Rashaun Agee

Texas A&M · 2025–26 · 34 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance

Logged performance

917:04 minutes logged

Games logged: 34
Minutes per game: 26:58
Points per game: 14.6
Rebounds / assists per game: 8.7 / 2.4

Box line on three bases
Basis	Pts	Reb	Ast	Stl	Blk	TO	PF
Per game	14.6	8.7	2.4	0.9	0.8	1.3	2.4
Per 40 minutes	21.7	12.9	3.5	1.4	1.2	2.0	3.5
Season totals	498	296	80	32	27	45	81

Shooting with attempts
Shot	Made–att.	Pct	Att/G	Att/40
FG	167–339	49.3%	10.0	14.8
2P	144–252	57.1%	7.4	11.0
3P	23–87	26.4%	2.6	3.8
FT	141–188	75.0%	5.5	8.2

Derived rates (computed here from the box line, not published statistics)
eFG%	Estimated TS%	3PA / FGA	FTA / FGA	AST / TO
52.7%	59.0%	25.7%	55.5%	1.78

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

Texas A&M · 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: $665K; 80% range $435K to $1.15M
Median share of team pool: 18.2%; team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.55M to $4.95M
Across scenarios Z1 to Z4: $665K in all four; the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
Floor part: $23K; shared by every player with possessions
Possession share: 65.4%; Sufficient evidence

Point and 80% range on the team table's axis. Open circle: limited evidence or floor only.

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.

Texas A&M: 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

Net points per 100 possessions by season, newest first. The speculative compensation best guess for 2025–26 only sits right after the team, so it is the first figure after the season. Ordered by season, not by value or dollars. Compensation is a best guess of a share of the school’s own revenue-sharing budget, not observed pay.
Season	Team	Speculative compensation (best guess)	Compensation 80% range	Split role	Net	Range	Evidence	Offense	Defense	Wins above replacement	On-court possessions	Sample and flags
2026	Texas A&M	$665Kspeculative	$435K to $1.15M	descriptive: not used in fit or gates	+4.3	+3.1 to +5.8	Sufficient evidence	+2.2	+2.1	+5.7range +5.2 to +6.4	3,268	Season detail
2025	USC	None: no budget that season	—	evaluation: examined, post hoc	+1.5	+0.6 to +2.6	Sufficient evidence	+1.9	-0.5	+2.8range +2.4 to +3.3	2,034	Season detail
2024	Bowling Green	None: no budget that season	—	evaluation: examined, post hoc	+1.3	-0.2 to +2.7	Sufficient evidence	+0.1	+1.2	+3.8range +3.0 to +4.6	2,304	Season detail
2023	Bowling Green	None: no budget that season	—	evaluation: examined, post hoc	-0.7	-1.8 to +0.5	Sufficient evidence	+0.1	-0.8	+1.6range +1.2 to +1.9	1,293	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

Trend over the 34 listed games, oldest to newest. Horizontal position follows the date. Minutes and points start at zero; game eFG% scales to its own range. Each row has its own vertical scale, so compare the printed values, not the graphics. Faint line: five-game rolling mean.
Measure	Last five	Listed games	Range
Minutes	32:10	26:58	4:15–47:30
Points	16.4	14.6	0.0–26.0
Game eFG%	64.6%	53.8%	0.0%–110.0%

