Micah Robinson
TCU · 2025–26 · 35 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
936:03 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 35
- Minutes per game
- 26:45
- Points per game
- 10.9
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 4.7 / 1.7
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 10.9 | 4.7 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 2.3 |
| Per 40 minutes | 16.3 | 7.1 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 2.0 | 3.4 |
| Season totals | 382 | 165 | 59 | 41 | 12 | 47 | 80 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 115–293 | 39.2% | 8.4 | 12.5 |
| 2P | 70–158 | 44.3% | 4.5 | 6.8 |
| 3P | 45–135 | 33.3% | 3.9 | 5.8 |
| FT | 107–141 | 75.9% | 4.0 | 6.0 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 46.9% | 53.8% | 46.1% | 48.1% | 1.26 |
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
TCU · 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
- $360K
- 80% range $115K to $575K
- Median share of team pool
- 10.6%
- team pool $3.60M, 80% range $2.60M to $4.90M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $360K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $23K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 67.6%
- 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.
TCU: 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 | TCU | $360Kspeculative | $115K to $575K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +1.7 | +0.3 to +2.9 | Sufficient evidence | +1.0 | +0.6 | +4.8range +4.2 to +5.4 | 2,928 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | TCU | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | -0.0 | -1.2 to +0.9 | Sufficient evidence | +1.1 | -1.1 | +1.6range +1.3 to +1.8 | 1,495 | 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 | 31:19 | 26:45 | 15:35–37:20 | |
| Points | 12.2 | 10.9 | 2.0–20.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 44.2% | 46.0% | 0.0%–88.9% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-21 | Duke | L 58–81 | 37:20 | 18 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7-18 | 3-9 | 1-2 | 47.2% |
| 2026-03-19 | Ohio St. | W 66–64 | 36:52 | 18 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6-11 | 4-6 | 2-2 | 72.7% |
| 2026-03-12 | Kansas | L 73–78 | 23:52 | 8 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 2-8 | 2-4 | 2-2 | 37.5% |
| 2026-03-11 | Oklahoma St. | W 95–88 | 28:30 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3-11 | 1-6 | 3-4 | 31.8% |
| 2026-03-07 | Cincinnati | W 73–63 | 30:00 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3-11 | 1-6 | 0-0 | 31.8% |
| 2026-03-03 | Texas Tech | W 73–65 | 35:33 | 15 | 2 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6-10 | 0-2 | 3-5 | 60.0% |
| 2026-02-28 | Kansas St. | W 77–68 | 29:09 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3-9 | 1-4 | 2-3 | 38.9% |
| 2026-02-24 | Arizona St. | W 90–78 | 33:55 | 20 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6-13 | 3-5 | 5-6 | 57.7% |
| 2026-02-21 | West Virginia | W 60–54 | 28:25 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2-6 | 1-2 | 2-2 | 41.7% |
| 2026-02-17 | UCF | L 71–82 | 34:09 | 20 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6-12 | 2-3 | 6-8 | 58.3% |
| 2026-02-14 | Oklahoma St. | W 95–92 | 25:18 | 11 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4-11 | 1-5 | 2-4 | 40.9% |
| 2026-02-10 | Iowa St. | W 62–55 | 29:31 | 17 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6-9 | 1-1 | 4-4 | 72.2% |
| 2026-02-07 | Kansas St. | W 84–82 | 25:26 | 16 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5-12 | 2-6 | 4-7 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-01 | Colorado | L 61–87 | 19:08 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-9 | 1-4 | 2-2 | 38.9% |
| 2026-01-28 | Houston | L 70–79 | 17:49 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0-3 | 0-2 | 3-4 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-24 | Baylor | W 97–90 | 35:11 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2-5 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-20 | Oklahoma St. | W 68–65 | 15:35 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 1-6 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 16.7% |
| 2026-01-17 | Utah | L 79–82 | 28:08 | 14 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3-8 | 1-5 | 7-8 | 43.8% |
| 2026-01-14 | BYU | L 70–76 | 27:07 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4-10 | 1-6 | 1-1 | 45.0% |
| 2026-01-10 | Arizona | L 73–86 | 20:15 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1-7 | 1-4 | 2-2 | 21.4% |
| 2026-01-06 | Kansas | L 100–104 | 29:17 | 16 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 5-12 | 2-5 | 4-5 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-03 | Baylor | W 69–63 | 30:20 | 13 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3-6 | 1-3 | 6-8 | 58.3% |
| 2025-12-29 | Jackson St. | W 115–64 | 31:23 | 19 | 3 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7-9 | 2-4 | 3-3 | 88.9% |
| 2025-12-21 | Florida A&M | W 80–56 | 30:55 | 10 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3-10 | 1-7 | 3-3 | 35.0% |
| 2025-12-18 | Oral Roberts | W 72–53 | 22:04 | 9 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2-3 | 1-1 | 4-4 | 83.3% |
| 2025-12-15 | UIW | W 69–65 | 18:05 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2-4 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-07 | North Texas | W 65–55 | 17:40 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1-4 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 25.0% |
| 2025-12-05 | Notre Dame | L 85–87 | 30:35 | 13 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3-7 | 2-4 | 5-8 | 57.1% |
| 2025-11-28 | Wisconsin | W 74–63 | 27:38 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1-5 | 0-2 | 5-7 | 20.0% |
| 2025-11-27 | Florida | W 84–80 | 29:57 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3-10 | 1-5 | 1-6 | 35.0% |
| 2025-11-19 | Kansas City | W 81–45 | 20:10 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1-5 | 1-3 | 1-2 | 30.0% |
| 2025-11-14 | Michigan | L 63–67 | 21:22 | 12 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 3-8 | 2-3 | 4-5 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-10 | Lamar University | W 78–65 | 23:36 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2-7 | 2-3 | 5-6 | 42.9% |
| 2025-11-06 | Saint Francis | W 104–63 | 18:40 | 13 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3-4 | 1-2 | 6-7 | 87.5% |
| 2025-11-03 | LSU New Orleans | L 74–78 | 23:08 | 14 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3-10 | 2-5 | 6-6 | 40.0% |