Amari Evans
Tennessee · 2025–26 · 35 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
501:59 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 35
- Minutes per game
- 14:21
- Points per game
- 4.1
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 3.2 / 0.8
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 4.1 | 3.2 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 1.1 |
| Per 40 minutes | 11.3 | 8.9 | 2.2 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 1.7 | 3.0 |
| Season totals | 142 | 112 | 27 | 34 | 8 | 21 | 38 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 54–129 | 41.9% | 3.7 | 10.3 |
| 2P | 43–79 | 54.4%† | 2.3 | 6.3 |
| 3P | 11–50 | 22.0% | 1.4 | 4.0 |
| FT | 23–40 | 57.5% | 1.1 | 3.2 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 46.1% | 48.4% | 38.8% | 31.0% | 1.29 |
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
Tennessee · 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
- $135K
- 80% range $37K to $235K
- Median share of team pool
- 4.0%
- team pool $3.60M, 80% range $2.55M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $135K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $22K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 33.3%
- 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. 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.
Tennessee: 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 | Tennessee | $135Kspeculative | $37K to $235K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +1.1 | -0.3 to +2.4 | Sufficient evidence | +0.6 | +0.5 | +2.5range +2.2 to +2.9 | 1,679 | 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 | 15:42 | 14:21 | 2:45–32:10 | |
| Points | 2.2 | 4.1 | 0.0–24.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 22.7% | 38.2% | 0.0%–116.7% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-29 | Michigan | L 62–95 | 12:46 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0-3 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-03-27 | Iowa St. | W 76–62 | 14:01 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1-4 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 37.5% |
| 2026-03-22 | Virginia | W 79–72 | 13:31 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 33.3% |
| 2026-03-20 | Miami (OH) | W 78–56 | 25:51 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3-7 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 42.9% |
| 2026-03-13 | Vanderbilt | L 68–75 | 12:20 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-4 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-03-12 | Auburn | W 72–62 | 17:59 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2-5 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 40.0% |
| 2026-03-07 | Vanderbilt | L 82–86 | 31:55 | 24 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 9-18 | 2-6 | 4-7 | 55.6% |
| 2026-03-03 | South Carolina | W 78–59 | 32:10 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3-6 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-28 | Alabama | L 69–71 | 28:01 | 7 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3-6 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 58.3% |
| 2026-02-24 | Missouri | L 69–73 | 9:47 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-21 | Vanderbilt | W 69–65 | 18:18 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2-6 | 0-2 | 1-4 | 33.3% |
| 2026-02-18 | Oklahoma | W 89–66 | 16:07 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | — |
| 2026-02-14 | LSU | W 73–63 | 6:46 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | — |
| 2026-02-11 | Mississippi St. | W 73–64 | 13:15 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1-3 | 1-1 | 1-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-07 | Kentucky | L 71–74 | 15:02 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0-4 | 0-2 | 1-2 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-03 | Ole Miss | W 84–66 | 17:08 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0-2 | 0-2 | 2-2 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-31 | Auburn | W 77–69 | 23:21 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2-7 | 0-2 | 2-2 | 28.6% |
| 2026-01-28 | Georgia | W 86–85 | 12:14 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2-5 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-24 | Alabama | W 79–73 | 10:01 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1-2 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-17 | Kentucky | L 78–80 | 16:21 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3-5 | 1-3 | 1-1 | 70.0% |
| 2026-01-13 | Texas A&M | W 87–82 | 11:00 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-10 | Florida | L 67–91 | 18:55 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-06 | Texas | W 85–71 | 22:37 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 33.3% |
| 2026-01-03 | Arkansas | L 75–86 | 22:08 | 16 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7-7 | 1-1 | 1-2 | 107.1% |
| 2025-12-30 | South Carolina St. | W 105–54 | 12:58 | 14 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 5-6 | 2-3 | 2-5 | 100.0% |
| 2025-12-21 | Gardner-Webb | W 94–52 | 12:08 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3-6 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-16 | Louisville | W 83–62 | 7:12 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 3-3 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 116.7% |
| 2025-12-06 | Illinois | L 62–75 | 9:55 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-02 | Syracuse | L 60–62 | 5:40 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-24 | Rutgers | W 85–60 | 11:26 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0-6 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-20 | Tennessee St. | W 89–60 | 3:05 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-17 | Rice | W 91–66 | 2:45 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | — |
| 2025-11-12 | North Florida | W 99–66 | 8:57 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 1-2 | — |
| 2025-11-08 | Northern Ky. | W 95–56 | 2:50 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | — |
| 2025-11-03 | Mercer | W 76–61 | 3:29 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | — |