Meechie Johnson
South Carolina · 2025–26 · 32 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
1007:19 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 32
- Minutes per game
- 31:29
- Points per game
- 17.2
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 3.3 / 4.3
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 17.2 | 3.3 | 4.3 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 2.3 | 2.1 |
| Per 40 minutes | 21.8 | 4.2 | 5.4 | 1.6 | 0.2 | 2.9 | 2.7 |
| Season totals | 550 | 106 | 137 | 40 | 4 | 73 | 68 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 159–384 | 41.4% | 12.0 | 15.2 |
| 2P | 101–206 | 49.0% | 6.4 | 8.2 |
| 3P | 58–178 | 32.6% | 5.6 | 7.1 |
| FT | 174–215 | 80.9% | 6.7 | 8.5 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 49.0% | 57.5% | 46.4% | 56.0% | 1.88 |
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
South Carolina · 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
- $645K
- 80% range $375K to $1.10M
- Median share of team pool
- 17.6%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.55M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $645K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $27K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 78.6%
- 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.
South Carolina: 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 | South Carolina | $645Kspeculative | $375K to $1.10M | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +1.2 | +0.1 to +2.5 | Sufficient evidence | +1.3 | -0.0 | +4.3range +3.8 to +4.9 | 3,250 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Ohio St | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | -0.2 | -1.0 to +0.5 | Sufficient evidence | -0.2 | -0.1 | +1.0range +0.8 to +1.1 | 948 | Season detail | |
| 2022 | Ohio St | None: no budget that season | — | development: in model selection | -1.9 | -2.8 to -1.2 | Sufficient evidence | -0.2 | -1.8 | Not computed for this season | 1,512 |
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 | 33:01 | 31:29 | 23:33–36:47 | |
| Points | 17.8 | 17.2 | 2.0–35.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 47.3% | 47.5% | 0.0%–120.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-11 | Oklahoma | L 74–86 | 31:25 | 14 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3-15 | 1-9 | 7-8 | 23.3% |
| 2026-03-07 | Ole Miss | W 64–61 | 34:00 | 17 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 5-11 | 3-7 | 4-4 | 59.1% |
| 2026-03-03 | Tennessee | L 59–78 | 32:02 | 20 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 6-13 | 2-6 | 6-10 | 53.8% |
| 2026-02-28 | Georgia | L 68–87 | 36:24 | 20 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6-14 | 2-6 | 6-9 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-24 | Kentucky | L 63–72 | 31:13 | 18 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 5-12 | 2-6 | 6-8 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-21 | Mississippi St. | W 97–89 | 28:58 | 21 | 5 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 5-11 | 2-5 | 9-10 | 54.5% |
| 2026-02-17 | Florida | L 62–76 | 30:40 | 22 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 6-16 | 1-3 | 9-9 | 40.6% |
| 2026-02-14 | Alabama | L 75–89 | 33:47 | 26 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 8-17 | 3-8 | 7-8 | 55.9% |
| 2026-02-07 | Missouri | L 59–78 | 33:30 | 13 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2-13 | 1-7 | 8-10 | 19.2% |
| 2026-02-03 | Texas | L 75–84 | 34:38 | 35 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 12-21 | 1-3 | 10-14 | 59.5% |
| 2026-01-31 | LSU | L 87–92 | 36:47 | 21 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 5-13 | 2-7 | 9-11 | 46.2% |
| 2026-01-28 | Florida | L 48–95 | 25:39 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-12 | 0-3 | 4-4 | 25.0% |
| 2026-01-24 | Texas A&M | L 69–92 | 34:01 | 26 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 7-12 | 2-4 | 10-10 | 66.7% |
| 2026-01-20 | Oklahoma | W 85–76 | 32:41 | 20 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3-8 | 1-3 | 13-15 | 43.8% |
| 2026-01-17 | Auburn | L 67–71 | 35:31 | 17 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 6-17 | 3-7 | 2-2 | 44.1% |
| 2026-01-14 | Arkansas | L 74–108 | 34:26 | 29 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 9-13 | 3-6 | 8-10 | 80.8% |
| 2026-01-10 | Georgia | L 70–75 | 32:53 | 11 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4-13 | 1-8 | 2-2 | 34.6% |
| 2026-01-06 | LSU | W 78–68 | 34:26 | 19 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4-9 | 3-6 | 8-10 | 61.1% |
| 2026-01-03 | Vanderbilt | L 71–83 | 30:55 | 9 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2-9 | 1-5 | 4-6 | 27.8% |
| 2025-12-30 | UAlbany | W 96–67 | 25:53 | 15 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5-8 | 3-5 | 2-2 | 81.3% |
| 2025-12-22 | South Carolina St. | W 95–70 | 28:52 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0-5 | 0-4 | 4-4 | 0.0% |
| 2025-12-16 | Clemson | L 61–68 | 34:56 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 2-9 | 0-4 | 4-4 | 22.2% |
| 2025-12-13 | The Citadel | W 71–55 | 30:17 | 19 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 7-11 | 1-3 | 4-4 | 68.2% |
| 2025-12-06 | Stetson | W 82–51 | 24:13 | 17 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5-5 | 2-2 | 5-5 | 120.0% |
| 2025-12-02 | Virginia Tech | L 83–86 | 36:16 | 18 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7-12 | 2-6 | 2-4 | 66.7% |
| 2025-11-28 | Charleston So. | W 74–62 | 29:34 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0-3 | 0-1 | 4-4 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-23 | Northwestern | L 77–79 | 35:29 | 15 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 6-17 | 3-11 | 0-0 | 44.1% |
| 2025-11-21 · NCAA | Butler | L 72–79 | 31:18 | 24 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 8-19 | 3-8 | 5-8 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-18 | Radford | W 87–58 | 24:53 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 1-5 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 20.0% |
| 2025-11-12 | Presbyterian | W 81–61 | 25:14 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3-9 | 1-4 | 2-4 | 38.9% |
| 2025-11-09 | Southern Miss. | W 83–79 | 32:55 | 33 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 9-19 | 7-14 | 8-11 | 65.8% |
| 2025-11-04 | N.C. A&T | W 91–72 | 23:33 | 14 | 5 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5-13 | 2-5 | 2-5 | 46.2% |