B.J. Edwards
SMU · 2025–26 · 28 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
928:00 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 28
- Minutes per game
- 33:09
- Points per game
- 12.7
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 5.9 / 4.9
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 12.7 | 5.9 | 4.9 | 2.3 | 0.2 | 1.9 | 1.6 |
| Per 40 minutes | 15.3 | 7.1 | 5.9 | 2.8 | 0.2 | 2.3 | 2.0 |
| Season totals | 356 | 165 | 138 | 65 | 5 | 54 | 46 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 130–274 | 47.4% | 9.8 | 11.8 |
| 2P | 88–161 | 54.7% | 5.8 | 6.9 |
| 3P | 42–113 | 37.2% | 4.0 | 4.9 |
| FT | 54–70 | 77.1% | 2.5 | 3.0 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 55.1% | 58.4% | 41.2% | 25.5% | 2.56 |
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
SMU · 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
- $550K
- 80% range $350K to $850K
- Median share of team pool
- 15.0%
- team pool $3.60M, 80% range $2.55M to $4.90M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $550K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $25K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 70.1%
- 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.
SMU: 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 | SMU | $550Kspeculative | $350K to $850K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +3.8 | +2.4 to +4.7 | Sufficient evidence | +2.9 | +0.9 | +6.9range +6.1 to +7.4 | 3,187 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | SMU | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +2.3 | +1.2 to +3.4 | Sufficient evidence | +1.4 | +0.9 | +4.7range +4.1 to +5.5 | 2,857 | Season detail | |
| 2024 | SMU | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +2.7 | +1.2 to +4.0 | Sufficient evidence | +0.1 | +2.6 | +2.5range +2.0 to +2.9 | 1,390 | 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 | 29:13 | 33:09 | 16:22–42:49 | |
| Points | 8.8 | 12.7 | 4.0–24.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 49.2% | 54.0% | 25.0%–95.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-02-25 | California | L 69–73 | 16:22 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2-5 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-21 | Boston College | W 94–70 | 29:10 | 15 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 6-12 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 62.5% |
| 2026-02-17 | Louisville | W 95–85 | 33:55 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-6 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 58.3% |
| 2026-02-14 | Syracuse | L 78–79 | 35:31 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4-9 | 1-3 | 1-1 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-10 | Notre Dame | W 89–81 | 31:06 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1-6 | 1-5 | 4-4 | 25.0% |
| 2026-02-07 | Pittsburgh | W 86–67 | 28:26 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2-5 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-03 | NC State | L 83–84 | 33:19 | 11 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4-8 | 2-3 | 1-2 | 62.5% |
| 2026-01-31 | Louisville | L 74–88 | 35:55 | 13 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 5-11 | 1-3 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-24 | Florida St. | W 83–80 | 33:32 | 19 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6-11 | 3-7 | 4-5 | 68.2% |
| 2026-01-20 | Wake Forest | W 91–79 | 31:02 | 24 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 8-13 | 3-5 | 5-7 | 73.1% |
| 2026-01-17 | Virginia | L 68–72 | 34:10 | 13 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5-9 | 3-4 | 0-0 | 72.2% |
| 2026-01-14 | Virginia Tech | W 77–76 | 32:12 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2-7 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 28.6% |
| 2026-01-10 | Duke | L 75–82 | 37:21 | 20 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 8-14 | 2-4 | 2-2 | 64.3% |
| 2026-01-07 | Clemson | L 70–74 | 35:07 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-8 | 0-3 | 6-6 | 37.5% |
| 2026-01-03 | North Carolina | W 97–83 | 38:55 | 15 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6-9 | 2-4 | 1-2 | 77.8% |
| 2025-12-28 | Cal St. Fullerton | W 110–63 | 28:23 | 21 | 11 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 8-10 | 3-5 | 2-3 | 95.0% |
| 2025-12-21 | Central Ark. | W 99–82 | 29:30 | 17 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 6-12 | 3-8 | 2-2 | 62.5% |
| 2025-12-13 | LSU | L 77–89 | 31:45 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 3-7 | 0-2 | 2-3 | 42.9% |
| 2025-12-07 | Texas A&M | W 93–80 | 42:49 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2-8 | 0-2 | 5-6 | 25.0% |
| 2025-12-03 | Vanderbilt | L 69–88 | 35:05 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4-14 | 0-6 | 2-2 | 28.6% |
| 2025-11-28 | Mississippi St. | W 87–81 | 40:40 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3-12 | 0-4 | 0-3 | 25.0% |
| 2025-11-24 | Radford | W 89–72 | 31:09 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4-13 | 1-6 | 1-1 | 34.6% |
| 2025-11-21 | Arkansas St. | W 100–69 | 33:56 | 24 | 5 | 13 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 9-13 | 3-6 | 3-4 | 80.8% |
| 2025-11-18 | Ark.-Pine Bluff | W 106–60 | 30:14 | 11 | 5 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4-9 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 61.1% |
| 2025-11-15 · NCAA | Butler | W 87–85 | 38:00 | 14 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5-9 | 1-2 | 3-4 | 61.1% |
| 2025-11-11 | Murray St. | W 102–91 | 34:41 | 20 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 8-17 | 1-4 | 3-4 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-06 | A&M-Corpus Christi | W 69–58 | 30:21 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2-5 | 1-1 | 1-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-03 | Tarleton St. | W 96–76 | 35:24 | 20 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 7-12 | 2-6 | 4-5 | 66.7% |