Sebastian Rancik
Colorado · 2025–26 · 29 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
813:11 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 29
- Minutes per game
- 28:02
- Points per game
- 12.3
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 5.6 / 2.0
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 12.3 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 1.7 | 2.2 |
| Per 40 minutes | 17.5 | 7.9 | 2.8 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 2.5 | 3.1 |
| Season totals | 356 | 161 | 57 | 27 | 15 | 50 | 64 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 103–255 | 40.4% | 8.8 | 12.5 |
| 2P | 64–137 | 46.7% | 4.7 | 6.7 |
| 3P | 39–118 | 33.1% | 4.1 | 5.8 |
| FT | 111–129 | 86.0% | 4.4 | 6.3 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48.0% | 57.1% | 46.3% | 50.6% | 1.14 |
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
- $425K
- 80% range $180K to $735K
- Median share of team pool
- 12.0%
- team pool $3.60M, 80% range $2.55M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $425K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $26K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 61.1%
- 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 | $425Kspeculative | $180K to $735K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +1.3 | -0.2 to +2.5 | Sufficient evidence | +1.0 | +0.3 | +4.5range +3.9 to +5.1 | 2,864 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Colorado | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | -1.2 | -2.7 to +0.3 | Sufficient evidence | -1.0 | -0.2 | +1.6range +1.2 to +2.0 | 1,974 | 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 | 27:41 | 28:02 | 20:24–39:46 | |
| Points | 8.6 | 12.3 | 3.0–24.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 42.2% | 48.3% | 18.8%–93.8% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-02-28 | Houston | L 62–102 | 21:05 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 3-4 | 1-1 | 4-4 | 87.5% |
| 2026-02-25 | Kansas St. | W 79–70 | 29:25 | 13 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 3-8 | 1-5 | 6-7 | 43.8% |
| 2026-02-21 | Oklahoma St. | W 83–69 | 26:31 | 7 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-9 | 1-6 | 0-0 | 38.9% |
| 2026-02-14 | BYU | L 86–90 | 36:30 | 9 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 2-9 | 0-5 | 5-6 | 22.2% |
| 2026-02-11 | Texas Tech | L 44–78 | 24:56 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1-8 | 1-6 | 0-0 | 18.8% |
| 2026-02-07 | Arizona St. | W 78–70 | 30:18 | 17 | 11 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6-12 | 3-5 | 2-3 | 62.5% |
| 2026-02-04 | Baylor | L 67–86 | 21:07 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1-5 | 1-2 | 2-2 | 30.0% |
| 2026-02-01 | TCU | W 87–61 | 25:01 | 17 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6-8 | 3-4 | 2-4 | 93.8% |
| 2026-01-29 | Iowa St. | L 67–97 | 20:24 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3-8 | 1-4 | 2-2 | 43.8% |
| 2026-01-24 | UCF | L 86–95 | 30:04 | 20 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 7-12 | 3-6 | 3-3 | 70.8% |
| 2026-01-20 | Kansas | L 69–75 | 29:59 | 8 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3-10 | 1-4 | 1-2 | 35.0% |
| 2026-01-17 | West Virginia | L 61–72 | 29:23 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3-8 | 1-4 | 3-4 | 43.8% |
| 2026-01-14 | Cincinnati | L 68–77 | 24:14 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 1-5 | 0-2 | 3-3 | 20.0% |
| 2026-01-10 | Texas Tech | L 71–73 | 30:58 | 13 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 5-10 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 65.0% |
| 2026-01-07 | Utah | W 85–73 | 34:15 | 19 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5-11 | 0-5 | 9-9 | 45.5% |
| 2026-01-03 | Arizona St. | W 95–89 | 27:51 | 18 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3-7 | 0-2 | 12-14 | 42.9% |
| 2025-12-28 | Northern Colo. | L 81–86 | 32:59 | 14 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4-13 | 2-6 | 4-4 | 38.5% |
| 2025-12-20 | Stanford | L 68–77 | 28:44 | 14 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4-11 | 2-4 | 4-4 | 45.5% |
| 2025-12-17 | Portland St. | W 84–73 | 25:12 | 12 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4-9 | 1-4 | 3-4 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-13 | UTSA | W 88–64 | 21:44 | 15 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6-12 | 2-4 | 1-1 | 58.3% |
| 2025-12-06 | Colorado St. | L 86–91 | 26:55 | 13 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5-8 | 0-2 | 3-5 | 62.5% |
| 2025-12-01 | California Baptist | W 78–70 | 30:42 | 12 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3-7 | 2-3 | 4-4 | 57.1% |
| 2025-11-28 | Washington | W 81–68 | 26:17 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2-10 | 1-5 | 6-8 | 25.0% |
| 2025-11-27 | San Francisco | W 79–69 | 28:22 | 7 | 9 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 2-9 | 2-4 | 1-3 | 33.3% |
| 2025-11-21 | UC Davis | W 95–79 | 30:53 | 15 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5-9 | 1-2 | 4-4 | 61.1% |
| 2025-11-17 | Alabama St. | W 94–66 | 20:49 | 14 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2-3 | 0-1 | 10-10 | 66.7% |
| 2025-11-14 | Providence | W 97–88 | 26:27 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 3-8 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-08 | Eastern Wash. | W 102–97 | 39:46 | 24 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5-13 | 3-8 | 11-12 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-03 | Montana St. | W 84–78 | 32:20 | 13 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3-9 | 1-4 | 6-7 | 38.9% |