Andrew Henderson
UC Riverside · 2025–26 · 30 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
988:30 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 30
- Minutes per game
- 32:57
- Points per game
- 17.8
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 4.9 / 2.0
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 17.8 | 4.9 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 2.2 | 2.7 |
| Per 40 minutes | 21.6 | 5.9 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 2.6 | 3.3 |
| Season totals | 534 | 146 | 60 | 28 | 25 | 65 | 81 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 186–463 | 40.2% | 15.4 | 18.7 |
| 2P | 109–229 | 47.6% | 7.6 | 9.3 |
| 3P | 77–234 | 32.9% | 7.8 | 9.5 |
| FT | 85–108 | 78.7% | 3.6 | 4.4 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48.5% | 52.3% | 50.5% | 23.3% | 0.92 |
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
UC Riverside · 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
- $21K
- 80% range $2K to $78K
- Median share of team pool
- 13.8%
- team pool $220K, 80% range $78K to $590K
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $20K to $25K
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $2K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 83.3%
- 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.
UC Riverside: 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 | UC Riverside | $21Kspeculative | $2K to $78K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | -0.8 | -1.8 to +0.3 | Sufficient evidence | +0.4 | -1.1 | +3.8range +3.2 to +4.2 | 3,193 | 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 | 32:13 | 32:57 | 22:13–40:00 | |
| Points | 21.6 | 17.8 | 5.0–39.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 46.1% | 48.5% | 21.4%–100.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-06 | Hawaii | L 74–93 | 24:33 | 26 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 8-17 | 5-10 | 5-8 | 61.8% |
| 2026-02-28 | CSUN | W 95–84 | 33:04 | 17 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 6-20 | 3-13 | 2-2 | 37.5% |
| 2026-02-26 | UC Santa Barbara | L 59–70 | 38:43 | 17 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 6-17 | 0-4 | 5-6 | 35.3% |
| 2026-02-21 | UC Davis | L 73–78 | 26:46 | 22 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6-16 | 2-7 | 8-10 | 43.8% |
| 2026-02-19 | CSU Bakersfield | W 93–65 | 37:57 | 26 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 9-21 | 4-8 | 4-4 | 52.4% |
| 2026-02-14 | UC San Diego | L 66–72 | 33:54 | 21 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7-15 | 3-7 | 4-4 | 56.7% |
| 2026-02-12 | UC Santa Barbara | L 68–76 | 31:12 | 22 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 8-14 | 2-6 | 4-5 | 64.3% |
| 2026-02-07 | CSUN | L 74–88 | 32:16 | 12 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5-16 | 2-11 | 0-0 | 37.5% |
| 2026-02-05 | Cal St. Fullerton | L 72–78 | 38:04 | 19 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 6-22 | 2-12 | 5-7 | 31.8% |
| 2026-01-31 | Cal Poly | L 87–94 | 40:00 | 39 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 17-31 | 4-12 | 1-1 | 61.3% |
| 2026-01-29 | Long Beach St. | W 71–61 | 33:35 | 19 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 6-14 | 3-10 | 4-4 | 53.6% |
| 2026-01-24 | UC Davis | L 66–74 | 35:24 | 16 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 6-20 | 4-15 | 0-0 | 40.0% |
| 2026-01-22 | UC Irvine | L 66–80 | 35:19 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2-11 | 2-5 | 0-0 | 27.3% |
| 2026-01-17 | Cal St. Fullerton | W 81–72 | 36:04 | 17 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 7-15 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 56.7% |
| 2026-01-15 | Long Beach St. | L 73–88 | 39:18 | 14 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 6-16 | 2-8 | 0-0 | 43.8% |
| 2026-01-10 | UC San Diego | L 66–69 | 30:18 | 27 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 8-20 | 3-11 | 8-8 | 47.5% |
| 2026-01-08 | CSU Bakersfield | L 66–67 | 26:33 | 18 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 6-11 | 6-7 | 0-0 | 81.8% |
| 2026-01-01 | Hawaii | L 45–88 | 22:47 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3-11 | 0-5 | 0-0 | 27.3% |
| 2025-12-23 | UCLA | L 65–97 | 26:34 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1-7 | 1-5 | 2-2 | 21.4% |
| 2025-12-20 | St. Thomas (MN) | L 78–92 | 34:04 | 13 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 5-13 | 1-3 | 2-2 | 42.3% |
| 2025-12-13 | BYU | L 53–100 | 22:13 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5-15 | 3-9 | 1-2 | 43.3% |
| 2025-12-06 | Cal Poly | W 88–84 | 38:01 | 28 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 10-19 | 1-7 | 7-8 | 55.3% |
| 2025-12-04 | UC Irvine | L 60–73 | 36:20 | 10 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3-11 | 1-4 | 3-6 | 31.8% |
| 2025-11-29 | Utah Tech | L 69–77 | 37:26 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6-16 | 2-8 | 2-3 | 43.8% |
| 2025-11-24 | Grambling | W 83–74 | 37:01 | 32 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 11-16 | 4-8 | 6-6 | 81.3% |
| 2025-11-21 | San Diego | W 85–71 | 30:48 | 14 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 4-11 | 3-6 | 3-5 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-18 | California Baptist | L 57–80 | 32:29 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3-11 | 1-4 | 2-3 | 31.8% |
| 2025-11-15 · NCAA | North Dakota | L 74–76 | 33:48 | 12 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 3-12 | 1-8 | 5-10 | 29.2% |
| 2025-11-11 | New Mexico | L 68–82 | 39:44 | 27 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 10-21 | 7-13 | 0-0 | 64.3% |
| 2025-11-06 | North Dakota | W 74–70 | 24:15 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3-4 | 2-3 | 2-2 | 100.0% |