Braxton Williams
The Citadel · 2025–26 · 30 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
908:20 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 30
- Minutes per game
- 30:17
- Points per game
- 15.3
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 3.3 / 1.6
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 15.3 | 3.3 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 1.9 | 1.6 |
| Per 40 minutes | 20.2 | 4.3 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 2.5 | 2.1 |
| Season totals | 458 | 98 | 49 | 21 | 8 | 57 | 48 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 158–387 | 40.8% | 12.9 | 17.0 |
| 2P | 85–173 | 49.1% | 5.8 | 7.6 |
| 3P | 73–214 | 34.1% | 7.1 | 9.4 |
| FT | 69–90 | 76.7% | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50.3% | 53.7% | 55.3% | 23.3% | 0.86 |
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
Citadel · 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
- $11K
- 80% range $1K to $58K
- Median share of team pool
- 10.3%
- team pool $205K, 80% range $76K to $550K
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $11K to $12K
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $1K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 75.3%
- 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.
Citadel: 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 | Citadel | $11Kspeculative | $1K to $58K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | -1.8 | -3.2 to -0.5 | Sufficient evidence | +0.4 | -2.2 | +2.5range +2.0 to +2.8 | 2,868 | 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 | 35:45 | 30:17 | 17:06–38:18 | |
| Points | 21.0 | 15.3 | 6.0–26.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 53.6% | 49.2% | 11.1%–77.3% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-07 | ETSU | L 76–83 | 37:50 | 19 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 7-14 | 3-8 | 2-3 | 60.7% |
| 2026-03-06 | Chattanooga | W 88–85 | 34:02 | 17 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 6-13 | 3-8 | 2-4 | 57.7% |
| 2026-02-28 | Wofford | W 93–90 | 38:02 | 18 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 6-15 | 2-8 | 4-4 | 46.7% |
| 2026-02-25 | Furman | L 51–72 | 33:19 | 25 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 9-21 | 6-15 | 1-1 | 57.1% |
| 2026-02-21 | Chattanooga | L 72–93 | 35:33 | 26 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 8-23 | 5-14 | 5-11 | 45.7% |
| 2026-02-19 | Samford | L 75–78 | 32:52 | 22 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8-18 | 3-9 | 3-3 | 52.8% |
| 2026-02-14 | Mercer | L 54–70 | 35:10 | 17 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5-12 | 2-7 | 5-6 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-11 | Western Caro. | L 49–87 | 21:23 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1-9 | 0-6 | 4-4 | 11.1% |
| 2026-02-07 | Chattanooga | W 78–71 | 36:23 | 18 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 7-14 | 4-10 | 0-0 | 64.3% |
| 2026-02-05 | Samford | L 64–78 | 26:51 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4-10 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 40.0% |
| 2026-01-31 | UNC Greensboro | W 71–66 | 31:04 | 14 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5-12 | 2-6 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-29 | VMI | W 80–56 | 33:11 | 13 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4-15 | 3-11 | 2-4 | 36.7% |
| 2026-01-23 | ETSU | L 55–84 | 32:29 | 8 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3-10 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 40.0% |
| 2026-01-21 | Furman | W 77–75 | 38:18 | 18 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5-18 | 1-10 | 7-7 | 30.6% |
| 2026-01-17 | VMI | W 82–68 | 33:11 | 22 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 7-11 | 3-6 | 5-5 | 77.3% |
| 2026-01-15 | UNC Greensboro | L 66–69 | 33:58 | 25 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 9-19 | 5-11 | 2-2 | 60.5% |
| 2026-01-10 | Western Caro. | W 79–77 | 37:30 | 21 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6-14 | 3-8 | 6-6 | 53.6% |
| 2026-01-07 | Mercer | L 63–101 | 24:48 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3-8 | 1-4 | 2-2 | 43.8% |
| 2026-01-03 | Wofford | L 86–95 | 31:54 | 20 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 8-15 | 4-7 | 0-0 | 66.7% |
| 2025-12-30 | ETSU | L 49–74 | 24:46 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2-6 | 0-3 | 3-5 | 33.3% |
| 2025-12-20 | Richmond | L 56–80 | 26:20 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4-9 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 55.6% |
| 2025-12-17 | Col. of Charleston | L 78–82 | 35:22 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 8-19 | 6-12 | 2-2 | 57.9% |
| 2025-12-13 | South Carolina | L 55–71 | 28:51 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3-9 | 0-3 | 1-2 | 33.3% |
| 2025-12-04 | Davidson | L 63–79 | 22:46 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 3-6 | 1-3 | 2-2 | 58.3% |
| 2025-11-30 | Presbyterian | L 41–69 | 23:19 | 13 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5-11 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 59.1% |
| 2025-11-26 | Houston Christian | L 65–72 | 31:40 | 20 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7-19 | 5-12 | 1-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-24 | Bellarmine | L 58–70 | 17:06 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-8 | 0-2 | 2-2 | 37.5% |
| 2025-11-14 | West Ga. | L 92–100 | 21:32 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3-9 | 2-6 | 2-2 | 44.4% |
| 2025-11-10 | Charleston So. | L 86–96 | 23:39 | 15 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5-9 | 1-3 | 4-8 | 61.1% |
| 2025-11-06 | Boston College | L 47–76 | 25:11 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4-11 | 1-6 | 0-1 | 40.9% |