Brian Taylor
ETSU · 2025–26 · 32 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season
Logged performance
1083:21 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 32
- Minutes per game
- 33:51
- Points per game
- 14.8
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 3.7 / 2.9
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 14.8 | 3.7 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 1.4 | 2.1 |
| Per 40 minutes | 17.5 | 4.4 | 3.4 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 1.7 | 2.4 |
| Season totals | 474 | 119 | 92 | 38 | 4 | 46 | 66 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 172–377 | 45.6% | 11.8 | 13.9 |
| 2P | 120–228 | 52.6% | 7.1 | 8.4 |
| 3P | 52–149 | 34.9% | 4.7 | 5.5 |
| FT | 78–102 | 76.5% | 3.2 | 3.8 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 52.5% | 56.2% | 39.5% | 27.1% | 2.00 |
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
ETSU · 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
- $34K
- 80% range $10K to $105K
- Median share of team pool
- 16.0%
- team pool $235K, 80% range $88K to $635K
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $33K to $35K
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $2K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 86.1%
- 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.
ETSU: 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 | ETSU | $34Kspeculative | $10K to $105K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +1.4 | +0.1 to +2.8 | Sufficient evidence | +1.1 | +0.3 | +6.4range +5.5 to +7.4 | 3,347 | 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 | 36:46 | 33:51 | 19:36–44:34 | |
| Points | 15.2 | 14.8 | 3.0–28.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 48.8% | 52.3% | 11.1%–95.8% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-09 | Furman | L 61–76 | 39:50 | 16 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7-14 | 1-4 | 1-4 | 53.6% |
| 2026-03-08 | Western Caro. | W 69–67 | 40:00 | 22 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8-16 | 4-9 | 2-3 | 62.5% |
| 2026-03-07 | The Citadel | W 83–76 | 35:02 | 11 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5-12 | 1-5 | 0-1 | 45.8% |
| 2026-02-28 | Mercer | L 76–82 | 32:44 | 15 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6-15 | 3-7 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-25 · NCAA | Wofford | L 69–72 | 36:12 | 12 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4-14 | 1-5 | 3-4 | 32.1% |
| 2026-02-21 | UNC Greensboro | W 87–75 | 36:14 | 25 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10-12 | 3-5 | 2-2 | 95.8% |
| 2026-02-18 | Furman | W 78–69 | 39:33 | 17 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5-15 | 2-4 | 5-6 | 40.0% |
| 2026-02-14 | Samford | L 72–82 | 44:34 | 28 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 11-18 | 3-7 | 3-4 | 69.4% |
| 2026-02-11 | Chattanooga | W 73–61 | 26:47 | 8 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3-6 | 0-1 | 2-4 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-07 | VMI | W 87–70 | 20:55 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2-9 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 27.8% |
| 2026-02-04 | Furman | W 75–71 | 35:46 | 14 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 5-13 | 2-4 | 2-2 | 46.2% |
| 2026-02-01 · NCAA | Wofford | W 86–72 | 27:12 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1-9 | 0-2 | 4-4 | 11.1% |
| 2026-01-29 | Western Caro. | L 88–90 | 39:07 | 24 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 8-15 | 2-7 | 6-7 | 60.0% |
| 2026-01-23 | The Citadel | W 84–55 | 23:10 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3-5 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 60.0% |
| 2026-01-21 | Chattanooga | W 67–66 | 34:35 | 15 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6-19 | 1-9 | 2-3 | 34.2% |
| 2026-01-17 | Samford | W 76–75 | 32:30 | 13 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4-11 | 1-2 | 4-4 | 40.9% |
| 2026-01-14 | Western Caro. | L 68–72 | 39:01 | 23 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 7-13 | 4-7 | 5-8 | 69.2% |
| 2026-01-10 | UNC Greensboro | W 86–60 | 27:04 | 12 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6-10 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 60.0% |
| 2026-01-07 | VMI | W 81–67 | 34:42 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3-8 | 0-4 | 1-2 | 37.5% |
| 2026-01-03 | Mercer | W 77–71 | 38:53 | 21 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 5-12 | 1-5 | 10-12 | 45.8% |
| 2025-12-30 | The Citadel | W 74–49 | 31:00 | 13 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-9 | 2-3 | 5-5 | 44.4% |
| 2025-12-20 | Jacksonville St. | L 75–81 | 34:35 | 20 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 7-10 | 3-4 | 3-3 | 85.0% |
| 2025-12-16 | North Carolina | L 58–77 | 38:59 | 14 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4-13 | 1-5 | 5-5 | 34.6% |
| 2025-12-12 | Austin Peay | L 75–76 | 32:50 | 19 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 8-14 | 3-8 | 0-0 | 67.9% |
| 2025-12-05 | South Alabama | W 91–65 | 23:14 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1-5 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 30.0% |
| 2025-12-02 | Dayton | L 71–88 | 39:58 | 16 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 7-13 | 2-5 | 0-0 | 61.5% |
| 2025-11-29 | Central Ark. | W 80–57 | 34:48 | 14 | 10 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5-12 | 2-6 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-23 · NCAA | ULM | W 97–55 | 19:36 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4-6 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 83.3% |
| 2025-11-21 | Morehead St. | W 77–62 | 38:06 | 21 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 7-13 | 2-5 | 5-5 | 61.5% |
| 2025-11-15 | North Ala. | W 78–74 | 33:14 | 11 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4-14 | 1-5 | 2-4 | 32.1% |
| 2025-11-12 | Northern Ky. | W 75–63 | 35:48 | 20 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 7-12 | 2-4 | 4-8 | 66.7% |
| 2025-11-08 | Presbyterian | L 64–68 | 37:22 | 13 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 6-10 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 65.0% |