Mateo Esmeraldo
Lipscomb · 2025–26 · 30 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
918:06 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 30
- Minutes per game
- 30:36
- Points per game
- 9.8
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 3.9 / 6.9
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 9.8 | 3.9 | 6.9 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 1.0 |
| Per 40 minutes | 12.8 | 5.1 | 9.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 1.4 |
| Season totals | 293 | 117 | 206 | 45 | 0 | 47 | 31 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 100–224 | 44.6% | 7.5 | 9.8 |
| 2P | 75–145 | 51.7% | 4.8 | 6.3 |
| 3P | 25–79 | 31.6% | 2.6 | 3.4 |
| FT | 68–82 | 82.9% | 2.7 | 3.6 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50.2% | 56.3% | 35.3% | 36.6% | 4.38 |
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
Lipscomb · 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
- $53K
- 80% range $18K to $160K
- Median share of team pool
- 20.2%
- team pool $245K, 80% range $90K to $655K
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $52K to $55K
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $2K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 76.4%
- 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.
Lipscomb: 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 | Lipscomb | $53Kspeculative | $18K to $160K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +2.4 | +1.3 to +3.8 | Sufficient evidence | +2.6 | -0.2 | +5.8range +5.1 to +6.6 | 2,713 | 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 | 29:58 | 30:36 | 20:14–37:42 | |
| Points | 7.0 | 9.8 | 0.0–24.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 52.1% | 51.4% | 0.0%–120.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-06 · NCAA | FGCU | L 53–77 | 33:00 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2-7 | 0-3 | 2-2 | 28.6% |
| 2026-02-28 | Eastern Ky. | W 80–77 | 31:14 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4-9 | 1-3 | 0-3 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-25 | West Ga. | L 78–84 | 30:28 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4-9 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 44.4% |
| 2026-02-21 | North Ala. | W 73–51 | 26:58 | 7 | 3 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-4 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 87.5% |
| 2026-02-18 | Bellarmine | W 75–72 | 28:08 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1-3 | 1-2 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-14 | Queens (NC) | L 81–87 | 29:35 | 10 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3-8 | 1-1 | 3-4 | 43.8% |
| 2026-02-11 | Eastern Ky. | W 75–61 | 32:34 | 11 | 2 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4-8 | 2-4 | 1-1 | 62.5% |
| 2026-02-07 | Central Ark. | L 78–86 | 34:20 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 1-3 | 0-2 | 2-2 | 33.3% |
| 2026-02-04 | Austin Peay | L 76–87 | 30:05 | 15 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 5-8 | 1-3 | 4-4 | 68.8% |
| 2026-01-31 | North Florida | W 100–94 | 30:20 | 24 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 9-11 | 2-4 | 4-5 | 90.9% |
| 2026-01-29 | Jacksonville | L 65–70 | 35:21 | 11 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5-8 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 68.8% |
| 2026-01-23 | FGCU | W 86–71 | 26:10 | 8 | 4 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3-5 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 80.0% |
| 2026-01-22 | Stetson | W 79–74 | 33:36 | 12 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2-4 | 1-1 | 7-7 | 62.5% |
| 2026-01-17 | Austin Peay | W 82–78 | 33:33 | 16 | 5 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 7-11 | 1-2 | 1-1 | 68.2% |
| 2026-01-15 | Bellarmine | W 81–71 | 31:58 | 4 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0-4 | 0-1 | 4-4 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-10 · NCAA | FGCU | W 84–77 | 32:06 | 6 | 6 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2-3 | 0-1 | 2-3 | 66.7% |
| 2026-01-08 | Stetson | L 83–91 | 28:43 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2-5 | 1-1 | 3-4 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-03 | North Florida | W 82–74 | 34:55 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1-7 | 1-5 | 0-0 | 21.4% |
| 2026-01-01 | Jacksonville | W 76–57 | 33:25 | 9 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4-10 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 45.0% |
| 2025-12-29 | Cincinnati | L 62–89 | 29:51 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3-11 | 0-5 | 1-2 | 27.3% |
| 2025-12-16 | Duke | L 73–97 | 31:05 | 14 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3-13 | 0-4 | 8-9 | 23.1% |
| 2025-12-07 | Alabama A&M | W 92–58 | 21:33 | 14 | 7 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5-5 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 120.0% |
| 2025-12-03 | Tennessee Tech | W 83–80 | 31:58 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4-9 | 1-3 | 1-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-29 | Southeast Mo. St. | W 88–77 | 37:42 | 22 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 7-12 | 1-3 | 7-10 | 62.5% |
| 2025-11-26 | Marshall | W 90–67 | 35:45 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2-6 | 0-1 | 6-7 | 33.3% |
| 2025-11-22 | Western Caro. | W 83–62 | 22:40 | 4 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2-6 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 33.3% |
| 2025-11-19 | Belmont | L 68–75 | 31:36 | 12 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3-6 | 2-4 | 4-4 | 66.7% |
| 2025-11-11 | UNC Asheville | L 64–69 | 29:17 | 12 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5-15 | 0-6 | 2-2 | 33.3% |
| 2025-11-09 | Mercer | L 77–92 | 29:56 | 12 | 4 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4-7 | 2-4 | 2-2 | 71.4% |
| 2025-11-03 | Vanderbilt | L 61–105 | 20:14 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0-7 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |