Dan Skillings Jr.
Baylor · 2025–26 · 27 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
679:40 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 27
- Minutes per game
- 25:10
- Points per game
- 9.1
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 5.6 / 1.8
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 9.1 | 5.6 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 0.1 | 1.3 | 1.8 |
| Per 40 minutes | 14.4 | 8.9 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 0.2 | 2.1 | 2.9 |
| Season totals | 245 | 151 | 48 | 25 | 4 | 35 | 49 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 89–207 | 43.0% | 7.7 | 12.2 |
| 2P | 68–136 | 50.0% | 5.0 | 8.0 |
| 3P | 21–71 | 29.6% | 2.6 | 4.2 |
| FT | 46–65 | 70.8% | 2.4 | 3.8 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48.1% | 52.0% | 34.3% | 31.4% | 1.37 |
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
Baylor · 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
- $300K
- 80% range $88K to $535K
- Median share of team pool
- 8.7%
- team pool $3.60M, 80% range $2.60M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $300K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $29K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 52.7%
- 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. 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.
Baylor: 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 | Baylor | $300Kspeculative | $88K to $535K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +1.4 | -0.3 to +3.1 | Sufficient evidence | +1.3 | +0.1 | +3.7range +3.0 to +4.3 | 2,184 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Cincinnati | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +0.3 | -0.8 to +1.3 | Sufficient evidence | -0.0 | +0.3 | +2.4range +2.0 to +2.9 | 1,907 | Season detail | |
| 2024 | Cincinnati | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +3.0 | +1.8 to +4.2 | Sufficient evidence | +2.3 | +0.7 | +3.9range +3.3 to +4.6 | 2,889 | Season detail | |
| 2023 | Cincinnati | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | -1.2 | -2.4 to -0.1 | Sufficient evidence | +0.1 | -1.4 | +1.1range +0.8 to +1.3 | 1,250 | 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 | 21:57 | 25:10 | 14:40–34:29 | |
| Points | 8.2 | 9.1 | 0.0–17.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 60.0% | 47.1% | 0.0%–100.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-04 | Oklahoma | L 69–82 | 19:28 | 12 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5-8 | 1-3 | 1-1 | 68.8% |
| 2026-04-01 | Minnesota | W 67–48 | 22:58 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 100.0% |
| 2026-03-07 | Utah | W 101–75 | 21:36 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4-7 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 57.1% |
| 2026-03-04 | Houston | L 64–77 | 20:18 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1-5 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 20.0% |
| 2026-02-28 | UCF | W 87–86 | 25:23 | 15 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6-12 | 1-2 | 2-4 | 54.2% |
| 2026-02-24 | Arizona | L 80–87 | 17:43 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0-3 | 0-2 | 5-6 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-21 | Arizona St. | W 73–68 | 21:30 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1-3 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-17 | Kansas St. | L 74–90 | 20:38 | 11 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2-8 | 2-6 | 5-6 | 37.5% |
| 2026-01-31 | West Virginia | W 63–53 | 24:29 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4-7 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 64.3% |
| 2026-01-28 | Cincinnati | L 57–67 | 34:19 | 10 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5-12 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 41.7% |
| 2026-01-24 | TCU | L 90–97 | 29:31 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1-6 | 0-4 | 1-2 | 16.7% |
| 2026-01-20 | Texas Tech | L 73–92 | 22:30 | 12 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 4-8 | 2-4 | 2-6 | 62.5% |
| 2026-01-16 | Kansas | L 62–80 | 16:58 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0-4 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-10 | Houston | L 55–77 | 14:40 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2-6 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 41.7% |
| 2026-01-07 | Iowa St. | L 60–70 | 20:12 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 33.3% |
| 2026-01-03 | TCU | L 63–69 | 31:05 | 13 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4-11 | 1-4 | 4-4 | 40.9% |
| 2025-12-21 | Southern U. | W 111–67 | 26:18 | 17 | 6 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6-10 | 4-4 | 1-3 | 80.0% |
| 2025-12-19 | Alcorn | W 113–56 | 25:31 | 12 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 5-7 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 71.4% |
| 2025-12-10 | Norfolk St. | W 97–67 | 24:41 | 11 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4-7 | 0-1 | 3-3 | 57.1% |
| 2025-12-06 | Memphis | L 71–78 | 23:58 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2-10 | 0-2 | 5-6 | 20.0% |
| 2025-12-02 | Sacramento St. | W 110–88 | 32:38 | 12 | 14 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4-10 | 0-4 | 4-4 | 40.0% |
| 2025-11-26 | San Diego St. | W 91–81 | 34:29 | 11 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 4-6 | 1-3 | 2-4 | 75.0% |
| 2025-11-25 | St. John's (NY) | L 81–96 | 23:46 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 2-8 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 25.0% |
| 2025-11-24 | Creighton | W 81–74 | 31:47 | 14 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6-14 | 2-6 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-14 | Tarleton St. | W 94–81 | 32:54 | 13 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 5-10 | 2-4 | 1-2 | 60.0% |
| 2025-11-09 | Washington | W 78–69 | 27:30 | 12 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4-9 | 1-5 | 3-4 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-03 | UTRGV | W 96–81 | 32:50 | 15 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6-12 | 1-3 | 2-4 | 54.2% |