Marcus Banks
Massachusetts · 2025–26 · 32 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season
Logged performance
1069:26 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 32
- Minutes per game
- 33:25
- Points per game
- 17.1
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 2.7 / 1.8
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 17.1 | 2.7 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 1.4 | 2.6 |
| Per 40 minutes | 20.5 | 3.2 | 2.1 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 1.6 | 3.1 |
| Season totals | 548 | 85 | 56 | 39 | 2 | 44 | 82 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 183–439 | 41.7% | 13.7 | 16.4 |
| 2P | 71–146 | 48.6% | 4.6 | 5.5 |
| 3P | 112–293 | 38.2% | 9.2 | 11.0 |
| FT | 70–84 | 83.3% | 2.6 | 3.1 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54.4% | 57.6% | 66.7% | 19.1% | 1.27 |
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
Massachusetts · 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
- $39K
- 80% range $6K to $125K
- Median share of team pool
- 13.4%
- team pool $365K, 80% range $135K to $965K
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $39K to $40K
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $3K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 82.0%
- 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.
Massachusetts: 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 | Massachusetts | $39Kspeculative | $6K to $125K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +0.4 | -0.8 to +1.5 | Sufficient evidence | +1.1 | -0.7 | +6.2range +5.3 to +7.1 | 3,456 | Prior built from the box-score line only, without a prior-season value. 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 | 34:40 | 33:25 | 21:18–41:52 | |
| Points | 15.2 | 17.1 | 3.0–37.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 42.6% | 53.5% | 15.0%–100.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-13 | Toledo | L 67–77 | 34:44 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 3-12 | 3-11 | 0-0 | 37.5% |
| 2026-03-12 | Miami (OH) | W 87–83 | 36:55 | 18 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6-15 | 2-8 | 4-4 | 46.7% |
| 2026-03-03 | Ohio | W 94–82 | 33:17 | 31 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8-15 | 6-12 | 9-9 | 73.3% |
| 2026-02-28 | Bowling Green | L 62–81 | 32:55 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4-15 | 2-8 | 0-0 | 33.3% |
| 2026-02-24 | Ball St. | L 73–74 | 35:30 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3-18 | 2-12 | 0-0 | 22.2% |
| 2026-02-21 | Buffalo | L 82–86 | 35:31 | 24 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 9-16 | 6-13 | 0-0 | 75.0% |
| 2026-02-17 | Miami (OH) | L 77–86 | 37:06 | 11 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4-12 | 2-6 | 1-2 | 41.7% |
| 2026-02-13 | Akron | L 92–99 | 27:54 | 18 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 7-13 | 4-9 | 0-0 | 69.2% |
| 2026-02-07 | Coastal Carolina | L 91–94 | 41:52 | 21 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 8-20 | 4-10 | 1-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-03 | Central Mich. | W 95–89 | 28:39 | 37 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 12-17 | 10-15 | 3-4 | 100.0% |
| 2026-01-31 | Eastern Mich. | W 70–67 | 33:15 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1-7 | 1-6 | 1-2 | 21.4% |
| 2026-01-27 | Miami (OH) | L 84–86 | 31:51 | 18 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 6-12 | 4-9 | 2-2 | 66.7% |
| 2026-01-23 | Buffalo | W 68–67 | 33:53 | 19 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6-15 | 4-10 | 3-3 | 53.3% |
| 2026-01-20 | Toledo | W 84–82 | 33:59 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 4-11 | 2-9 | 5-5 | 45.5% |
| 2026-01-17 | NIU | L 68–70 | 31:29 | 16 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5-12 | 4-10 | 2-2 | 58.3% |
| 2026-01-13 | Western Mich. | W 85–82 | 35:06 | 22 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8-18 | 5-12 | 1-2 | 58.3% |
| 2026-01-10 | Ball St. | W 79–71 | 30:17 | 17 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5-12 | 5-10 | 2-5 | 62.5% |
| 2026-01-06 | Ohio | L 83–86 | 36:19 | 14 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6-16 | 2-8 | 0-0 | 43.8% |
| 2026-01-03 | Bowling Green | L 100–101 | 21:18 | 11 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 4-5 | 2-3 | 1-2 | 100.0% |
| 2025-12-30 | Eastern Mich. | L 74–80 | 36:51 | 14 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4-16 | 2-10 | 4-4 | 31.3% |
| 2025-12-20 | Kent St. | L 59–69 | 35:11 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1-10 | 1-5 | 6-6 | 15.0% |
| 2025-12-13 | Florida St. | W 103–95 | 26:43 | 18 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 6-12 | 4-9 | 2-2 | 66.7% |
| 2025-12-10 | Boston College | W 76–74 | 37:17 | 29 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 10-17 | 6-10 | 3-5 | 76.5% |
| 2025-12-06 | UMass Lowell | W 80–60 | 32:03 | 17 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 6-14 | 2-7 | 3-3 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-03 | Harvard | W 78–71 | 37:09 | 29 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10-19 | 5-9 | 4-4 | 65.8% |
| 2025-11-24 | Oregon St. | W 73–65 | 35:42 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5-13 | 4-10 | 0-0 | 53.8% |
| 2025-11-22 | Green Bay | L 75–79 | 34:28 | 19 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6-15 | 4-12 | 3-3 | 53.3% |
| 2025-11-21 | Col. of Charleston | L 65–69 | 35:07 | 18 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 6-16 | 3-10 | 3-4 | 46.9% |
| 2025-11-16 | Central Conn. St. | W 84–77 | 32:35 | 11 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-11 | 2-8 | 3-4 | 36.4% |
| 2025-11-13 | Le Moyne | W 94–80 | 31:28 | 26 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 9-17 | 5-10 | 3-4 | 67.6% |
| 2025-11-08 | UAlbany | W 83–62 | 26:24 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1-4 | 0-2 | 1-1 | 25.0% |
| 2025-11-03 | Marshall | L 72–78 | 36:38 | 18 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 7-14 | 4-10 | 0-0 | 64.3% |