Game log, box line per game. eFG% is computed for the game from field goals and three-pointers; it is blank without a field-goal attempt.
Date	Opponent	Result	Min	Pts	Reb	Ast	Stl	Blk	TO	PF	FG	3P	FT	eFG
2026-03-21	Houston	L 57–88	23:40	7	3	0	0	0	1	4	3-7	0-3	1-2	42.9%
2026-03-19	Saint Mary's (CA)	W 63–50	31:00	22	9	3	1	0	1	1	7-11	3-5	5-6	77.3%
2026-03-12	Oklahoma	L 63–83	29:10	13	10	2	1	1	2	3	5-5	1-1	2-3	110.0%
2026-03-07	LSU	W 94–91	47:30	26	11	2	0	2	3	4	8-21	2-4	8-9	42.9%
2026-03-03	Kentucky	W 96–85	29:28	14	8	2	1	0	2	4	4-8	0-1	6-13	50.0%
2026-02-28	Texas	L 70–76	27:36	22	8	1	2	2	2	2	8-17	2-6	4-4	52.9%
2026-02-25	Arkansas	L 84–99	28:25	17	7	4	0	0	2	2	5-9	1-3	6-7	61.1%
2026-02-21	Oklahoma	W 75–71	29:14	18	7	1	1	0	1	2	7-13	2-4	2-2	61.5%
2026-02-18	Ole Miss	W 80–77	31:06	17	10	5	0	0	4	2	7-13	0-1	3-5	53.8%
2026-02-14	Vanderbilt	L 69–82	28:09	8	11	0	0	2	1	0	3-12	0-1	2-4	25.0%
2026-02-11	Missouri	L 85–86	29:49	13	9	4	1	2	1	1	4-5	0-0	5-5	80.0%
2026-02-07	Florida	L 67–86	29:57	8	11	5	3	0	1	3	2-13	0-5	4-6	15.4%
2026-02-04	Alabama	L 97–100	27:09	21	3	3	1	1	0	2	7-15	2-6	5-10	53.3%
2026-01-31	Georgia	W 92–77	28:27	18	15	7	0	1	3	3	5-10	2-4	6-6	60.0%
2026-01-24	South Carolina	W 92–69	26:16	11	7	3	1	1	0	2	4-10	1-3	2-2	45.0%
2026-01-21	Mississippi St.	W 88–68	26:32	23	10	5	1	0	0	2	7-14	0-4	9-9	50.0%
2026-01-17	Texas	W 74–70	33:53	17	11	3	0	0	0	3	6-14	0-2	5-8	42.9%
2026-01-13	Tennessee	L 82–87	39:10	11	9	1	1	2	2	5	4-8	0-1	3-5	50.0%
2026-01-10	Oklahoma	W 83–76	27:42	16	12	2	2	2	0	4	5-9	0-1	6-7	55.6%
2026-01-06	Auburn	W 90–88	27:58	14	7	1	1	1	2	4	6-10	0-3	2-3	60.0%
2026-01-03	LSU	W 75–72	32:49	15	11	1	0	0	5	2	4-10	0-3	7-9	40.0%
2025-12-29	Prairie View	W 111–82	19:35	19	13	1	0	2	1	4	7-11	2-3	3-4	72.7%
2025-12-21	East Texas A&M	W 118–77	19:37	21	8	3	2	2	1	1	9-10	0-0	3-4	90.0%
2025-12-14	Jacksonville	W 112–75	15:35	9	4	2	2	0	1	3	3-5	1-1	2-2	70.0%
2025-12-07	SMU	L 80–93	34:34	13	11	3	2	0	0	3	3-10	1-2	6-8	35.0%
2025-12-02	Pittsburgh	W 81–73	28:18	21	13	4	4	2	0	0	7-14	1-1	6-7	53.6%
2025-11-28	Florida St.	W 95–59	25:37	17	17	1	1	0	1	1	4-11	0-2	9-12	36.4%
2025-11-25	Mississippi Val.	W 120–84	4:15	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0-2	0-0	0-0	0.0%
2025-11-21	Manhattan	W 109–68	20:33	9	10	3	0	0	1	2	3-4	0-1	3-4	75.0%
2025-11-18	Montana	W 86–81	21:17	10	10	2	0	0	0	2	2-5	0-2	6-8	40.0%
2025-11-14	UCF	L 74–86	28:12	13	8	2	2	0	3	2	3-8	0-5	7-9	37.5%
2025-11-09	Oklahoma St.	L 63–87	29:24	7	7	0	0	2	3	4	3-8	1-3	0-0	43.8%
2025-11-06	Texas Southern	W 104–70	16:34	16	1	3	1	2	0	2	6-9	1-4	3-4	72.2%
2025-11-03	Northwestern St.	W 98–68	18:33	12	5	1	1	0	1	2	6-8	0-2	0-1	75.0%