Cameron Corhen
Pittsburgh · 2025–26 · 33 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
1116:47 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 33
- Minutes per game
- 33:51
- Points per game
- 13.6
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 6.8 / 1.9
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 13.6 | 6.8 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 2.2 | 3.1 |
| Per 40 minutes | 16.0 | 8.1 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 2.7 | 3.6 |
| Season totals | 448 | 225 | 64 | 32 | 17 | 74 | 101 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 172–323 | 53.3% | 9.8 | 11.6 |
| 2P | 158–285 | 55.4% | 8.6 | 10.2 |
| 3P | 14–38 | 36.8%† | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| FT | 90–130 | 69.2% | 3.9 | 4.7 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 55.4% | 58.9% | 11.8% | 40.2% | 0.86 |
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
Pittsburgh · 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
- $475K
- 80% range $78K to $780K
- Median share of team pool
- 14.3%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.60M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $475K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $35K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 84.3%
- 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. 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.
Pittsburgh: 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 | Pittsburgh | $475Kspeculative | $78K to $780K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +0.3 | -1.0 to +1.4 | Sufficient evidence | +0.2 | +0.1 | +5.1range +4.4 to +5.7 | 3,505 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Pittsburgh | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | -0.3 | -1.8 to +1.0 | Sufficient evidence | -0.2 | -0.1 | +3.1range +2.4 to +3.9 | 2,717 | 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 | 33:31 | 33:51 | 23:27–40:56 | |
| Points | 18.0 | 13.6 | 4.0–27.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 59.7% | 54.8% | 28.6%–81.3% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-11 | NC State | L 88–98 | 36:40 | 27 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 9-12 | 0-1 | 9-11 | 75.0% |
| 2026-03-10 | Stanford | W 64–63 | 25:31 | 12 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 5-13 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 38.5% |
| 2026-03-07 | Syracuse | W 71–69 | 36:11 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 8-14 | 1-2 | 4-4 | 60.7% |
| 2026-03-04 | Florida St. | L 74–75 | 35:04 | 14 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6-11 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 54.5% |
| 2026-02-28 | California | W 72–56 | 34:10 | 16 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 7-10 | 0-2 | 2-3 | 70.0% |
| 2026-02-25 | Stanford | L 67–75 | 36:36 | 22 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 8-13 | 1-1 | 5-6 | 65.4% |
| 2026-02-21 | Notre Dame | W 73–68 | 37:56 | 13 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3-10 | 0-0 | 7-8 | 30.0% |
| 2026-02-14 | North Carolina | L 65–79 | 36:01 | 23 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 10-17 | 3-4 | 0-0 | 67.6% |
| 2026-02-10 | Duke | L 54–70 | 35:15 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3-6 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-07 | SMU | L 67–86 | 29:31 | 15 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6-10 | 0-2 | 3-5 | 60.0% |
| 2026-02-03 | Virginia | L 47–67 | 33:38 | 11 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4-10 | 1-2 | 2-2 | 45.0% |
| 2026-01-31 | Clemson | L 52–63 | 23:27 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 3-8 | 0-2 | 3-5 | 37.5% |
| 2026-01-27 | Wake Forest | W 80–76 | 40:56 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 4-6 | 66.7% |
| 2026-01-24 | NC State | L 72–81 | 31:05 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 4-12 | 0-0 | 2-6 | 33.3% |
| 2026-01-21 | Boston College | L 62–65 | 34:39 | 13 | 12 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6-10 | 1-1 | 0-1 | 65.0% |
| 2026-01-17 | Louisville | L 59–100 | 33:58 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2-5 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 40.0% |
| 2026-01-14 | Georgia Tech | W 89–66 | 28:10 | 15 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6-9 | 0-1 | 3-4 | 66.7% |
| 2026-01-10 | Syracuse | L 72–83 | 39:40 | 9 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4-10 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 40.0% |
| 2026-01-03 | Clemson | L 68–73 | 33:26 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 4-8 | 1-1 | 1-2 | 56.3% |
| 2025-12-30 | Miami (FL) | L 69–76 | 39:00 | 17 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 8-12 | 0-0 | 1-4 | 66.7% |
| 2025-12-21 | Penn St. | W 80–46 | 25:11 | 9 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4-9 | 0-0 | 1-3 | 44.4% |
| 2025-12-17 | Binghamton | W 103–63 | 25:27 | 14 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6-10 | 1-1 | 1-2 | 65.0% |
| 2025-12-13 | Villanova | L 61–79 | 29:25 | 10 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4-9 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 44.4% |
| 2025-12-07 | Hofstra | L 73–80 | 38:52 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2-7 | 0-2 | 3-5 | 28.6% |
| 2025-12-02 | Texas A&M | L 73–81 | 38:31 | 15 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6-8 | 0-1 | 3-4 | 75.0% |
| 2025-11-28 | Ohio St. | W 67–66 | 36:02 | 18 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6-14 | 1-2 | 5-10 | 46.4% |
| 2025-11-23 | Quinnipiac | L 75–83 | 33:57 | 13 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5-10 | 2-2 | 1-2 | 60.0% |
| 2025-11-20 | UCF | L 67–77 | 35:26 | 17 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6-13 | 0-4 | 5-6 | 46.2% |
| 2025-11-17 | Bucknell | W 84–50 | 30:19 | 11 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 3-8 | 0-1 | 5-6 | 37.5% |
| 2025-11-13 | West Virginia | L 49–71 | 35:10 | 14 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 6-8 | 1-1 | 1-2 | 81.3% |
| 2025-11-10 | Eastern Mich. | W 78–66 | 36:31 | 16 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 7-11 | 0-0 | 2-4 | 63.6% |
| 2025-11-07 | Longwood | W 78–60 | 36:01 | 6 | 13 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1-2 | 0-1 | 4-5 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-03 | Youngstown St. | W 74–59 | 35:01 | 23 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 8-11 | 1-1 | 6-7 | 77.3% |