Melih Tunca
Penn St. · 2025–26 · 31 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
702:29 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 31
- Minutes per game
- 22:40
- Points per game
- 7.8
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 2.0 / 2.4
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 7.8 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 1.4 | 1.1 |
| Per 40 minutes | 13.8 | 3.5 | 4.2 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 2.4 | 1.9 |
| Season totals | 243 | 62 | 73 | 22 | 6 | 43 | 33 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 83–185 | 44.9% | 6.0 | 10.5 |
| 2P | 63–121 | 52.1% | 3.9 | 6.9 |
| 3P | 20–64 | 31.3% | 2.1 | 3.6 |
| FT | 57–74 | 77.0% | 2.4 | 4.2 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 50.3% | 55.8% | 34.6% | 40.0% | 1.70 |
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
Penn St · 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
- $425K
- 80% range $60K to $870K
- Median share of team pool
- 11.8%
- team pool $3.60M, 80% range $2.60M to $4.90M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $425K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $29K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 54.3%
- 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.
Penn St: 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 | Penn St | $425Kspeculative | $60K to $870K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +0.3 | -1.3 to +2.1 | Sufficient evidence | +1.7 | -1.4 | +3.0range +2.5 to +3.5 | 2,266 | 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 | 19:00 | 22:40 | 6:42–37:08 | |
| Points | 6.0 | 7.8 | 0.0–20.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 58.9% | 45.3% | 0.0%–150.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-10 | Northwestern | L 66–76 | 16:12 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1-1 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 150.0% |
| 2026-03-04 | Ohio St. | L 62–94 | 18:44 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1-5 | 0-2 | 7-8 | 20.0% |
| 2026-02-28 | Iowa | W 71–69 | 13:48 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-21 | Nebraska | L 64–87 | 23:09 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3-5 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 60.0% |
| 2026-02-18 | Rutgers | L 72–85 | 23:08 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 4-7 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 64.3% |
| 2026-02-14 | Oregon | L 72–83 | 13:28 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 33.3% |
| 2026-02-11 | Washington | W 63–60 | 16:04 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1-5 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 20.0% |
| 2026-02-08 | Southern California | L 75–77 | 16:19 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0.0% |
| 2026-02-05 | Michigan | L 69–110 | 37:08 | 15 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4-7 | 0-3 | 7-8 | 57.1% |
| 2026-02-01 | Minnesota | W 77–75 | 32:31 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 60.0% |
| 2026-01-29 | Northwestern | L 73–94 | 22:16 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0-3 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-26 | Ohio St. | L 78–84 | 17:55 | 13 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4-8 | 1-4 | 4-4 | 56.3% |
| 2026-01-22 | Wisconsin | L 71–98 | 8:53 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 33.3% |
| 2026-01-18 | Maryland | L 73–96 | 6:42 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-14 | UCLA | L 60–71 | 33:19 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1-6 | 1-4 | 2-2 | 25.0% |
| 2026-01-10 | Purdue | L 85–93 | 23:59 | 14 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 6-9 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 77.8% |
| 2026-01-06 | Michigan | L 72–74 | 18:46 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2-7 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 35.7% |
| 2026-01-03 | Illinois | L 65–73 | 21:57 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2-8 | 0-2 | 1-1 | 25.0% |
| 2025-12-29 | N.C. Central | W 90–67 | 27:33 | 10 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 4-7 | 1-3 | 1-3 | 64.3% |
| 2025-12-21 | Pittsburgh | L 46–80 | 11:20 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0-2 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2025-12-13 | Michigan St. | L 72–76 | 12:41 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2-7 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 35.7% |
| 2025-12-09 | Indiana | L 72–113 | 24:17 | 13 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4-10 | 2-4 | 3-4 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-02 · NCAA | Campbell | W 87–76 | 25:42 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1-5 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 20.0% |
| 2025-11-29 | Sacred Heart | W 90–59 | 27:01 | 12 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4-6 | 1-1 | 3-5 | 75.0% |
| 2025-11-25 | Boston U. | W 96–87 | 30:22 | 16 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4-9 | 1-3 | 7-9 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-22 | Providence | L 65–77 | 30:30 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 4-11 | 1-4 | 2-3 | 40.9% |
| 2025-11-19 | Harvard | W 84–80 | 28:45 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4-6 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 66.7% |
| 2025-11-15 | La Salle | W 83–69 | 32:06 | 20 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8-9 | 4-4 | 0-0 | 111.1% |
| 2025-11-11 | Navy | W 80–71 | 31:35 | 13 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4-10 | 1-3 | 4-4 | 45.0% |
| 2025-11-08 | New Haven | W 87–43 | 25:27 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-5 | 0-1 | 4-6 | 60.0% |
| 2025-11-03 | Fairfield | W 76–68 | 30:52 | 19 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7-11 | 1-2 | 4-6 | 68.2% |