Chas Kelley III
Georgia Tech · 2025–26 · 29 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
511:56 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 29
- Minutes per game
- 17:39
- Points per game
- 4.3
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 1.4 / 1.6
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 4.3 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.9 | 1.6 |
| Per 40 minutes | 9.7 | 3.1 | 3.6 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 3.5 |
| Season totals | 124 | 40 | 46 | 13 | 2 | 25 | 45 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 45–111 | 40.5% | 3.8 | 8.7 |
| 2P | 17–38 | 44.7%† | 1.3 | 3.0 |
| 3P | 28–73 | 38.4% | 2.5 | 5.7 |
| FT | 6–10 | 60.0%† | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 53.2% | 53.7% | 65.8% | 9.0% | 1.84 |
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
Georgia Tech · 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
- $160K
- 80% range $22K to $330K
- Median share of team pool
- 5.0%
- team pool $3.60M, 80% range $2.60M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $160K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $27K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 42.9%
- 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.
Georgia Tech: 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 | Georgia Tech | $160Kspeculative | $22K to $330K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | -1.1 | -2.1 to -0.3 | Sufficient evidence | +0.0 | -1.2 | +2.0range +1.7 to +2.2 | 1,729 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Boston College | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | -1.2 | -2.0 to -0.4 | Sufficient evidence | -0.8 | -0.4 | +1.5range +1.2 to +1.8 | 1,437 | Season detail | |
| 2024 | Boston College | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | -2.6 | -4.1 to -1.3 | Sufficient evidence | -0.9 | -1.7 | +0.9range +0.5 to +1.2 | 1,072 | Season detail | |
| 2023 | Boston College | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | -2.6 | -3.9 to -1.4 | Sufficient evidence | -1.1 | -1.5 | +0.9range +0.5 to +1.2 | 1,289 | 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 | 16:50 | 17:39 | 3:17–25:32 | |
| Points | 2.6 | 4.3 | 0.0–15.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 29.5% | 51.0% | 0.0%–150.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-07 | Clemson | L 76–79 | 23:36 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1-7 | 0-5 | 0-0 | 14.3% |
| 2026-03-04 | California | L 65–76 | 16:44 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0-3 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-28 | Florida St. | L 71–80 | 18:06 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2-6 | 2-6 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-21 | Louisville | L 70–87 | 15:45 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1-3 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 33.3% |
| 2026-02-18 | Virginia | L 68–94 | 9:58 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1-3 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-14 | Notre Dame | L 74–89 | 22:11 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3-7 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 64.3% |
| 2026-02-11 | Wake Forest | L 67–83 | 15:57 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2-6 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 41.7% |
| 2026-02-07 | Stanford | L 72–95 | 18:21 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | — |
| 2026-02-04 | California | L 85–90 | 25:32 | 15 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 6-10 | 2-5 | 1-3 | 70.0% |
| 2026-01-31 | North Carolina | L 75–91 | 17:18 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1-3 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-27 | Virginia Tech | L 65–71 | 23:18 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 33.3% |
| 2026-01-24 | Clemson | L 63–77 | 24:03 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2-7 | 2-5 | 2-2 | 42.9% |
| 2026-01-17 | NC State | W 78–74 | 14:54 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 75.0% |
| 2026-01-14 | Pittsburgh | L 66–89 | 20:51 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4-7 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 78.6% |
| 2026-01-10 | Miami (FL) | L 81–91 | 18:57 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2-4 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 75.0% |
| 2026-01-06 | Syracuse | L 72–82 | 21:38 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-03 | Boston College | W 65–53 | 21:18 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0-4 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2025-12-31 | Duke | L 79–85 | 19:45 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4-4 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 125.0% |
| 2025-12-28 | Florida A&M | W 89–65 | 23:03 | 14 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 5-5 | 2-2 | 2-3 | 120.0% |
| 2025-12-20 | Lafayette | W 95–81 | 22:43 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 150.0% |
| 2025-12-16 | Marist | W 87–76 | 24:36 | 8 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3-5 | 1-1 | 1-2 | 70.0% |
| 2025-12-06 | Monmouth | W 79–67 | 14:19 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 75.0% |
| 2025-12-03 | Mississippi St. | L 73–85 | 3:54 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-29 | Drake | L 74–84 | 15:09 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1-6 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 25.0% |
| 2025-11-18 | Ga. Southern | W 68–66 | 3:17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | — |
| 2025-11-14 | Georgia | L 87–92 | 17:31 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-10 | Southeastern La. | W 70–60 | 3:30 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | — |
| 2025-11-07 | Bryant | W 74–45 | 13:53 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2-3 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 83.3% |
| 2025-11-03 | UMES | W 56–52 | 21:49 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0-4 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 0.0% |