Dylan Grant
Rutgers · 2025–26 · 34 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
813:31 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 34
- Minutes per game
- 23:56
- Points per game
- 9.5
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 4.2 / 0.5
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 9.5 | 4.2 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 1.9 |
| Per 40 minutes | 15.9 | 7.1 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 1.9 | 3.1 |
| Season totals | 324 | 144 | 18 | 19 | 15 | 39 | 64 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 111–252 | 44.0% | 7.4 | 12.4 |
| 2P | 89–180 | 49.4% | 5.3 | 8.9 |
| 3P | 22–72 | 30.6% | 2.1 | 3.5 |
| FT | 80–110 | 72.7% | 3.2 | 5.4 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48.4% | 53.9% | 28.6% | 43.7% | 0.46 |
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
Rutgers · 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
- $295K
- 80% range $31K to $540K
- Median share of team pool
- 9.4%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.55M to $5.00M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $295K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $26K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 59.8%
- 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.
Rutgers: 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 | Rutgers | $295Kspeculative | $31K to $540K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | -0.5 | -1.7 to +0.6 | Sufficient evidence | -0.6 | +0.1 | +3.0range +2.6 to +3.3 | 2,742 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Rutgers | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | -1.0 | -2.1 to +0.1 | Sufficient evidence | -0.3 | -0.7 | +1.2range +1.0 to +1.5 | 1,387 | 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 | 23:48 | 23:56 | 11:49–34:06 | |
| Points | 4.4 | 9.5 | 1.0–28.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 32.2% | 43.2% | 0.0%–81.3% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-02 | Creighton | L 69–82 | 26:14 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 33.3% |
| 2026-03-12 | UCLA | L 59–72 | 16:57 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1-6 | 1-2 | 2-2 | 25.0% |
| 2026-03-11 | Minnesota | W 72–67 | 25:28 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3-6 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-03-08 | Penn St. | W 74–62 | 26:09 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2-5 | 0-2 | 2-2 | 40.0% |
| 2026-03-05 | Michigan St. | L 87–91 | 24:13 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1-8 | 0-2 | 1-2 | 12.5% |
| 2026-03-01 | Maryland | W 69–65 | 19:18 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 60.0% |
| 2026-02-24 | Washington | L 72–79 | 13:52 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-3 | 0-1 | 1-4 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-21 | Minnesota | L 61–80 | 26:05 | 15 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5-8 | 0-1 | 5-5 | 62.5% |
| 2026-02-18 | Penn St. | W 85–72 | 27:23 | 15 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6-8 | 1-2 | 2-2 | 81.3% |
| 2026-02-15 | Maryland | W 68–57 | 29:34 | 9 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4-8 | 1-3 | 0-3 | 56.3% |
| 2026-02-07 | Nebraska | L 68–80 | 19:38 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2-6 | 0-2 | 3-4 | 33.3% |
| 2026-02-03 | UCLA | L 66–98 | 21:43 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0-5 | 0-2 | 1-2 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-31 | Southern California | L 75–78 | 32:26 | 14 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6-13 | 1-4 | 1-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-27 | Michigan St. | L 79–88 | 34:06 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 4-7 | 1-2 | 2-2 | 64.3% |
| 2026-01-23 | Indiana | L 59–82 | 11:49 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1-4 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 37.5% |
| 2026-01-20 | Iowa | L 62–68 | 20:55 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3-4 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 75.0% |
| 2026-01-17 | Wisconsin | L 87–96 | 13:41 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1-4 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 37.5% |
| 2026-01-11 | Northwestern | W 77–75 | 19:52 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-08 | Illinois | L 55–81 | 15:54 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 2-4 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-05 | Oregon | W 88–85 | 17:01 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0-4 | 0-3 | 6-6 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-02 | Ohio St. | L 73–80 | 30:56 | 14 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5-12 | 2-5 | 2-3 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-29 | Delaware St. | W 65–50 | 33:47 | 18 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5-12 | 2-6 | 6-7 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-20 | Penn | W 70–69 | 22:03 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3-7 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 42.9% |
| 2025-12-13 | Seton Hall | L 59–81 | 22:03 | 12 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5-10 | 1-1 | 1-2 | 55.0% |
| 2025-12-06 | Michigan | L 60–101 | 24:23 | 11 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4-11 | 1-2 | 2-2 | 40.9% |
| 2025-12-02 | Purdue | L 65–81 | 23:55 | 13 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5-10 | 1-3 | 2-2 | 55.0% |
| 2025-11-27 | UNLV | W 80–65 | 30:56 | 17 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5-11 | 1-6 | 6-8 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-25 | Notre Dame | L 63–68 | 33:38 | 15 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5-8 | 3-5 | 2-2 | 81.3% |
| 2025-11-24 | Tennessee | L 60–85 | 19:01 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4-8 | 1-1 | 1-4 | 56.3% |
| 2025-11-21 | Central Conn. St. | L 54–67 | 25:59 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2-10 | 1-3 | 1-2 | 25.0% |
| 2025-11-18 | American | W 80–71 | 30:01 | 22 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 7-12 | 1-1 | 7-9 | 62.5% |
| 2025-11-14 | Lehigh | W 84–72 | 29:14 | 28 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 9-15 | 1-1 | 9-10 | 63.3% |
| 2025-11-10 | Maine | W 72–60 | 24:34 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 4-6 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-05 | Rider | W 81–53 | 20:43 | 17 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6-9 | 0-1 | 5-7 | 66.7% |