Jesse Hafemeister
Charleston So. · 2025–26 · 29 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
784:41 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 29
- Minutes per game
- 27:03
- Points per game
- 12.1
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 5.1 / 1.0
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 12.1 | 5.1 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 2.0 |
| Per 40 minutes | 17.9 | 7.5 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 2.0 | 2.9 |
| Season totals | 352 | 147 | 29 | 16 | 1 | 40 | 57 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 127–285 | 44.6% | 9.8 | 14.5 |
| 2P | 66–117 | 56.4% | 4.0 | 6.0 |
| 3P | 61–168 | 36.3% | 5.8 | 8.6 |
| FT | 37–56 | 66.1% | 1.9 | 2.9 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 55.3% | 56.8% | 58.9% | 19.6% | 0.72 |
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
Charleston So · 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
- $15K
- 80% range $2K to $51K
- Median share of team pool
- 10.4%
- team pool $190K, 80% range $70K to $495K
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $15K to $16K
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $1K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 66.5%
- 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.
Charleston So: 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 | Charleston So | $15Kspeculative | $2K to $51K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | -0.0 | -1.3 to +1.3 | Sufficient evidence | +0.7 | -0.8 | +3.9range +3.3 to +4.4 | 2,899 | 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 | 32:38 | 27:03 | 9:15–42:27 | |
| Points | 13.4 | 12.1 | 2.0–32.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 66.9% | 55.1% | 12.5%–104.5% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-06 | Winthrop | L 81–86 | 26:01 | 7 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3-7 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-28 | UNC Asheville | W 92–75 | 32:29 | 28 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 8-11 | 7-10 | 5-7 | 104.5% |
| 2026-02-26 | Winthrop | W 86–84 | 34:32 | 16 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6-10 | 4-8 | 0-0 | 80.0% |
| 2026-02-21 | Longwood | L 96–107 | 42:27 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 3-8 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 56.3% |
| 2026-02-17 | Gardner-Webb | W 75–66 | 27:43 | 7 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 3-8 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 43.8% |
| 2026-02-14 | Radford | L 80–90 | 32:03 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2-7 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 35.7% |
| 2026-02-12 | Presbyterian | W 84–67 | 35:09 | 15 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6-11 | 3-7 | 0-0 | 68.2% |
| 2026-02-07 | USC Upstate | L 94–100 | 42:25 | 32 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 13-27 | 3-12 | 3-4 | 53.7% |
| 2026-02-04 | High Point | L 55–80 | 34:02 | 21 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 8-12 | 4-8 | 1-1 | 83.3% |
| 2026-01-29 | Radford | L 75–84 | 20:54 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2-10 | 1-7 | 2-4 | 25.0% |
| 2026-01-23 | Longwood | L 79–81 | 38:02 | 17 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5-15 | 2-8 | 5-6 | 40.0% |
| 2026-01-21 | Presbyterian | L 83–87 | 35:39 | 15 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5-14 | 3-7 | 2-3 | 46.4% |
| 2026-01-14 | USC Upstate | L 81–86 | 36:13 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1-8 | 0-4 | 0-0 | 12.5% |
| 2026-01-10 | High Point | L 82–84 | 36:15 | 15 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5-13 | 4-8 | 1-2 | 53.8% |
| 2026-01-07 | Winthrop | L 77–81 | 29:58 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2-7 | 1-4 | 3-4 | 35.7% |
| 2026-01-03 | UNC Asheville | W 86–83 | 14:08 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3-7 | 2-5 | 2-2 | 57.1% |
| 2025-12-31 | Gardner-Webb | W 89–79 | 27:18 | 10 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-7 | 1-4 | 3-4 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-28 | Richmond | W 77–72 | 24:09 | 12 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 5-12 | 2-7 | 0-3 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-21 | Furman | L 76–84 | 23:19 | 14 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 6-13 | 2-6 | 0-2 | 53.8% |
| 2025-12-18 | North Florida | W 113–90 | 27:43 | 29 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 11-17 | 5-10 | 2-2 | 79.4% |
| 2025-12-08 | South Carolina St. | W 84–44 | 20:36 | 12 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5-6 | 1-2 | 1-1 | 91.7% |
| 2025-12-02 | UT Martin | L 56–73 | 17:29 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1-6 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 16.7% |
| 2025-11-28 | South Carolina | L 62–74 | 25:28 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4-10 | 2-7 | 0-1 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-21 | East Carolina | W 77–65 | 9:15 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2-4 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 62.5% |
| 2025-11-18 | IU Indy | W 103–91 | 24:06 | 10 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3-10 | 0-5 | 4-5 | 30.0% |
| 2025-11-14 | Lindenwood | L 77–83 | 21:49 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4-10 | 2-5 | 0-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-13 | Alabama A&M | L 64–68 | 14:08 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4-5 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 100.0% |
| 2025-11-10 | The Citadel | W 96–86 | 18:16 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2-6 | 1-5 | 3-3 | 41.7% |
| 2025-11-03 | Virginia Tech | L 67–98 | 13:05 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 2-4 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 75.0% |