Zac Foster
Clemson · 2025–26 · 12 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
220:52 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 12
- Minutes per game
- 18:24
- Points per game
- 6.9
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 2.8 / 2.5
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 6.9 | 2.8 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 1.3 | 2.7 |
| Per 40 minutes | 15.0 | 6.2 | 5.4 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 2.7 | 5.8 |
| Season totals | 83 | 34 | 30 | 5 | 3 | 15 | 32 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 26–84 | 31.0%† | 7.0 | 15.2 |
| 2P | 13–37 | 35.1%† | 3.1 | 6.7 |
| 3P | 13–47 | 27.7%† | 3.9 | 8.5 |
| FT | 18–22 | 81.8%† | 1.8 | 4.0 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 38.7%† | 44.3%† | 56.0%† | 26.2%† | 2.00 |
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); the field-goal floor applies to the derived rates above. Floors are descriptive, not model output. Definitions
Speculative compensation · 2025–26β
Clemson · 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
- $115K
- 80% range $60K to $175K
- Median share of team pool
- 3.4%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.60M to $5.00M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $115K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $29K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 17.0%
- 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.
Clemson: 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 | Clemson | $115Kspeculative | $60K to $175K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +1.8 | +1.0 to +2.8 | Sufficient evidence | +1.2 | +0.5 | +1.3range +1.2 to +1.5 | 736 | 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 | 17:52 | 18:24 | 2:28–25:10 | |
| Points | 6.6 | 6.9 | 0.0–14.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 27.2% | 34.7% | 0.0%–75.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-12-16 | South Carolina | W 68–61 | 2:28 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 0.0% |
| 2025-12-13 | Mercer | W 70–63 | 19:28 | 10 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4-11 | 1-7 | 1-2 | 40.9% |
| 2025-12-09 | BYU | L 64–67 | 20:22 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0-4 | 0-2 | 1-2 | 0.0% |
| 2025-12-03 | Alabama | L 84–90 | 25:10 | 12 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 5-17 | 1-6 | 1-1 | 32.4% |
| 2025-11-28 | Alabama A&M | W 92–56 | 21:50 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2-4 | 1-2 | 3-5 | 62.5% |
| 2025-11-23 | Georgia | W 97–94 | 17:26 | 11 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4-8 | 3-4 | 0-0 | 68.8% |
| 2025-11-21 | West Virginia | W 70–67 | 14:46 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0-4 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-17 | North Ala. | W 81–61 | 22:30 | 14 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5-10 | 3-7 | 1-1 | 65.0% |
| 2025-11-15 | Georgetown | L 74–79 | 18:22 | 11 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 2-4 | 2-4 | 5-5 | 75.0% |
| 2025-11-11 | Morehead St. | W 83–56 | 18:28 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2-7 | 2-5 | 0-0 | 42.9% |
| 2025-11-07 | Gardner-Webb | W 97–59 | 24:22 | 2 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0-6 | 0-5 | 2-2 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-03 | New Hampshire | W 88–38 | 15:40 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 2-7 | 0-2 | 2-2 | 28.6% |