Mark Mitchell
Missouri · 2025–26 · 33 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season
Logged performance
1114:41 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 33
- Minutes per game
- 33:47
- Points per game
- 18.3
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 5.2 / 3.6
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 18.3 | 5.2 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 2.1 | 1.3 |
| Per 40 minutes | 21.7 | 6.1 | 4.3 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 2.5 | 1.6 |
| Season totals | 605 | 171 | 119 | 22 | 16 | 69 | 44 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 204–373 | 54.7% | 11.3 | 13.4 |
| 2P | 185–324 | 57.1% | 9.8 | 11.6 |
| 3P | 19–49 | 38.8%† | 1.5 | 1.8 |
| FT | 178–266 | 66.9% | 8.1 | 9.5 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 57.2% | 61.7% | 13.1% | 71.3% | 1.72 |
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
Missouri · 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
- $795K
- 80% range $500K to $1.35M
- Median share of team pool
- 21.3%
- team pool $3.60M, 80% range $2.60M to $5.00M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $795K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $27K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 84.1%
- 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.
Missouri: 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 | Missouri | $795Kspeculative | $500K to $1.35M | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +3.2 | +1.9 to +4.7 | Sufficient evidence | +2.4 | +0.9 | +6.3range +5.7 to +7.0 | 3,706 | Prior built from the box-score line only, without a prior-season value. 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 | 36:18 | 33:47 | 24:52–42:30 | |
| Points | 23.4 | 18.3 | 5.0–32.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 68.4% | 58.0% | 27.8%–108.3% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-20 | Miami (FL) | L 66–80 | 36:38 | 19 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 4-10 | 3-4 | 8-10 | 55.0% |
| 2026-03-12 | Kentucky | L 72–78 | 38:29 | 32 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 13-21 | 2-2 | 4-7 | 66.7% |
| 2026-03-07 | Arkansas | L 84–88 | 42:30 | 32 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 11-20 | 1-3 | 9-11 | 57.5% |
| 2026-03-03 | Oklahoma | L 64–80 | 35:27 | 17 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 6-6 | 1-1 | 4-8 | 108.3% |
| 2026-02-28 | Mississippi St. | W 88–64 | 28:26 | 17 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 6-11 | 0-0 | 5-6 | 54.5% |
| 2026-02-24 | Tennessee | W 73–69 | 34:29 | 23 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 8-13 | 0-1 | 7-9 | 61.5% |
| 2026-02-21 | Arkansas | L 86–94 | 39:18 | 26 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8-12 | 1-1 | 9-12 | 70.8% |
| 2026-02-18 | Vanderbilt | W 81–80 | 36:15 | 10 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2-9 | 1-1 | 5-8 | 27.8% |
| 2026-02-14 | Texas | L 68–85 | 38:40 | 16 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5-9 | 0-0 | 6-10 | 55.6% |
| 2026-02-11 | Texas A&M | W 86–85 | 37:52 | 9 | 4 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-7 | 0-0 | 3-4 | 42.9% |
| 2026-02-07 | South Carolina | W 78–59 | 35:18 | 20 | 11 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7-11 | 1-2 | 5-9 | 68.2% |
| 2026-01-31 | Mississippi St. | W 84–79 | 36:03 | 19 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5-14 | 1-4 | 8-12 | 39.3% |
| 2026-01-27 | Alabama | L 64–90 | 29:59 | 11 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5-11 | 0-2 | 1-8 | 45.5% |
| 2026-01-24 | Oklahoma | W 88–87 | 41:21 | 25 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7-14 | 1-2 | 10-12 | 53.6% |
| 2026-01-20 | Georgia | L 72–74 | 35:42 | 18 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 7-15 | 1-2 | 3-3 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-17 | LSU | L 70–78 | 24:52 | 13 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3-6 | 0-1 | 7-10 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-14 | Auburn | W 84–74 | 37:18 | 20 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7-13 | 0-1 | 6-14 | 53.8% |
| 2026-01-10 | Ole Miss | L 69–76 | 35:26 | 20 | 8 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 7-9 | 1-1 | 5-8 | 83.3% |
| 2026-01-07 | Kentucky | W 73–68 | 37:25 | 21 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7-15 | 1-1 | 6-7 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-03 | Florida | W 76–74 | 36:14 | 14 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5-14 | 1-3 | 3-5 | 39.3% |
| 2025-12-22 | Illinois | L 48–91 | 27:02 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2-6 | 0-2 | 1-2 | 33.3% |
| 2025-12-14 | Bethune-Cookman | W 82–60 | 28:02 | 19 | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 8-12 | 1-2 | 2-3 | 70.8% |
| 2025-12-11 | Alabama St. | W 85–77 | 34:37 | 15 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 6-10 | 0-0 | 3-4 | 60.0% |
| 2025-12-07 | Kansas | L 60–80 | 32:17 | 21 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 7-15 | 1-3 | 6-11 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-02 | Notre Dame | L 71–76 | 38:01 | 26 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 8-17 | 1-4 | 9-11 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-28 | Cleveland St. | W 86–59 | 29:02 | 10 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-4 | 0-1 | 4-4 | 75.0% |
| 2025-11-25 | South Carolina St. | W 98–66 | 26:07 | 15 | 7 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5-8 | 0-1 | 5-6 | 62.5% |
| 2025-11-20 | South Dakota | W 102–68 | 29:01 | 22 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 7-12 | 0-0 | 8-11 | 58.3% |
| 2025-11-17 | Prairie View | W 91–73 | 27:25 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 4-5 | 60.0% |
| 2025-11-12 | Minnesota | W 83–60 | 35:34 | 18 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 6-11 | 0-3 | 6-8 | 54.5% |
| 2025-11-09 | VMI | W 106–68 | 33:04 | 24 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7-13 | 0-1 | 10-13 | 53.8% |
| 2025-11-07 | Southeast Mo. St. | W 89–84 | 31:23 | 29 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 12-14 | 0-0 | 5-11 | 85.7% |
| 2025-11-03 | Howard | W 88–67 | 25:24 | 9 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4-6 | 0-0 | 1-4 | 66.7% |