Patrick Ngongba
Duke · 2025–26 · 32 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season
Logged performance
702:59 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 32
- Minutes per game
- 21:58
- Points per game
- 10.1
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 5.8 / 2.0
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 10.1 | 5.8 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 2.8 |
| Per 40 minutes | 18.4 | 10.6 | 3.6 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 5.1 |
| Season totals | 323 | 186 | 64 | 19 | 34 | 42 | 90 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 114–188 | 60.6% | 5.9 | 10.7 |
| 2P | 106–157 | 67.5% | 4.9 | 8.9 |
| 3P | 8–31 | 25.8%† | 1.0 | 1.8 |
| FT | 87–131 | 66.4% | 4.1 | 7.5 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62.8% | 65.7% | 16.5% | 69.7% | 1.52 |
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
- $400K
- 80% range $280K to $580K
- Median share of team pool
- 11.1%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.60M to $4.90M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $400K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $29K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 46.6%
- 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 | $400Kspeculative | $280K to $580K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +7.1 | +5.9 to +8.2 | Sufficient evidence | +2.6 | +4.5 | +4.1range +3.7 to +4.5 | 2,303 | Prior built from the box-score line only, without a prior-season value. 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 | 18:51 | 21:58 | 10:33–33:56 | |
| Points | 7.0 | 10.1 | 3.0–17.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 75.6% | 66.4% | 25.0%–116.7% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-29 | UConn | L 72–73 | 22:11 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2-4 | 0-2 | 2-4 | 50.0% |
| 2026-03-27 | St. John's (NY) | W 80–75 | 16:36 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 1-6 | 100.0% |
| 2026-03-21 | TCU | W 81–58 | 13:23 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 100.0% |
| 2026-03-02 | NC State | W 93–64 | 18:54 | 11 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4-6 | 0-0 | 3-4 | 66.7% |
| 2026-02-28 | Virginia | W 77–51 | 23:10 | 11 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5-9 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 61.1% |
| 2026-02-24 | Notre Dame | W 100–56 | 15:01 | 13 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 4-5 | 0-0 | 5-6 | 80.0% |
| 2026-02-21 | Michigan | W 68–63 | 27:22 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4-8 | 0-1 | 3-5 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-16 | Syracuse | W 101–64 | 26:16 | 12 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5-10 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-14 | Clemson | W 67–54 | 18:19 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 4-6 | 33.3% |
| 2026-02-07 | North Carolina | L 68–71 | 16:20 | 4 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2-5 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 40.0% |
| 2026-02-03 | Boston College | W 67–49 | 21:05 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2-5 | 1-1 | 4-6 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-31 | Virginia Tech | W 72–58 | 24:18 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4-7 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 64.3% |
| 2026-01-26 | Louisville | W 83–52 | 24:14 | 15 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5-8 | 0-1 | 5-5 | 62.5% |
| 2026-01-24 | Wake Forest | W 90–69 | 14:35 | 13 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5-9 | 0-0 | 3-5 | 55.6% |
| 2026-01-17 | Stanford | W 80–50 | 17:08 | 13 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3-4 | 0-0 | 7-8 | 75.0% |
| 2026-01-14 | California | W 71–56 | 23:02 | 8 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 3-5 | 0-1 | 2-5 | 60.0% |
| 2026-01-10 | SMU | W 82–75 | 27:32 | 17 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6-10 | 0-2 | 5-6 | 60.0% |
| 2026-01-06 | Louisville | W 84–73 | 10:33 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1-4 | 0-1 | 2-4 | 25.0% |
| 2026-01-03 | Florida St. | W 91–87 | 25:48 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4-5 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 80.0% |
| 2025-12-31 | Georgia Tech | W 85–79 | 28:52 | 11 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3-4 | 1-1 | 4-9 | 87.5% |
| 2025-12-20 | Texas Tech | L 81–82 | 20:45 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 2-5 | 100.0% |
| 2025-12-16 | Lipscomb | W 97–73 | 24:03 | 10 | 11 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5-9 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 55.6% |
| 2025-12-06 | Michigan St. | W 66–60 | 25:25 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 4-8 | 33.3% |
| 2025-12-02 | Florida | W 67–66 | 33:56 | 11 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4-6 | 2-3 | 1-2 | 83.3% |
| 2025-11-27 | Arkansas | W 80–71 | 29:19 | 11 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4-8 | 1-2 | 2-2 | 56.3% |
| 2025-11-23 | Howard | W 93–56 | 17:16 | 16 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 8-9 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 88.9% |
| 2025-11-21 | Niagara | W 100–42 | 20:41 | 17 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3-3 | 1-1 | 10-11 | 116.7% |
| 2025-11-18 | Kansas | W 78–66 | 26:48 | 13 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4-4 | 0-0 | 5-7 | 100.0% |
| 2025-11-14 | Indiana St. | W 100–62 | 21:09 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4-6 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 66.7% |
| 2025-11-11 | Army West Point | W 114–59 | 22:47 | 16 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 6-12 | 0-3 | 4-5 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-08 | Western Caro. | W 95–54 | 22:24 | 10 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4-6 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 66.7% |
| 2025-11-04 | Texas | W 75–60 | 23:47 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4-7 | 0-2 | 2-3 | 57.1% |