Mario Tatum, Jr.
VMI · 2025–26 · 29 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
756:21 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 29
- Minutes per game
- 26:05
- Points per game
- 8.1
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 2.0 / 1.4
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 8.1 | 2.0 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 1.8 |
| Per 40 minutes | 12.4 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 1.0 | 2.7 |
| Season totals | 235 | 58 | 41 | 17 | 3 | 18 | 51 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 82–217 | 37.8% | 7.5 | 11.5 |
| 2P | 60–127 | 47.2% | 4.4 | 6.7 |
| 3P | 22–90 | 24.4% | 3.1 | 4.8 |
| FT | 49–75 | 65.3% | 2.6 | 4.0 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 42.9% | 47.0% | 41.5% | 34.6% | 2.28 |
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
VMI · 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
- $17K
- 80% range $1K to $75K
- Median share of team pool
- 12.5%
- team pool $210K, 80% range $78K to $575K
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $16K to $19K
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $2K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 64.9%
- 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.
VMI: 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 | VMI | $17Kspeculative | $1K to $75K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | -2.5 | -3.4 to -1.1 | Sufficient evidence | +0.0 | -2.5 | +1.5range +1.3 to +1.8 | 2,263 | 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 | 22:02 | 26:05 | 15:42–36:42 | |
| Points | 4.4 | 8.1 | 0.0–19.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 38.6% | 42.4% | 0.0%–100.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-06 | UNC Greensboro | L 70–84 | 30:12 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2-7 | 0-4 | 2-3 | 28.6% |
| 2026-02-28 | Chattanooga | L 79–86 | 19:06 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1-7 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 14.3% |
| 2026-02-26 | Samford | L 61–80 | 26:59 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3-7 | 1-4 | 3-4 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-21 | Western Caro. | L 62–81 | 15:42 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 100.0% |
| 2026-02-18 · NCAA | Wofford | L 76–82 | 18:12 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-14 | Furman | L 72–90 | 32:36 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1-6 | 1-4 | 2-2 | 25.0% |
| 2026-02-11 | UNC Greensboro | L 71–92 | 29:12 | 10 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5-6 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 83.3% |
| 2026-02-07 | ETSU | L 70–87 | 29:47 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1-6 | 0-2 | 2-2 | 16.7% |
| 2026-02-04 · NCAA | Wofford | L 67–81 | 36:42 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2-7 | 0-2 | 4-7 | 28.6% |
| 2026-01-31 | Mercer | L 81–95 | 19:12 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1-5 | 1-3 | 2-2 | 30.0% |
| 2026-01-29 | The Citadel | L 56–80 | 36:35 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4-10 | 2-4 | 1-1 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-24 | Western Caro. | L 58–88 | 24:28 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-7 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 42.9% |
| 2026-01-21 | UNC Greensboro | L 78–85 | 28:02 | 11 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4-10 | 1-3 | 2-5 | 45.0% |
| 2026-01-17 | The Citadel | L 68–82 | 25:27 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5-8 | 1-3 | 1-2 | 68.8% |
| 2026-01-15 | Mercer | L 67–77 | 25:04 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2-8 | 1-5 | 2-2 | 31.3% |
| 2026-01-10 | Furman | L 48–69 | 22:49 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1-9 | 1-4 | 0-2 | 16.7% |
| 2026-01-07 | ETSU | L 67–81 | 29:40 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3-9 | 0-3 | 1-2 | 33.3% |
| 2026-01-03 | Chattanooga | W 79–71 | 20:00 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2-5 | 0-2 | 4-4 | 40.0% |
| 2026-01-01 | Samford | L 58–78 | 26:24 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-7 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-21 | Radford | L 90–97 | 23:18 | 13 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4-9 | 1-3 | 4-6 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-09 | Loyola Maryland | W 86–70 | 24:55 | 14 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 6-11 | 0-3 | 2-3 | 54.5% |
| 2025-11-29 | UCF | L 57–82 | 29:06 | 19 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6-12 | 3-6 | 4-6 | 62.5% |
| 2025-11-26 | Bowling Green | L 48–81 | 28:27 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0-8 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-24 | Buffalo | L 70–78 | 23:27 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4-9 | 1-3 | 2-5 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-22 | Stetson | L 80–99 | 26:21 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5-9 | 0-2 | 0-2 | 55.6% |
| 2025-11-19 | Richmond | L 54–87 | 26:25 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3-8 | 2-5 | 1-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-15 | Jacksonville | L 67–69 | 27:08 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4-8 | 1-3 | 4-5 | 56.3% |
| 2025-11-09 | Missouri | L 68–106 | 27:15 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4-7 | 3-5 | 4-6 | 78.6% |
| 2025-11-07 | Southern Ind. | W 78–74 | 23:50 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1-8 | 1-5 | 2-2 | 18.8% |