Boopie Miller
SMU · 2025–26 · 33 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
1164:22 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 33
- Minutes per game
- 35:17
- Points per game
- 19.1
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 3.8 / 6.4
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 19.1 | 3.8 | 6.4 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 2.6 | 2.5 |
| Per 40 minutes | 21.6 | 4.3 | 7.2 | 1.6 | 0.1 | 2.9 | 2.8 |
| Season totals | 629 | 125 | 211 | 48 | 2 | 85 | 82 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 200–430 | 46.5% | 13.0 | 14.8 |
| 2P | 133–268 | 49.6% | 8.1 | 9.2 |
| 3P | 67–162 | 41.4% | 4.9 | 5.6 |
| FT | 162–187 | 86.6% | 5.7 | 6.4 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54.3% | 61.4% | 37.7% | 43.5% | 2.48 |
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
- $835K
- 80% range $545K to $1.35M
- Median share of team pool
- 22.6%
- team pool $3.60M, 80% range $2.55M to $4.90M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $835K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $25K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 84.6%
- 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 | $835Kspeculative | $545K to $1.35M | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +4.6 | +3.4 to +5.9 | Sufficient evidence | +3.4 | +1.2 | +8.7range +7.9 to +9.4 | 3,848 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | SMU | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +2.3 | +1.2 to +3.3 | Sufficient evidence | +0.9 | +1.4 | +4.1range +3.5 to +4.8 | 2,534 | 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 | 38:15 | 35:17 | 26:31–40:20 | |
| Points | 20.2 | 19.1 | 8.0–32.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 53.4% | 54.5% | 14.3%–88.5% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-18 | Miami (OH) | L 79–89 | 38:09 | 15 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6-17 | 3-6 | 0-1 | 44.1% |
| 2026-03-11 | Louisville | L 58–62 | 38:16 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4-17 | 0-8 | 0-0 | 23.5% |
| 2026-03-10 | Syracuse | W 86–69 | 36:25 | 25 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 9-15 | 5-9 | 2-2 | 76.7% |
| 2026-03-07 | Florida St. | L 78–91 | 38:28 | 32 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 11-20 | 7-11 | 3-4 | 72.5% |
| 2026-03-04 | Miami (FL) | L 69–77 | 39:55 | 21 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 4 | 8-17 | 1-5 | 4-5 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-28 | Stanford | L 75–95 | 36:41 | 26 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 7-16 | 2-6 | 10-10 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-25 | California | L 69–73 | 38:24 | 15 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 6-12 | 2-2 | 1-2 | 58.3% |
| 2026-02-21 | Boston College | W 94–70 | 28:08 | 11 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 3-7 | 0-2 | 5-6 | 42.9% |
| 2026-02-17 | Louisville | W 95–85 | 36:30 | 23 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 9-14 | 1-2 | 4-4 | 67.9% |
| 2026-02-14 | Syracuse | L 78–79 | 33:12 | 11 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3-11 | 3-6 | 2-2 | 40.9% |
| 2026-02-10 | Notre Dame | W 89–81 | 36:46 | 20 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 7-13 | 4-5 | 2-2 | 69.2% |
| 2026-02-07 | Pittsburgh | W 86–67 | 32:59 | 20 | 1 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 7-11 | 2-3 | 4-5 | 72.7% |
| 2026-02-03 | NC State | L 83–84 | 29:43 | 14 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 5-13 | 1-2 | 3-6 | 42.3% |
| 2026-01-31 | Louisville | L 74–88 | 38:23 | 20 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 8-14 | 2-4 | 2-2 | 64.3% |
| 2026-01-24 | Florida St. | W 83–80 | 38:06 | 11 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3-12 | 1-6 | 4-6 | 29.2% |
| 2026-01-20 | Wake Forest | W 91–79 | 33:08 | 12 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 4-7 | 1-3 | 3-3 | 64.3% |
| 2026-01-17 | Virginia | L 68–72 | 35:13 | 12 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4-12 | 0-3 | 4-5 | 33.3% |
| 2026-01-14 | Virginia Tech | W 77–76 | 35:45 | 24 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6-15 | 1-6 | 11-16 | 43.3% |
| 2026-01-07 | Clemson | L 70–74 | 38:58 | 23 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5-15 | 2-7 | 11-11 | 40.0% |
| 2026-01-03 | North Carolina | W 97–83 | 32:50 | 27 | 4 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 10-13 | 3-5 | 4-5 | 88.5% |
| 2025-12-28 | Cal St. Fullerton | W 110–63 | 30:10 | 14 | 1 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4-10 | 2-5 | 4-4 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-21 | Central Ark. | W 99–82 | 35:01 | 23 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 9-13 | 3-6 | 2-2 | 80.8% |
| 2025-12-13 | LSU | L 77–89 | 34:13 | 16 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5-12 | 3-4 | 3-4 | 54.2% |
| 2025-12-07 | Texas A&M | W 93–80 | 40:20 | 19 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 4-13 | 1-6 | 10-10 | 34.6% |
| 2025-12-03 | Vanderbilt | L 69–88 | 37:56 | 17 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 5-13 | 0-3 | 7-8 | 38.5% |
| 2025-11-28 | Mississippi St. | W 87–81 | 39:01 | 28 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 9-19 | 5-9 | 5-5 | 60.5% |
| 2025-11-24 | Radford | W 89–72 | 37:15 | 25 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 5-9 | 3-4 | 12-12 | 72.2% |
| 2025-11-21 | Arkansas St. | W 100–69 | 30:22 | 17 | 0 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6-13 | 2-6 | 3-4 | 53.8% |
| 2025-11-18 | Ark.-Pine Bluff | W 106–60 | 29:50 | 15 | 4 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4-8 | 2-4 | 5-5 | 62.5% |
| 2025-11-15 · NCAA | Butler | W 87–85 | 36:54 | 23 | 1 | 12 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 5 | 9-13 | 1-2 | 4-5 | 73.1% |
| 2025-11-11 | Murray St. | W 102–91 | 36:22 | 28 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 9-13 | 3-5 | 7-8 | 80.8% |
| 2025-11-06 | A&M-Corpus Christi | W 69–58 | 34:28 | 14 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2-14 | 0-3 | 10-12 | 14.3% |
| 2025-11-03 | Tarleton St. | W 96–76 | 26:31 | 20 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4-9 | 1-4 | 11-11 | 50.0% |