RJ Godfrey
Clemson · 2025–26 · 35 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
879:22 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 35
- Minutes per game
- 25:07
- Points per game
- 12.0
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 5.3 / 1.6
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 12.0 | 5.3 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 2.6 |
| Per 40 minutes | 19.2 | 8.5 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 2.2 | 4.2 |
| Season totals | 421 | 187 | 57 | 22 | 21 | 48 | 92 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 162–265 | 61.1% | 7.6 | 12.1 |
| 2P | 160–255 | 62.7% | 7.3 | 11.6 |
| 3P | 2–10 | 20.0%† | 0.3 | 0.5 |
| FT | 95–144 | 66.0% | 4.1 | 6.6 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 61.5% | 64.1% | 3.8% | 54.3% | 1.19 |
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
Clemson · 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
- $790K
- 80% range $480K to $1.55M
- Median share of team pool
- 21.4%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.60M to $5.00M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $790K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $29K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 62.3%
- 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.
Clemson: 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 | Clemson | $790Kspeculative | $480K to $1.55M | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +5.8 | +4.0 to +7.3 | Sufficient evidence | +1.5 | +4.3 | +6.8range +6.0 to +7.4 | 2,699 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Georgia | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +2.7 | +1.7 to +3.6 | Sufficient evidence | -0.3 | +3.0 | +2.9range +2.6 to +3.3 | 1,958 | 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 | 24:07 | 25:07 | 11:03–37:58 | |
| Points | 13.0 | 12.0 | 3.0–22.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 54.5% | 61.9% | 33.3%–100.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-20 | Iowa | L 61–67 | 28:22 | 15 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6-10 | 0-1 | 3-5 | 60.0% |
| 2026-03-13 | Duke | L 61–73 | 26:32 | 18 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6-11 | 0-0 | 6-6 | 54.5% |
| 2026-03-12 | North Carolina | W 80–79 | 23:44 | 13 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6-14 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 42.9% |
| 2026-03-11 | Wake Forest | W 71–62 | 25:31 | 11 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4-10 | 0-0 | 3-7 | 40.0% |
| 2026-03-07 | Georgia Tech | W 79–76 | 16:28 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-4 | 0-0 | 2-3 | 75.0% |
| 2026-03-03 | North Carolina | L 63–67 | 32:59 | 22 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 10-13 | 1-1 | 1-2 | 80.8% |
| 2026-02-28 | Louisville | W 80–75 | 33:46 | 13 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3-7 | 0-0 | 7-8 | 42.9% |
| 2026-02-21 | Florida St. | L 65–70 | 32:45 | 12 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4-7 | 0-0 | 4-5 | 57.1% |
| 2026-02-18 | Wake Forest | L 77–85 | 27:26 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 2-5 | 60.0% |
| 2026-02-14 | Duke | L 54–67 | 30:12 | 10 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4-10 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 40.0% |
| 2026-02-11 | Virginia Tech | L 66–76 | 27:09 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3-7 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 42.9% |
| 2026-02-07 | California | W 77–55 | 19:06 | 13 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6-8 | 0-0 | 1-4 | 75.0% |
| 2026-02-04 | Stanford | W 66–64 | 12:18 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3-4 | 0-0 | 3-6 | 75.0% |
| 2026-01-31 | Pittsburgh | W 63–52 | 25:15 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 4-6 | 60.0% |
| 2026-01-24 | Georgia Tech | W 77–63 | 17:58 | 9 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4-7 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 57.1% |
| 2026-01-20 | NC State | L 76–80 | 37:58 | 16 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 7-9 | 0-0 | 2-5 | 77.8% |
| 2026-01-17 | Miami (FL) | W 69–59 | 28:46 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 4-8 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-13 | Boston College | W 74–50 | 13:45 | 10 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 2-5 | 0-0 | 6-10 | 40.0% |
| 2026-01-10 | Notre Dame | W 76–61 | 31:37 | 16 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6-8 | 0-0 | 4-6 | 75.0% |
| 2026-01-07 | SMU | W 74–70 | 26:08 | 17 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 6-7 | 1-1 | 4-7 | 92.9% |
| 2026-01-03 | Pittsburgh | W 73–68 | 27:36 | 14 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5-7 | 0-0 | 4-7 | 71.4% |
| 2025-12-31 | Syracuse | W 64–61 | 29:14 | 14 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7-9 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 77.8% |
| 2025-12-21 | Cincinnati | W 68–65 | 25:28 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 5-10 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-16 | South Carolina | W 68–61 | 12:55 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2-6 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 33.3% |
| 2025-12-13 | Mercer | W 70–63 | 25:07 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4-6 | 0-0 | 1-3 | 66.7% |
| 2025-12-09 | BYU | L 64–67 | 24:29 | 13 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 5-7 | 0-0 | 3-3 | 71.4% |
| 2025-12-03 | Alabama | L 84–90 | 32:36 | 19 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6-10 | 0-0 | 7-9 | 60.0% |
| 2025-11-28 | Alabama A&M | W 92–56 | 20:04 | 10 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4-7 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 57.1% |
| 2025-11-23 | Georgia | W 97–94 | 24:06 | 12 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4-6 | 0-0 | 4-6 | 66.7% |
| 2025-11-21 | West Virginia | W 70–67 | 28:03 | 14 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 6-8 | 0-0 | 2-3 | 75.0% |
| 2025-11-17 | North Ala. | W 81–61 | 28:35 | 16 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 6-8 | 0-1 | 4-4 | 75.0% |
| 2025-11-15 | Georgetown | L 74–79 | 11:03 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 33.3% |
| 2025-11-11 | Morehead St. | W 83–56 | 27:40 | 13 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 5-8 | 0-0 | 3-4 | 62.5% |
| 2025-11-07 | Gardner-Webb | W 97–59 | 23:00 | 13 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 5-5 | 0-0 | 3-3 | 100.0% |
| 2025-11-03 | New Hampshire | W 88–38 | 21:41 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4-6 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 66.7% |