Isaiah Johnson
Colorado · 2025–26 · 32 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
974:36 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 32
- Minutes per game
- 30:27
- Points per game
- 16.9
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 2.9 / 3.0
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 16.9 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 1.5 |
| Per 40 minutes | 22.2 | 3.8 | 3.9 | 1.4 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 2.0 |
| Season totals | 540 | 92 | 96 | 33 | 1 | 46 | 49 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 162–333 | 48.6% | 10.4 | 13.7 |
| 2P | 106–185 | 57.3% | 5.8 | 7.6 |
| 3P | 56–148 | 37.8% | 4.6 | 6.1 |
| FT | 160–195 | 82.1% | 6.1 | 8.0 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 57.1% | 64.5% | 44.4% | 58.6% | 2.09 |
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
Colorado · 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
- $590K
- 80% range $335K to $1.10M
- Median share of team pool
- 16.0%
- team pool $3.60M, 80% range $2.55M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $590K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $26K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 72.7%
- 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.
Colorado: 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 | Colorado | $590Kspeculative | $335K to $1.10M | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +1.7 | +0.5 to +2.9 | Sufficient evidence | +3.0 | -1.3 | +5.5range +4.8 to +6.2 | 3,407 | 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 | 35:13 | 30:27 | 20:33–43:27 | |
| Points | 20.2 | 16.9 | 8.0–28.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 62.6% | 58.8% | 26.9%–88.9% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-10 | Oklahoma St. | L 83–92 | 37:56 | 14 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5-15 | 2-9 | 2-3 | 40.0% |
| 2026-03-07 | Arizona | L 79–89 | 35:59 | 28 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 7-14 | 4-6 | 10-11 | 64.3% |
| 2026-03-03 | Utah | W 92–78 | 35:19 | 22 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6-10 | 2-5 | 8-8 | 70.0% |
| 2026-02-28 | Houston | L 62–102 | 33:10 | 19 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 7-9 | 2-4 | 3-3 | 88.9% |
| 2026-02-25 | Kansas St. | W 79–70 | 33:39 | 18 | 9 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5-11 | 1-5 | 7-9 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-21 | Oklahoma St. | W 83–69 | 32:20 | 9 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3-11 | 2-6 | 1-2 | 36.4% |
| 2026-02-14 | BYU | L 86–90 | 43:27 | 27 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 10-23 | 4-12 | 3-4 | 52.2% |
| 2026-02-11 | Texas Tech | L 44–78 | 32:03 | 13 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 5-9 | 0-3 | 3-5 | 55.6% |
| 2026-02-07 | Arizona St. | W 78–70 | 36:55 | 16 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 6-12 | 1-7 | 3-6 | 54.2% |
| 2026-02-04 | Baylor | L 67–86 | 32:22 | 10 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3-13 | 1-4 | 3-4 | 26.9% |
| 2026-02-01 | TCU | W 87–61 | 32:52 | 16 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5-11 | 3-6 | 3-3 | 59.1% |
| 2026-01-29 | Iowa St. | L 67–97 | 35:11 | 24 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7-13 | 2-6 | 8-9 | 61.5% |
| 2026-01-24 | UCF | L 86–95 | 38:18 | 20 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 7-13 | 3-7 | 3-3 | 65.4% |
| 2026-01-20 | Kansas | L 69–75 | 36:33 | 19 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6-14 | 2-7 | 5-5 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-17 | West Virginia | L 61–72 | 36:39 | 12 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4-8 | 1-4 | 3-4 | 56.3% |
| 2026-01-14 | Cincinnati | L 68–77 | 28:33 | 18 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 7-10 | 2-3 | 2-4 | 80.0% |
| 2026-01-10 | Texas Tech | L 71–73 | 30:40 | 21 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3-11 | 2-5 | 13-13 | 36.4% |
| 2026-01-07 | Utah | W 85–73 | 21:34 | 12 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-6 | 2-3 | 4-4 | 66.7% |
| 2026-01-03 | Arizona St. | W 95–89 | 25:51 | 19 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5-11 | 2-4 | 7-8 | 54.5% |
| 2025-12-28 | Northern Colo. | L 81–86 | 33:10 | 25 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 9-20 | 2-6 | 5-6 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-20 | Stanford | L 68–77 | 26:14 | 11 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 4-6 | 1-2 | 2-3 | 75.0% |
| 2025-12-17 | Portland St. | W 84–73 | 26:30 | 20 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4-10 | 1-5 | 11-11 | 45.0% |
| 2025-12-13 | UTSA | W 88–64 | 23:53 | 9 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3-8 | 0-3 | 3-6 | 37.5% |
| 2025-12-06 | Colorado St. | L 86–91 | 28:42 | 17 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7-11 | 2-4 | 1-4 | 72.7% |
| 2025-12-01 | California Baptist | W 78–70 | 26:28 | 17 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4-7 | 0-1 | 9-11 | 57.1% |
| 2025-11-28 | Washington | W 81–68 | 25:05 | 13 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1-4 | 1-2 | 10-14 | 37.5% |
| 2025-11-27 | San Francisco | W 79–69 | 23:03 | 17 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 7-10 | 1-2 | 2-2 | 75.0% |
| 2025-11-21 | UC Davis | W 95–79 | 22:10 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2-4 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 75.0% |
| 2025-11-17 | Alabama St. | W 94–66 | 20:33 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4-6 | 2-3 | 0-1 | 83.3% |
| 2025-11-14 | Providence | W 97–88 | 22:32 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3-6 | 1-3 | 8-9 | 58.3% |
| 2025-11-08 | Eastern Wash. | W 102–97 | 31:27 | 17 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4-8 | 3-6 | 6-6 | 68.8% |
| 2025-11-03 | Montana St. | W 84–78 | 25:28 | 24 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 6-9 | 2-3 | 10-12 | 77.8% |