Spence Sims
Gardner-Webb · 2025–26 · 29 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
715:05 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 29
- Minutes per game
- 24:39
- Points per game
- 9.7
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 1.8 / 0.8
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 9.7 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 1.8 |
| Per 40 minutes | 15.8 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 2.6 | 2.9 |
| Season totals | 282 | 53 | 23 | 13 | 1 | 46 | 51 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 97–222 | 43.7% | 7.7 | 12.4 |
| 2P | 32–70 | 45.7%† | 2.4 | 3.9 |
| 3P | 65–152 | 42.8% | 5.2 | 8.5 |
| FT | 23–31 | 74.2% | 1.1 | 1.7 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 58.3% | 59.8% | 68.5% | 14.0% | 0.50 |
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
Gardner Webb · 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
- $8K
- 80% range $1K to $45K
- Median share of team pool
- 7.2%
- team pool $190K, 80% range $69K to $510K
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $8K to $9K
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $1K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 59.3%
- 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.
Gardner Webb: 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 | Gardner Webb | $8Kspeculative | $1K to $45K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | -3.2 | -4.8 to -1.6 | Sufficient evidence | -0.4 | -2.8 | +0.7range +0.5 to +0.9 | 2,185 | 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 | 22:25 | 24:39 | 13:37–37:17 | |
| Points | 9.0 | 9.7 | 0.0–29.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 51.2% | 56.1% | 0.0%–100.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-06 | High Point | L 59–81 | 30:20 | 12 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4-12 | 3-11 | 1-1 | 45.8% |
| 2026-03-04 | USC Upstate | W 65–64 | 28:33 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-9 | 3-6 | 1-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-28 | USC Upstate | L 61–71 | 20:38 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4-8 | 4-8 | 0-2 | 75.0% |
| 2026-02-26 | UNC Asheville | L 71–77 | 13:58 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2-5 | 2-4 | 3-4 | 60.0% |
| 2026-02-19 | Radford | L 70–82 | 18:38 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1-4 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 25.0% |
| 2026-02-17 | Charleston So. | L 66–75 | 23:48 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2-8 | 1-6 | 0-0 | 31.3% |
| 2026-02-14 | High Point | L 87–112 | 21:01 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3-9 | 1-5 | 2-2 | 38.9% |
| 2026-02-12 | Winthrop | L 85–103 | 20:31 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2-3 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 100.0% |
| 2026-02-07 | Presbyterian | L 62–68 | 29:31 | 12 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4-9 | 4-8 | 0-0 | 66.7% |
| 2026-02-04 | Longwood | L 66–86 | 29:53 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3-6 | 3-5 | 0-2 | 75.0% |
| 2026-01-29 | UNC Asheville | L 50–69 | 29:54 | 13 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5-7 | 2-3 | 1-1 | 85.7% |
| 2026-01-23 | USC Upstate | W 67–65 | 15:59 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1-3 | 0-2 | 1-2 | 33.3% |
| 2026-01-21 | Longwood | L 56–91 | 24:32 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 3-7 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-17 | Presbyterian | L 55–92 | 27:48 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4-9 | 2-7 | 0-0 | 55.6% |
| 2026-01-07 | High Point | L 49–104 | 32:28 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2-12 | 1-10 | 0-0 | 20.8% |
| 2026-01-03 | Winthrop | L 77–88 | 37:17 | 29 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 11-18 | 7-12 | 0-0 | 80.6% |
| 2025-12-31 | Charleston So. | L 79–89 | 28:01 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3-8 | 2-2 | 4-4 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-21 | Tennessee | L 52–94 | 26:52 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2-6 | 1-4 | 1-2 | 41.7% |
| 2025-12-15 · NCAA | Wofford | L 57–83 | 26:06 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1-3 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-06 | Ga. Southern | L 84–88 | 29:06 | 20 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6-12 | 4-8 | 4-4 | 66.7% |
| 2025-12-03 | Queens (NC) | L 74–107 | 24:02 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6-9 | 3-3 | 0-0 | 83.3% |
| 2025-11-29 | UNCW | L 62–88 | 26:56 | 19 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6-12 | 4-8 | 3-3 | 66.7% |
| 2025-11-28 | Southeastern La. | L 68–76 | 13:37 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0-4 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-26 | Navy | L 51–84 | 29:44 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2-5 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 40.0% |
| 2025-11-22 | Richmond | L 67–102 | 24:31 | 17 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 6-11 | 5-9 | 0-0 | 77.3% |
| 2025-11-18 | DePaul | L 62–93 | 18:04 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3-4 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 100.0% |
| 2025-11-15 | Elon | L 84–95 | 14:19 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0-4 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-07 | Clemson | L 59–97 | 27:03 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 4-6 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 91.7% |
| 2025-11-03 | Minnesota | L 60–87 | 21:55 | 12 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4-9 | 4-7 | 0-0 | 66.7% |