026-03-22 | Texas Tech | W 90–65 | 16:00 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4-4 | 1-1 | 1-1 | 112.5% |
| 2026-03-20 | Hofstra | W 90–70 | 30:11 | 15 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4-12 | 2-6 | 5-6 | 41.7% |
| 2026-03-13 | Ole Miss | L 79–80 | 30:38 | 14 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 5-9 | 0-2 | 4-6 | 55.6% |
| 2026-03-07 | Auburn | W 96–84 | 23:40 | 10 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3-5 | 0-1 | 4-9 | 60.0% |
| 2026-03-03 | Georgia | L 88–98 | 27:11 | 12 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4-6 | 2-4 | 2-2 | 83.3% |
| 2026-02-28 | Tennessee | W 71–69 | 33:11 | 6 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1-6 | 0-1 | 4-4 | 16.7% |
| 2026-02-25 | Mississippi St. | W 100–75 | 24:36 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-6 | 2-4 | 3-4 | 66.7% |
| 2026-02-21 | LSU | W 90–83 | 20:21 | 12 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 4-5 | 2-3 | 2-3 | 100.0% |
| 2026-02-18 | Arkansas | W 117–115 | 38:04 | 26 | 13 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 10-13 | 0-0 | 6-7 | 76.9% |
| 2026-02-14 | South Carolina | W 89–75 | 27:31 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5-10 | 0-3 | 1-3 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-11 | Ole Miss | W 93–74 | 25:46 | 15 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4-7 | 1-2 | 6-6 | 64.3% |
| 2026-02-07 | Auburn | W 96–92 | 23:37 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2-6 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 33.3% |
| 2026-02-04 | Texas A&M | W 100–97 | 22:16 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0-4 | 0-3 | 8-8 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-01 | Florida | L 77–100 | 26:25 | 13 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5-7 | 0-0 | 3-4 | 71.4% |
| 2026-01-27 | Missouri | W 90–64 | 22:27 | 16 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4-7 | 1-3 | 7-9 | 64.3% |
| 2026-01-24 | Tennessee | L 73–79 | 22:21 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 2-3 | 1-1 | 1-2 | 83.3% |
| 2026-01-17 | Oklahoma | W 83–81 | 31:45 | 21 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8-12 | 2-5 | 3-4 | 75.0% |
| 2026-01-13 | Mississippi St. | W 97–82 | 23:38 | 22 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5-11 | 2-6 | 10-11 | 54.5% |
| 2026-01-10 | Texas | L 88–92 | 24:10 | 13 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 6-8 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 81.3% |
| 2026-01-03 | Kentucky | W 89–74 | 9:43 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1-3 | 0-2 | 1-1 | 33.3% |
| 2025-12-29 | Yale | W 102–78 | 24:36 | 9 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4-8 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 56.3% |
| 2025-12-21 | Kennesaw St. | W 92–81 | 23:53 | 21 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 8-10 | 1-1 | 4-7 | 85.0% |
| 2025-12-17 | South Fla. | W 104–93 | 24:32 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 3-11 | 0-4 | 0-2 | 27.3% |
| 2025-12-13 | Arizona | L 75–96 | 20:47 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 3-7 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-07 | UTSA | W 97–55 | 19:26 | 3 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1-6 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 25.0% |
| 2025-12-03 | Clemson | W 90–84 | 30:07 | 5 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 3-8 | 33.3% |
| 2025-11-27 | Maryland | W 105–72 | 22:42 | 11 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 5-7 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 71.4% |
| 2025-11-26 | UNLV | W 115–76 | 13:32 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 60.0% |
| 2025-11-24 | Gonzaga | L 85–95 | 30:11 | 14 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 6-9 | 0-1 | 2-5 | 66.7% |
| 2025-11-19 | Illinois | W 90–86 | 9:03 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1-1 | 1-1 | 3-4 | 150.0% |
| 2025-11-13 | Purdue | L 80–87 | 24:29 | 12 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4-5 | 1-2 | 3-3 | 90.0% |
| 2025-11-08 | St. John's (NY) | W 103–96 | 17:32 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 4-9 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-03 | North Dakota | W 91–62 | 20:14 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 3-5 | 1-2 | 2-3 | 70.0% |