Justin Pippen
California · 2025–26 · 31 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
954:51 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 31
- Minutes per game
- 30:48
- Points per game
- 13.9
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 4.0 / 4.6
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 13.9 | 4.0 | 4.6 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 2.5 | 2.4 |
| Per 40 minutes | 18.0 | 5.2 | 6.0 | 2.4 | 0.8 | 3.3 | 3.1 |
| Season totals | 430 | 123 | 144 | 57 | 18 | 78 | 73 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 127–345 | 36.8% | 11.1 | 14.5 |
| 2P | 76–187 | 40.6% | 6.0 | 7.8 |
| 3P | 51–158 | 32.3% | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| FT | 125–153 | 81.7% | 4.9 | 6.4 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 44.2% | 52.1% | 45.8% | 44.3% | 1.85 |
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
California · 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
- $495K
- 80% range $230K to $830K
- Median share of team pool
- 14.1%
- team pool $3.60M, 80% range $2.60M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $495K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $22K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 71.8%
- 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.
California: 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 | California | $495Kspeculative | $230K to $830K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +2.1 | +0.4 to +3.4 | Sufficient evidence | +1.1 | +1.0 | +5.7range +4.8 to +6.5 | 3,214 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Michigan | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +0.6 | -0.4 to +1.7 | Sufficient evidence | -0.2 | +0.8 | +0.8range +0.7 to +0.9 | 625 | 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 | 29:21 | 30:48 | 22:18–36:10 | |
| Points | 11.6 | 13.9 | 0.0–24.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 42.7% | 44.8% | 0.0%–85.7% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-22 | Saint Joseph's | L 75–76 | 29:18 | 8 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2-13 | 1-6 | 3-4 | 19.2% |
| 2026-03-18 | UIC | W 91–73 | 28:27 | 18 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 5-7 | 2-2 | 6-6 | 85.7% |
| 2026-03-11 | Florida St. | L 89–95 | 27:16 | 15 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5-8 | 0-2 | 5-6 | 62.5% |
| 2026-03-07 | Wake Forest | L 73–80 | 30:12 | 17 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 5-13 | 2-8 | 5-5 | 46.2% |
| 2026-03-04 | Georgia Tech | W 76–65 | 31:30 | 0 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 0-7 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-28 | Pittsburgh | L 56–72 | 33:55 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3-11 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 31.8% |
| 2026-02-25 | SMU | W 73–69 | 34:20 | 24 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 8-19 | 2-10 | 6-7 | 47.4% |
| 2026-02-21 | Stanford | W 72–66 | 34:45 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 2-10 | 1-2 | 2-2 | 25.0% |
| 2026-02-14 | Boston College | W 86–75 | 22:18 | 12 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4-11 | 1-4 | 3-5 | 40.9% |
| 2026-02-11 | Syracuse | L 100–107 | 31:06 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4-10 | 1-4 | 2-2 | 45.0% |
| 2026-02-07 | Clemson | L 55–77 | 30:42 | 19 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 6-13 | 2-6 | 5-5 | 53.8% |
| 2026-02-04 | Georgia Tech | W 90–85 | 33:10 | 13 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4-14 | 1-5 | 4-6 | 32.1% |
| 2026-01-31 | Miami (FL) | W 86–85 | 34:10 | 17 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6-13 | 1-4 | 4-6 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-28 | Florida St. | L 61–63 | 31:05 | 19 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5-13 | 4-9 | 5-6 | 53.8% |
| 2026-01-24 | Stanford | W 78–66 | 36:10 | 18 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4-14 | 3-7 | 7-8 | 39.3% |
| 2026-01-17 | North Carolina | W 84–78 | 33:02 | 19 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 5-8 | 3-4 | 6-6 | 81.3% |
| 2026-01-14 | Duke | L 56–71 | 32:27 | 10 | 3 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2-11 | 1-5 | 5-7 | 22.7% |
| 2026-01-10 | Virginia Tech | L 75–78 | 30:14 | 11 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4-18 | 1-8 | 2-2 | 25.0% |
| 2026-01-07 | Virginia | L 60–84 | 31:08 | 17 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5-12 | 2-5 | 5-6 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-02 | Notre Dame | W 72–71 | 29:09 | 14 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4-11 | 3-8 | 3-5 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-30 | Louisville | L 70–90 | 30:41 | 17 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 5-14 | 3-7 | 4-4 | 46.4% |
| 2025-12-21 | Columbia | W 74–56 | 25:27 | 8 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3-8 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-06 | Pacific | W 67–61 | 30:01 | 16 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4-8 | 2-5 | 6-7 | 62.5% |
| 2025-12-02 | Utah | W 79–72 | 30:00 | 23 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8-15 | 3-7 | 4-4 | 63.3% |
| 2025-11-25 | UCLA | W 80–72 | 28:00 | 13 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4-10 | 3-6 | 2-2 | 55.0% |
| 2025-11-21 | Sacramento St. | W 91–67 | 28:27 | 16 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 5-11 | 3-8 | 3-5 | 59.1% |
| 2025-11-18 | Presbyterian | W 67–57 | 34:06 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 2-4 | 33.3% |
| 2025-11-13 | Kansas St. | L 96–99 | 27:30 | 14 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4-10 | 1-4 | 5-6 | 45.0% |
| 2025-11-10 | Cal St. Fullerton | W 93–65 | 28:32 | 14 | 9 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2-8 | 1-3 | 9-11 | 31.3% |
| 2025-11-06 | Wright St. | W 77–67 | 32:39 | 14 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 3-12 | 0-4 | 8-8 | 25.0% |
| 2025-11-03 | CSU Bakersfield | W 87–60 | 35:04 | 15 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 5-10 | 1-5 | 4-8 | 55.0% |