Samet Yigitoglu
SMU · 2025–26 · 34 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
977:59 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 34
- Minutes per game
- 28:46
- Points per game
- 10.7
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 7.9 / 1.6
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 10.7 | 7.9 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 3.3 |
| Per 40 minutes | 14.8 | 10.9 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 1.8 | 2.4 | 4.5 |
| Season totals | 363 | 267 | 53 | 17 | 43 | 59 | 111 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 155–247 | 62.8% | 7.3 | 10.1 |
| 2P | 155–246 | 63.0% | 7.2 | 10.1 |
| 3P | 0–1 | 0.0%† | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| FT | 53–107 | 49.5% | 3.1 | 4.4 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 62.8% | 61.7% | 0.4% | 43.3% | 0.90 |
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
- $620K
- 80% range $405K to $990K
- Median share of team pool
- 16.8%
- team pool $3.60M, 80% range $2.55M to $4.90M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $620K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $25K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 71.2%
- 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 | $620Kspeculative | $405K to $990K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +4.1 | +3.0 to +5.2 | Sufficient evidence | +1.5 | +2.6 | +7.1range +6.4 to +7.8 | 3,238 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | SMU | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +1.5 | +0.4 to +2.4 | Sufficient evidence | +0.3 | +1.2 | +3.3range +2.8 to +3.9 | 2,231 | 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 | 32:22 | 28:46 | 18:52–36:38 | |
| Points | 9.8 | 10.7 | 2.0–16.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 59.7% | 63.4% | 27.3%–100.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-18 | Miami (OH) | L 79–89 | 27:02 | 8 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 4-5 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 80.0% |
| 2026-03-11 | Louisville | L 58–62 | 31:01 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 33.3% |
| 2026-03-10 | Syracuse | W 86–69 | 35:22 | 12 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 6-11 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 54.5% |
| 2026-03-07 | Florida St. | L 78–91 | 32:48 | 15 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6-8 | 0-0 | 3-6 | 75.0% |
| 2026-03-04 | Miami (FL) | L 69–77 | 35:37 | 12 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 5-9 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 55.6% |
| 2026-02-28 | Stanford | L 75–95 | 27:50 | 11 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 5-6 | 0-0 | 1-4 | 83.3% |
| 2026-02-25 | California | L 69–73 | 32:01 | 11 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5-6 | 0-0 | 1-6 | 83.3% |
| 2026-02-21 | Boston College | W 94–70 | 25:59 | 15 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 6-7 | 0-0 | 3-8 | 85.7% |
| 2026-02-17 | Louisville | W 95–85 | 25:44 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4-8 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-14 | Syracuse | L 78–79 | 18:52 | 11 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 5-5 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 100.0% |
| 2026-02-10 | Notre Dame | W 89–81 | 28:01 | 11 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 5-8 | 0-0 | 1-3 | 62.5% |
| 2026-02-07 | Pittsburgh | W 86–67 | 21:45 | 15 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 7-10 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 70.0% |
| 2026-02-03 | NC State | L 83–84 | 25:44 | 7 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 2-6 | 0-0 | 3-4 | 33.3% |
| 2026-01-31 | Louisville | L 74–88 | 27:22 | 14 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 7-8 | 0-1 | 0-2 | 87.5% |
| 2026-01-24 | Florida St. | W 83–80 | 31:09 | 6 | 11 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2-5 | 0-0 | 2-4 | 40.0% |
| 2026-01-20 | Wake Forest | W 91–79 | 28:53 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2-5 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 40.0% |
| 2026-01-17 | Virginia | L 68–72 | 25:16 | 10 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3-11 | 0-0 | 4-5 | 27.3% |
| 2026-01-14 | Virginia Tech | W 77–76 | 33:10 | 14 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 7-9 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 77.8% |
| 2026-01-10 | Duke | L 75–82 | 36:38 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-07 | Clemson | L 70–74 | 32:24 | 14 | 11 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 6-8 | 0-0 | 2-3 | 75.0% |
| 2026-01-03 | North Carolina | W 97–83 | 25:36 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2-6 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 33.3% |
| 2025-12-28 | Cal St. Fullerton | W 110–63 | 25:16 | 11 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 5-7 | 0-0 | 1-3 | 71.4% |
| 2025-12-21 | Central Ark. | W 99–82 | 28:04 | 14 | 11 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 7-7 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 100.0% |
| 2025-12-13 | LSU | L 77–89 | 27:21 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4-8 | 0-0 | 2-5 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-07 | Texas A&M | W 93–80 | 25:21 | 12 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 6-8 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 75.0% |
| 2025-12-03 | Vanderbilt | L 69–88 | 33:13 | 16 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 7-10 | 0-0 | 2-4 | 70.0% |
| 2025-11-28 | Mississippi St. | W 87–81 | 34:39 | 5 | 13 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 1-3 | 100.0% |
| 2025-11-24 | Radford | W 89–72 | 24:26 | 8 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 4-8 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-21 | Arkansas St. | W 100–69 | 25:02 | 14 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7-10 | 0-0 | 0-2 | 70.0% |
| 2025-11-18 | Ark.-Pine Bluff | W 106–60 | 21:23 | 11 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4-6 | 0-0 | 3-4 | 66.7% |
| 2025-11-15 · NCAA | Butler | W 87–85 | 29:24 | 14 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 7-11 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 63.6% |
| 2025-11-11 | Murray St. | W 102–91 | 31:12 | 11 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5-12 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 41.7% |
| 2025-11-06 | A&M-Corpus Christi | W 69–58 | 30:12 | 12 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4-8 | 0-0 | 4-5 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-03 | Tarleton St. | W 96–76 | 34:12 | 12 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 8-13 | 50.0% |