Tate Darner
Chattanooga · 2025–26 · 27 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
766:46 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 27
- Minutes per game
- 28:24
- Points per game
- 9.8
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 4.3 / 1.8
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 9.8 | 4.3 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 1.1 | 1.3 |
| Per 40 minutes | 13.8 | 6.1 | 2.6 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 1.5 | 1.9 |
| Season totals | 265 | 116 | 49 | 20 | 3 | 29 | 36 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 91–207 | 44.0% | 7.7 | 10.8 |
| 2P | 47–83 | 56.6%† | 3.1 | 4.3 |
| 3P | 44–124 | 35.5% | 4.6 | 6.5 |
| FT | 39–52 | 75.0% | 1.9 | 2.7 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54.6% | 57.6% | 59.9% | 25.1% | 1.69 |
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
Chattanooga · Low and other · 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
- $42K
- 80% range $12K to $145K
- Median share of team pool
- 16.4%
- team pool $240K, 80% range $91K to $645K
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $40K to $43K
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $2K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 67.2%
- 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. Tier prior from anonymous surveys and sources, scaled so that all non-Power budgets sum to the national total the College Sports Commission reported paid for 2025-26 ($1,770,453,776 over 307 schools) less the Power 4 total, times a men's basketball share; weak anchor.
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.
Chattanooga: 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 | Chattanooga | $42Kspeculative | $12K to $145K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +0.8 | -0.3 to +1.8 | Sufficient evidence | +1.7 | -0.9 | +4.0range +3.5 to +4.5 | 2,539 | 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 | 32:28 | 28:24 | 14:08–38:23 | |
| Points | 9.8 | 9.8 | 3.0–18.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 63.1% | 54.9% | 27.8%–88.9% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-06 | The Citadel | L 85–88 | 38:23 | 16 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6-9 | 4-7 | 0-0 | 88.9% |
| 2026-02-28 | VMI | W 86–79 | 34:44 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2-6 | 1-3 | 2-3 | 41.7% |
| 2026-02-26 | UNC Greensboro | L 80–85 | 32:47 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2-6 | 1-5 | 1-2 | 41.7% |
| 2026-02-21 | The Citadel | W 93–72 | 32:09 | 12 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4-6 | 2-3 | 2-2 | 83.3% |
| 2026-02-19 | Mercer | W 94–90 | 24:15 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2-5 | 2-4 | 2-4 | 60.0% |
| 2026-02-14 | Western Caro. | L 76–81 | 32:15 | 12 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5-11 | 0-5 | 2-2 | 45.5% |
| 2026-02-11 | ETSU | L 61–73 | 31:11 | 13 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 5-7 | 2-4 | 1-2 | 85.7% |
| 2026-02-07 | The Citadel | L 71–78 | 29:30 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3-7 | 1-3 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-05 | Mercer | W 79–75 | 35:36 | 18 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6-11 | 1-4 | 5-6 | 59.1% |
| 2026-02-01 | Furman | L 70–75 | 31:09 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2-9 | 1-5 | 0-2 | 27.8% |
| 2026-01-29 | Wofford | L 55–81 | 30:01 | 8 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3-8 | 1-5 | 1-2 | 43.8% |
| 2026-01-24 | Samford | L 64–75 | 32:37 | 9 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2-5 | 1-3 | 4-4 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-21 | ETSU | L 66–67 | 34:33 | 14 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6-13 | 1-8 | 1-1 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-17 | Western Caro. | W 90–82 | 28:42 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4-7 | 2-5 | 0-0 | 71.4% |
| 2026-01-14 | Wofford | W 76–67 | 30:13 | 16 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4-10 | 3-5 | 5-7 | 55.0% |
| 2026-01-10 | Samford | W 88–79 | 31:08 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-9 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 38.9% |
| 2026-01-07 | Furman | L 67–78 | 31:52 | 6 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2-8 | 2-7 | 0-0 | 37.5% |
| 2026-01-03 | VMI | L 71–79 | 31:06 | 16 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4-11 | 2-7 | 6-6 | 45.5% |
| 2026-01-01 | UNC Greensboro | L 72–77 | 24:52 | 7 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-8 | 1-6 | 0-0 | 43.8% |
| 2025-12-13 | Auburn | L 78–92 | 14:08 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3-6 | 3-4 | 0-0 | 75.0% |
| 2025-12-06 | Southeast Mo. St. | L 70–74 | 27:10 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-8 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 56.3% |
| 2025-11-30 | Tennessee St. | L 64–70 | 19:18 | 16 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 6-10 | 3-5 | 1-2 | 75.0% |
| 2025-11-22 | North Ala. | W 71–57 | 16:57 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3-6 | 1-4 | 3-3 | 58.3% |
| 2025-11-19 | South Carolina St. | W 78–66 | 27:57 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1-4 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 37.5% |
| 2025-11-15 · NCAA | FGCU | L 73–91 | 18:00 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2-4 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-08 | UNLV | L 69–101 | 24:18 | 9 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3-6 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 75.0% |
| 2025-11-07 | Saint Mary's (CA) | L 66–87 | 21:55 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2-7 | 1-4 | 1-2 | 35.7% |