David Mirkovic
Illinois · 2025–26 · 36 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
1063:45 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 36
- Minutes per game
- 29:33
- Points per game
- 13.2
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 7.9 / 2.6
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 13.2 | 7.9 | 2.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1.9 | 2.0 |
| Per 40 minutes | 17.9 | 10.8 | 3.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 2.6 | 2.7 |
| Season totals | 476 | 286 | 94 | 16 | 13 | 69 | 72 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 171–353 | 48.4% | 9.8 | 13.3 |
| 2P | 114–204 | 55.9% | 5.7 | 7.7 |
| 3P | 57–149 | 38.3% | 4.1 | 5.6 |
| FT | 77–103 | 74.8% | 2.9 | 3.9 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 56.5% | 59.8% | 42.2% | 29.2% | 1.36 |
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
Illinois · 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
- $605K
- 80% range $410K to $885K
- Median share of team pool
- 16.5%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.55M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $605K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $27K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 74.3%
- 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.
Illinois: 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 | Illinois | $605Kspeculative | $410K to $885K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +5.8 | +4.4 to +7.0 | Sufficient evidence | +3.1 | +2.7 | +7.4range +6.6 to +8.1 | 3,345 | 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 | 30:24 | 29:33 | 18:14–37:51 | |
| Points | 13.0 | 13.2 | 3.0–29.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 48.6% | 56.9% | 14.3%–100.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-04 | UConn | L 62–71 | 28:59 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2-7 | 1-3 | 1-2 | 35.7% |
| 2026-03-28 | Iowa | W 71–59 | 37:51 | 9 | 12 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3-9 | 0-1 | 3-4 | 33.3% |
| 2026-03-26 | Houston | W 65–55 | 33:41 | 14 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6-13 | 2-6 | 0-2 | 53.8% |
| 2026-03-21 | VCU | W 76–55 | 23:10 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 3-8 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 43.8% |
| 2026-03-19 | Penn | W 105–70 | 28:19 | 29 | 17 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 11-17 | 4-7 | 3-4 | 76.5% |
| 2026-03-13 | Wisconsin | L 88–91 | 36:33 | 19 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 8-13 | 2-7 | 1-3 | 69.2% |
| 2026-03-08 | Maryland | W 78–72 | 35:16 | 22 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 9-13 | 0-1 | 4-5 | 69.2% |
| 2026-03-03 | Oregon | W 80–54 | 26:53 | 19 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 8-15 | 3-8 | 0-0 | 63.3% |
| 2026-02-27 | Michigan | L 70–84 | 35:48 | 12 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5-10 | 1-3 | 1-1 | 55.0% |
| 2026-02-21 | UCLA | L 94–95 | 24:54 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 1-7 | 0-4 | 1-2 | 14.3% |
| 2026-02-18 | Southern California | W 101–65 | 21:42 | 14 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4-10 | 2-4 | 4-5 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-15 | Indiana | W 71–51 | 36:56 | 25 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 10-16 | 3-6 | 2-2 | 71.9% |
| 2026-02-10 | Wisconsin | L 90–92 | 33:57 | 12 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3-7 | 3-6 | 3-6 | 64.3% |
| 2026-02-07 | Michigan St. | L 82–85 | 35:32 | 18 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 5-13 | 1-5 | 7-8 | 42.3% |
| 2026-02-04 | Northwestern | W 84–44 | 26:53 | 12 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4-6 | 4-5 | 0-0 | 100.0% |
| 2026-02-01 | Nebraska | W 78–69 | 32:53 | 10 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4-10 | 0-3 | 2-2 | 40.0% |
| 2026-01-29 | Washington | W 75–66 | 30:38 | 19 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 7-15 | 3-8 | 2-3 | 56.7% |
| 2026-01-24 | Purdue | W 88–82 | 27:52 | 12 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 4-7 | 2-4 | 2-2 | 71.4% |
| 2026-01-21 | Maryland | W 89–70 | 31:52 | 15 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 5-12 | 2-7 | 3-4 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-17 | Minnesota | W 77–67 | 32:31 | 12 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 4-10 | 3-5 | 1-2 | 55.0% |
| 2026-01-14 | Northwestern | W 79–68 | 29:46 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2-4 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 75.0% |
| 2026-01-11 | Iowa | W 75–69 | 35:22 | 7 | 12 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3-7 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-08 | Rutgers | W 81–55 | 25:53 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2-8 | 1-4 | 3-4 | 31.3% |
| 2026-01-03 | Penn St. | W 73–65 | 26:14 | 13 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4-8 | 0-3 | 5-6 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-29 | Southern U. | W 90–55 | 21:55 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 5-7 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 78.6% |
| 2025-12-22 | Missouri | W 91–48 | 29:19 | 9 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4-6 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 75.0% |
| 2025-12-13 | Nebraska | L 80–83 | 23:28 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2-4 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-09 | Ohio St. | W 88–80 | 32:14 | 22 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5-11 | 4-5 | 8-8 | 63.6% |
| 2025-12-06 | Tennessee | W 75–62 | 30:16 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4-9 | 2-4 | 0-2 | 55.6% |
| 2025-11-28 | UConn | L 61–74 | 18:14 | 8 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-10 | 0-4 | 2-3 | 30.0% |
| 2025-11-24 | UTRGV | W 87–73 | 21:52 | 10 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3-4 | 0-1 | 4-4 | 75.0% |
| 2025-11-22 | LIU | W 98–58 | 20:01 | 12 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4-5 | 0-0 | 4-5 | 80.0% |
| 2025-11-19 | Alabama | L 86–90 | 30:19 | 10 | 10 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4-13 | 2-6 | 0-1 | 38.5% |
| 2025-11-14 | Colgate | W 84–65 | 37:49 | 27 | 21 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 8-16 | 3-7 | 8-8 | 59.4% |
| 2025-11-11 | Texas Tech | W 81–77 | 35:24 | 11 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 5-13 | 1-5 | 0-1 | 42.3% |
| 2025-11-03 | Jackson St. | W 113–55 | 23:29 | 19 | 14 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 7-10 | 2-4 | 3-3 | 80.0% |