Pablo Tamba
LSU · 2025–26 · 32 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
916:06 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 32
- Minutes per game
- 28:38
- Points per game
- 7.9
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 7.3 / 1.5
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 7.9 | 7.3 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 3.0 |
| Per 40 minutes | 11.1 | 10.1 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 0.7 | 1.4 | 4.1 |
| Season totals | 254 | 232 | 47 | 36 | 17 | 32 | 95 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 89–145 | 61.4% | 4.5 | 6.3 |
| 2P | 81–120 | 67.5% | 3.8 | 5.2 |
| 3P | 8–25 | 32.0%† | 0.8 | 1.1 |
| FT | 68–112 | 60.7% | 3.5 | 4.9 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 64.1% | 65.4% | 17.2% | 77.2% | 1.47 |
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
LSU · 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
- $755K
- 80% range $450K to $1.45M
- Median share of team pool
- 20.3%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.60M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $755K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $26K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 71.1%
- 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.
LSU: 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 | LSU | $755Kspeculative | $450K to $1.45M | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +3.2 | +1.9 to +4.5 | Sufficient evidence | +1.4 | +1.8 | +5.5range +4.8 to +6.0 | 2,904 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | UC Davis | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | -0.3 | -1.8 to +1.4 | Sufficient evidence | -1.1 | +0.8 | +2.8range +2.2 to +3.4 | 2,451 | Season detail | |
| 2024 | UC Davis | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +1.9 | +0.7 to +2.8 | Sufficient evidence | +0.1 | +1.7 | +1.8range +1.4 to +2.1 | 1,133 | 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 | 32:59 | 28:38 | 14:59–43:14 | |
| Points | 10.2 | 7.9 | 2.0–15.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 59.0% | 64.7% | 0.0%–116.7% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-11 | Kentucky | L 82–87 | 30:06 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2-5 | 0-0 | 2-4 | 40.0% |
| 2026-03-07 | Texas A&M | L 91–94 | 26:34 | 8 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 2-5 | 60.0% |
| 2026-03-03 | Auburn | L 74–88 | 33:17 | 12 | 9 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6-9 | 0-2 | 0-2 | 66.7% |
| 2026-02-28 | Oklahoma | L 67–83 | 31:44 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3-7 | 0-2 | 4-5 | 42.9% |
| 2026-02-25 | Ole Miss | W 106–99 | 43:14 | 15 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6-7 | 0-0 | 3-3 | 85.7% |
| 2026-02-21 | Alabama | L 83–90 | 26:49 | 10 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5-6 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 83.3% |
| 2026-02-17 | Texas | L 85–88 | 31:45 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 33.3% |
| 2026-02-14 | Tennessee | L 63–73 | 31:52 | 13 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4-8 | 2-3 | 3-8 | 62.5% |
| 2026-02-10 | Arkansas | L 62–91 | 29:19 | 11 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 3-7 | 0-1 | 5-8 | 42.9% |
| 2026-02-07 | Georgia | L 71–83 | 36:17 | 7 | 12 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 2-4 | 0-1 | 3-4 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-31 | South Carolina | W 92–87 | 27:10 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 5-6 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-28 | Mississippi St. | L 66–80 | 35:27 | 10 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 3-5 | 0-2 | 4-10 | 60.0% |
| 2026-01-24 | Arkansas | L 81–85 | 37:05 | 12 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4-4 | 1-1 | 3-4 | 112.5% |
| 2026-01-20 | Florida | L 61–79 | 17:26 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 4-6 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-17 | Missouri | W 78–70 | 30:46 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2-3 | 1-2 | 3-3 | 83.3% |
| 2026-01-14 | Kentucky | L 74–75 | 28:04 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 3-4 | 2-2 | 2-6 | 100.0% |
| 2026-01-10 | Vanderbilt | L 73–84 | 19:24 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 0-2 | 60.0% |
| 2026-01-06 | South Carolina | L 68–78 | 30:14 | 10 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4-8 | 0-1 | 2-3 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-03 | Texas A&M | L 72–75 | 39:55 | 6 | 11 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2-4 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-29 | Southern Miss. | W 90–62 | 25:09 | 9 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3-3 | 1-1 | 2-3 | 116.7% |
| 2025-12-22 | Prairie View | W 104–90 | 23:55 | 10 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 3-5 | 1-1 | 3-4 | 70.0% |
| 2025-12-19 | Southeastern La. | W 78–65 | 21:44 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1-2 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-13 | SMU | W 89–77 | 37:44 | 14 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 7-9 | 0-0 | 0-1 | 77.8% |
| 2025-12-07 | Texas Tech | L 58–82 | 19:32 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 66.7% |
| 2025-12-03 | Boston College | W 78–69 | 33:05 | 5 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1-4 | 0-1 | 3-4 | 25.0% |
| 2025-11-29 | DePaul | W 96–63 | 29:08 | 14 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4-4 | 0-0 | 6-6 | 100.0% |
| 2025-11-28 | Drake | W 71–62 | 26:48 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 100.0% |
| 2025-11-21 | Omaha | W 99–73 | 32:29 | 3 | 13 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 100.0% |
| 2025-11-18 | Alcorn | W 107–81 | 23:31 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-13 | FIU | W 98–81 | 20:13 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3-6 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-10 | LSU New Orleans | W 93–58 | 21:21 | 10 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4-5 | 0-0 | 2-4 | 80.0% |
| 2025-11-05 | Tarleton St. | W 96–60 | 14:59 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 0-2 | 100.0% |