Nojus Indrusaitis
Pittsburgh · 2025–26 · 33 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
763:19 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 33
- Minutes per game
- 23:08
- Points per game
- 9.1
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 3.1 / 1.7
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 9.1 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Per 40 minutes | 15.7 | 5.3 | 2.9 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 2.8 |
| Season totals | 300 | 101 | 55 | 30 | 3 | 39 | 54 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 106–263 | 40.3% | 8.0 | 13.8 |
| 2P | 51–121 | 42.1% | 3.7 | 6.3 |
| 3P | 55–142 | 38.7% | 4.3 | 7.4 |
| FT | 33–52 | 63.5% | 1.6 | 2.7 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50.8% | 52.5% | 54.0% | 19.8% | 1.41 |
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
- $295K
- 80% range $43K to $520K
- Median share of team pool
- 8.9%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.60M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $295K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $35K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 57.3%
- 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 | $295Kspeculative | $43K to $520K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | -0.1 | -1.4 to +1.2 | Sufficient evidence | +1.1 | -1.1 | +3.5range +3.0 to +4.0 | 2,384 | 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 | 25:16 | 23:08 | 9:25–33:52 | |
| Points | 14.6 | 9.1 | 0.0–19.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 70.8% | 47.5% | 0.0%–94.4% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-11 | NC State | L 88–98 | 30:27 | 19 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6-9 | 5-8 | 2-3 | 94.4% |
| 2026-03-10 | Stanford | W 64–63 | 10:47 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2-3 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 83.3% |
| 2026-03-07 | Syracuse | W 71–69 | 24:44 | 16 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7-14 | 1-7 | 1-2 | 53.6% |
| 2026-03-04 | Florida St. | L 74–75 | 31:49 | 17 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4-10 | 2-7 | 7-7 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-28 | California | W 72–56 | 28:31 | 16 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6-11 | 4-6 | 0-0 | 72.7% |
| 2026-02-25 | Stanford | L 67–75 | 27:45 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 4-7 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 71.4% |
| 2026-02-21 | Notre Dame | W 73–68 | 27:25 | 17 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5-8 | 4-6 | 3-4 | 87.5% |
| 2026-02-14 | North Carolina | L 65–79 | 25:26 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3-5 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 70.0% |
| 2026-02-10 | Duke | L 54–70 | 20:13 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1-5 | 0-4 | 0-1 | 20.0% |
| 2026-02-07 | SMU | L 67–86 | 27:17 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3-8 | 2-6 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-03 | Virginia | L 47–67 | 27:37 | 11 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 4-7 | 2-3 | 1-4 | 71.4% |
| 2026-01-31 | Clemson | L 52–63 | 16:04 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0-7 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-27 | Wake Forest | W 80–76 | 19:07 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3-7 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 57.1% |
| 2026-01-24 | NC State | L 72–81 | 20:53 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2-8 | 2-4 | 2-2 | 37.5% |
| 2026-01-21 | Boston College | L 62–65 | 26:02 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4-11 | 2-5 | 0-0 | 45.5% |
| 2026-01-17 | Louisville | L 59–100 | 21:53 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-9 | 2-6 | 0-2 | 44.4% |
| 2026-01-14 | Georgia Tech | W 89–66 | 24:10 | 16 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5-9 | 4-6 | 2-2 | 77.8% |
| 2026-01-10 | Syracuse | L 72–83 | 9:25 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-03 | Clemson | L 68–73 | 14:14 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0-4 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2025-12-30 | Miami (FL) | L 69–76 | 22:10 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-6 | 0-3 | 0-2 | 0.0% |
| 2025-12-21 | Penn St. | W 80–46 | 20:30 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2-8 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 25.0% |
| 2025-12-17 | Binghamton | W 103–63 | 33:52 | 16 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5-11 | 3-7 | 3-5 | 59.1% |
| 2025-12-13 | Villanova | L 61–79 | 25:21 | 14 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6-13 | 1-5 | 1-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-07 | Hofstra | L 73–80 | 15:56 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2-6 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 41.7% |
| 2025-12-02 | Texas A&M | L 73–81 | 24:59 | 15 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 6-14 | 3-8 | 0-0 | 53.6% |
| 2025-11-28 | Ohio St. | W 67–66 | 19:22 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0-3 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-23 | Quinnipiac | L 75–83 | 29:48 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5-12 | 2-7 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-20 | UCF | L 67–77 | 24:32 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2-8 | 1-5 | 3-3 | 31.3% |
| 2025-11-17 | Bucknell | W 84–50 | 16:38 | 11 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 4-8 | 2-3 | 1-2 | 62.5% |
| 2025-11-13 | West Virginia | L 49–71 | 14:12 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2-7 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 35.7% |
| 2025-11-10 | Eastern Mich. | W 78–66 | 27:21 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4-7 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 64.3% |
| 2025-11-07 | Longwood | W 78–60 | 24:01 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2-9 | 1-5 | 1-5 | 27.8% |
| 2025-11-03 | Youngstown St. | W 74–59 | 30:48 | 13 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4-7 | 3-5 | 2-2 | 78.6% |