Caleb Foster
Duke · 2025–26 · 33 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
821:06 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 33
- Minutes per game
- 24:53
- Points per game
- 8.3
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 3.5 / 2.8
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 8.3 | 3.5 | 2.8 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 1.1 | 1.7 |
| Per 40 minutes | 13.3 | 5.7 | 4.5 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 1.8 | 2.7 |
| Season totals | 273 | 116 | 92 | 10 | 2 | 36 | 55 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 101–226 | 44.7% | 6.8 | 11.0 |
| 2P | 62–128 | 48.4% | 3.9 | 6.2 |
| 3P | 39–98 | 39.8% | 3.0 | 4.8 |
| FT | 32–55 | 58.2% | 1.7 | 2.7 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 53.3% | 54.6% | 43.4% | 24.3% | 2.56 |
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
Duke · 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
- $300K
- 80% range $170K to $460K
- Median share of team pool
- 8.9%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.60M to $4.90M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $300K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $29K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 54.4%
- 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.
Duke: 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 | Duke | $300Kspeculative | $170K to $460K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +4.3 | +3.0 to +5.7 | Sufficient evidence | +2.6 | +1.8 | +4.0range +3.4 to +4.6 | 2,689 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Duke | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +1.0 | -0.5 to +2.3 | Sufficient evidence | +0.9 | +0.1 | +1.0range +0.8 to +1.2 | 1,618 | Season detail | |
| 2024 | Duke | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +0.3 | -0.8 to +1.3 | Sufficient evidence | +1.4 | -1.1 | +1.8range +1.4 to +2.2 | 1,864 | 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 | 18:20 | 24:53 | 10:25–35:00 | |
| Points | 5.4 | 8.3 | 0.0–20.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 35.4% | 52.0% | 0.0%–112.5% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-29 | UConn | L 72–73 | 13:54 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-03-27 | St. John's (NY) | W 80–75 | 18:15 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5-8 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 62.5% |
| 2026-03-07 | North Carolina | W 76–61 | 10:25 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2-6 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 41.7% |
| 2026-03-02 | NC State | W 93–64 | 24:47 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2-8 | 1-5 | 1-2 | 31.3% |
| 2026-02-28 | Virginia | W 77–51 | 24:19 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2-6 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 41.7% |
| 2026-02-24 | Notre Dame | W 100–56 | 21:13 | 13 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4-6 | 3-5 | 2-2 | 91.7% |
| 2026-02-21 | Michigan | W 68–63 | 27:26 | 12 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4-9 | 2-3 | 2-2 | 55.6% |
| 2026-02-16 | Syracuse | W 101–64 | 20:24 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1-5 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 30.0% |
| 2026-02-14 | Clemson | W 67–54 | 25:15 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1-4 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 37.5% |
| 2026-02-10 | Pittsburgh | W 70–54 | 35:00 | 14 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6-11 | 1-3 | 1-2 | 59.1% |
| 2026-02-07 | North Carolina | L 68–71 | 33:40 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4-8 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 56.3% |
| 2026-02-03 | Boston College | W 67–49 | 28:43 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-4 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 87.5% |
| 2026-01-31 | Virginia Tech | W 72–58 | 25:15 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3-7 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-26 | Louisville | W 83–52 | 31:30 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2-6 | 2-3 | 1-4 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-24 | Wake Forest | W 90–69 | 23:36 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4-6 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 66.7% |
| 2026-01-17 | Stanford | W 80–50 | 19:47 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0-5 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-14 | California | W 71–56 | 28:08 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4-8 | 1-5 | 0-0 | 56.3% |
| 2026-01-10 | SMU | W 82–75 | 15:03 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0-5 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-06 | Louisville | W 84–73 | 33:43 | 20 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 9-13 | 0-2 | 2-6 | 69.2% |
| 2026-01-03 | Florida St. | W 91–87 | 31:03 | 13 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4-9 | 3-5 | 2-2 | 61.1% |
| 2025-12-31 | Georgia Tech | W 85–79 | 25:02 | 12 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4-10 | 3-6 | 1-2 | 55.0% |
| 2025-12-20 | Texas Tech | L 81–82 | 27:09 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3-7 | 2-4 | 0-2 | 57.1% |
| 2025-12-16 | Lipscomb | W 97–73 | 25:55 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2-6 | 0-2 | 4-4 | 33.3% |
| 2025-12-06 | Michigan St. | W 66–60 | 28:46 | 12 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4-9 | 1-4 | 3-4 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-02 | Florida | W 67–66 | 33:57 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2-7 | 1-4 | 1-3 | 35.7% |
| 2025-11-27 | Arkansas | W 80–71 | 32:53 | 15 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 5-10 | 2-3 | 3-4 | 60.0% |
| 2025-11-23 | Howard | W 93–56 | 23:43 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2-4 | 0-2 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-21 | Niagara | W 100–42 | 19:40 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-4 | 3-4 | 1-2 | 112.5% |
| 2025-11-18 | Kansas | W 78–66 | 24:24 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2-6 | 1-4 | 2-4 | 41.7% |
| 2025-11-14 | Indiana St. | W 100–62 | 23:31 | 14 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 5-12 | 2-5 | 2-4 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-11 | Army West Point | W 114–59 | 20:30 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2-3 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 100.0% |
| 2025-11-08 | Western Caro. | W 95–54 | 17:33 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4-7 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 64.3% |
| 2025-11-04 | Texas | W 75–60 | 26:37 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3-6 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 58.3% |