Marko Ljubicic
Manhattan · 2025–26 · 31 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
619:57 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 31
- Minutes per game
- 20:00
- Points per game
- 5.5
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 3.5 / 0.6
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 5.5 | 3.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 2.0 |
| Per 40 minutes | 11.1 | 7.0 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 4.0 |
| Season totals | 172 | 109 | 18 | 15 | 10 | 22 | 62 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 65–163 | 39.9% | 5.3 | 10.5 |
| 2P | 39–71 | 54.9%† | 2.3 | 4.6 |
| 3P | 26–92 | 28.3% | 3.0 | 5.9 |
| FT | 16–24 | 66.7%† | 0.8 | 1.5 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 47.9% | 49.6% | 56.4% | 14.7% | 0.82 |
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
Manhattan · Low and other · 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
- $9K
- 80% range $1K to $38K
- Median share of team pool
- 7.6%
- team pool $180K, 80% range $67K to $495K
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $8K to $11K
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $1K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 51.0%
- 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. Tier prior from anonymous surveys and sources, scaled so that all non-Power budgets sum to the national total the College Sports Commission reported paid for 2025-26 ($1,770,453,776 over 307 schools) less the Power 4 total, times a men's basketball share; weak anchor.
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.
Manhattan: 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 | Manhattan | $9Kspeculative | $1K to $38K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | -1.4 | -2.3 to -0.4 | Sufficient evidence | -0.9 | -0.5 | +2.4range +2.1 to +2.8 | 1,962 | 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 | 19:05 | 20:00 | 8:06–30:52 | |
| Points | 4.6 | 5.5 | 0.0–14.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 44.0% | 48.1% | 0.0%–100.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-05 | Fairfield | L 60–71 | 11:00 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0-3 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-03-01 | Iona | L 65–69 | 20:33 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2-7 | 2-7 | 0-0 | 42.9% |
| 2026-02-27 | Saint Peter's | L 65–75 | 30:52 | 9 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4-8 | 1-5 | 0-0 | 56.3% |
| 2026-02-20 | Marist | L 70–84 | 23:12 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1-4 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 37.5% |
| 2026-02-15 | Canisius | W 69–65 | 9:46 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2-3 | 1-1 | 0-2 | 83.3% |
| 2026-02-13 | Niagara | W 76–69 | 20:06 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3-6 | 2-4 | 1-2 | 66.7% |
| 2026-02-07 | Sacred Heart | W 80–68 | 14:07 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5-8 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 68.8% |
| 2026-02-05 | Saint Peter's | L 75–80 | 8:25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-2 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-01 | Mount St. Mary's | L 65–72 | 28:45 | 14 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5-12 | 3-9 | 1-2 | 54.2% |
| 2026-01-30 | Rider | W 95–90 | 28:10 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2-4 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 62.5% |
| 2026-01-24 | Iona | L 57–66 | 9:13 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1-4 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 37.5% |
| 2026-01-19 | Quinnipiac | L 92–98 | 8:06 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | — |
| 2026-01-17 | Siena | L 59–74 | 15:12 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0-6 | 0-3 | 1-2 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-14 | Fairfield | L 62–98 | 14:53 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-11 | Niagara | W 79–70 | 19:33 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3-4 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 87.5% |
| 2026-01-09 | Canisius | L 64–70 | 17:49 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1-5 | 0-3 | 2-2 | 20.0% |
| 2026-01-04 | Merrimack | L 66–73 | 21:18 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-9 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 33.3% |
| 2026-01-02 | Quinnipiac | W 80–79 | 23:56 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3-10 | 2-7 | 0-0 | 40.0% |
| 2025-12-29 | Rider | W 74–71 | 30:08 | 8 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2-4 | 1-2 | 3-4 | 62.5% |
| 2025-12-21 | Presbyterian | W 87–81 | 25:12 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3-8 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 37.5% |
| 2025-12-18 | Furman | L 68–75 | 29:42 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3-11 | 1-6 | 0-0 | 31.8% |
| 2025-12-13 | Fordham | L 53–82 | 19:31 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2-3 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 66.7% |
| 2025-12-07 | Marist | L 68–80 | 28:54 | 12 | 9 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 4-9 | 3-5 | 1-1 | 61.1% |
| 2025-12-05 | Fairfield | W 70–66 | 22:31 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3-4 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 75.0% |
| 2025-11-29 | Army West Point | L 78–81 | 13:32 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-4 | 0-3 | 2-2 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-26 · NCAA | Wagner | L 101–103 | 22:36 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3-7 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 57.1% |
| 2025-11-21 | Texas A&M | L 68–109 | 23:19 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4-6 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 91.7% |
| 2025-11-15 | Mississippi Val. | W 80–73 | 19:20 | 11 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4-4 | 0-0 | 3-4 | 100.0% |
| 2025-11-15 | Hawaii | L 56–86 | 16:51 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 100.0% |
| 2025-11-12 | Utah Tech | W 79–75 | 14:12 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | — |
| 2025-11-09 | Southern California | L 83–114 | 29:13 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1-5 | 0-4 | 2-2 | 20.0% |