Houston Mallette
Alabama · 2025–26 · 35 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
814:48 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 35
- Minutes per game
- 23:17
- Points per game
- 6.6
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 4.5 / 1.1
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 6.6 | 4.5 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 1.8 |
| Per 40 minutes | 11.3 | 7.7 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 3.1 |
| Season totals | 230 | 157 | 40 | 22 | 0 | 14 | 64 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 70–188 | 37.2% | 5.4 | 9.2 |
| 2P | 11–22 | 50.0%† | 0.6 | 1.1 |
| 3P | 59–166 | 35.5% | 4.7 | 8.1 |
| FT | 31–35 | 88.6% | 1.0 | 1.7 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 52.9% | 56.5% | 88.3% | 18.6% | 2.86 |
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
- $325K
- 80% range $170K to $490K
- Median share of team pool
- 9.6%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.55M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $325K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $19K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 57.4%
- 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 | $325Kspeculative | $170K to $490K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +2.7 | +1.5 to +3.6 | Sufficient evidence | +2.6 | +0.1 | +5.1range +4.5 to +5.6 | 2,826 | Season detail | |
| 2022 | Pepperdine | None: no budget that season | — | development: in model selection | -1.1 | -2.1 to +0.1 | Sufficient evidence | +0.2 | -1.3 | Not computed for this season | 3,071 |
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 | 22:57 | 23:17 | 14:23–33:00 | |
| Points | 4.2 | 6.6 | 0.0–19.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 29.8% | 48.7% | 0.0%–100.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-27 | Michigan | L 77–90 | 25:06 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1-6 | 1-5 | 0-0 | 25.0% |
| 2026-03-22 | Texas Tech | W 90–65 | 24:30 | 15 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5-8 | 5-7 | 0-0 | 93.8% |
| 2026-03-20 | Hofstra | W 90–70 | 19:07 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0-2 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-03-13 | Ole Miss | L 79–80 | 25:47 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1-5 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 30.0% |
| 2026-03-07 | Auburn | W 96–84 | 20:13 | 0 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-03-03 | Georgia | L 88–98 | 23:11 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1-4 | 1-4 | 2-2 | 37.5% |
| 2026-02-28 | Tennessee | W 71–69 | 18:00 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1-3 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-25 | Mississippi St. | W 100–75 | 21:27 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3-7 | 3-7 | 0-0 | 64.3% |
| 2026-02-21 | LSU | W 90–83 | 22:22 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2-3 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 100.0% |
| 2026-02-18 | Arkansas | W 117–115 | 27:33 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2-3 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 100.0% |
| 2026-02-14 | South Carolina | W 89–75 | 21:57 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1-4 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 37.5% |
| 2026-02-11 | Ole Miss | W 93–74 | 21:25 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1-8 | 1-8 | 2-2 | 18.8% |
| 2026-02-07 | Auburn | W 96–92 | 22:40 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2-3 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 100.0% |
| 2026-02-04 | Texas A&M | W 100–97 | 14:23 | 12 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 4-9 | 4-8 | 0-0 | 66.7% |
| 2026-02-01 | Florida | L 77–100 | 20:02 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1-5 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 30.0% |
| 2026-01-27 | Missouri | W 90–64 | 25:10 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1-5 | 1-5 | 0-0 | 30.0% |
| 2026-01-24 | Tennessee | L 73–79 | 28:25 | 2 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1-2 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-17 | Oklahoma | W 83–81 | 30:22 | 12 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4-8 | 3-7 | 1-2 | 68.8% |
| 2026-01-13 | Mississippi St. | W 97–82 | 22:00 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3-8 | 1-6 | 0-0 | 43.8% |
| 2026-01-10 | Texas | L 88–92 | 17:32 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0-4 | 0-4 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-07 | Vanderbilt | L 90–96 | 20:21 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0-2 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-03 | Kentucky | W 89–74 | 21:37 | 14 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5-7 | 4-6 | 0-0 | 100.0% |
| 2025-12-29 | Yale | W 102–78 | 24:48 | 12 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4-9 | 4-9 | 0-0 | 66.7% |
| 2025-12-21 | Kennesaw St. | W 92–81 | 25:20 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 75.0% |
| 2025-12-17 | South Fla. | W 104–93 | 24:35 | 14 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5-8 | 3-5 | 1-2 | 81.3% |
| 2025-12-13 | Arizona | L 75–96 | 23:12 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1-3 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-07 | UTSA | W 97–55 | 23:31 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0-5 | 0-5 | 1-1 | 0.0% |
| 2025-12-03 | Clemson | W 90–84 | 33:00 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2-6 | 2-6 | 4-5 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-27 | Maryland | W 105–72 | 24:57 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-7 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 64.3% |
| 2025-11-26 | UNLV | W 115–76 | 21:29 | 19 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5-14 | 4-12 | 5-5 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-24 | Gonzaga | L 85–95 | 25:32 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-2 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-19 | Illinois | W 90–86 | 23:50 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2-5 | 1-4 | 5-5 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-13 | Purdue | L 80–87 | 18:57 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3-7 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 64.3% |
| 2025-11-08 | St. John's (NY) | W 103–96 | 23:15 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1-6 | 1-6 | 5-5 | 25.0% |
| 2025-11-03 | North Dakota | W 91–62 | 29:12 | 15 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4-6 | 2-4 | 5-5 | 83.3% |