Jizzle James
Cincinnati · 2025–26 · 23 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
692:34 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 23
- Minutes per game
- 30:07
- Points per game
- 10.9
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 2.2 / 2.1
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 10.9 | 2.2 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 1.7 | 2.0 |
| Per 40 minutes | 14.5 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 2.2 | 2.6 |
| Season totals | 251 | 51 | 48 | 16 | 4 | 38 | 45 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 96–218 | 44.0% | 9.5 | 12.6 |
| 2P | 54–123 | 43.9% | 5.3 | 7.1 |
| 3P | 42–95 | 44.2% | 4.1 | 5.5 |
| FT | 17–22 | 77.3%† | 1.0 | 1.3 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 53.7% | 55.1% | 43.6% | 10.1% | 1.26 |
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
Cincinnati · 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
- $220K
- 80% range $54K to $380K
- Median share of team pool
- 6.7%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.50M to $5.00M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $220K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $26K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 51.7%
- 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.
Cincinnati: 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 | Cincinnati | $220Kspeculative | $54K to $380K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +0.8 | -0.3 to +2.4 | Sufficient evidence | +0.9 | -0.1 | +3.4range +3.0 to +3.9 | 2,221 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Cincinnati | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +2.5 | +1.2 to +3.7 | Sufficient evidence | +1.2 | +1.3 | +4.4range +3.8 to +5.2 | 2,721 | Season detail | |
| 2024 | Cincinnati | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +2.7 | +1.1 to +3.7 | Sufficient evidence | +1.0 | +1.6 | +2.6range +2.0 to +3.0 | 1,997 | 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 | 30:28 | 30:07 | 18:44–35:42 | |
| Points | 10.4 | 10.9 | 4.0–24.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 56.1% | 51.5% | 11.1%–85.7% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-11 | UCF | L 65–66 | 30:27 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2-6 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-03-10 | Utah | W 73–66 | 26:52 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3-9 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 33.3% |
| 2026-03-07 | TCU | L 63–73 | 33:21 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4-9 | 3-7 | 0-0 | 61.1% |
| 2026-03-03 | BYU | W 90–68 | 35:42 | 18 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6-10 | 3-7 | 3-4 | 75.0% |
| 2026-02-28 | Oklahoma St. | W 91–68 | 25:57 | 11 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4-9 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 61.1% |
| 2026-02-24 | Texas Tech | L 68–80 | 34:39 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5-8 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 75.0% |
| 2026-02-21 | Kansas | W 84–68 | 24:04 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2-7 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 35.7% |
| 2026-02-15 | Utah | W 69–65 | 28:48 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2-5 | 0-1 | 0-1 | 40.0% |
| 2026-02-11 | Kansas St. | W 91–62 | 31:31 | 24 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 9-14 | 6-8 | 0-0 | 85.7% |
| 2026-02-08 | UCF | W 92–72 | 33:26 | 15 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5-10 | 3-5 | 2-2 | 65.0% |
| 2026-02-05 | West Virginia | L 54–59 | 34:57 | 18 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 7-16 | 4-6 | 0-0 | 56.3% |
| 2026-01-31 | Houston | L 54–76 | 30:41 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2-6 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 41.7% |
| 2026-01-28 | Baylor | W 67–57 | 34:49 | 17 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6-11 | 5-6 | 0-1 | 77.3% |
| 2026-01-24 | Arizona St. | L 68–82 | 27:29 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3-7 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 42.9% |
| 2026-01-21 | Arizona | L 51–77 | 25:15 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2-7 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 28.6% |
| 2026-01-17 | Iowa St. | W 79–70 | 29:21 | 15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6-12 | 1-3 | 2-2 | 54.2% |
| 2026-01-14 | Colorado | W 77–68 | 31:33 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1-9 | 0-2 | 4-4 | 11.1% |
| 2026-01-11 | UCF | L 72–73 | 35:14 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 7-14 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-06 | West Virginia | L 60–62 | 29:15 | 8 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3-13 | 2-8 | 0-0 | 30.8% |
| 2026-01-03 | Houston | L 60–67 | 35:34 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1-7 | 0-3 | 2-2 | 14.3% |
| 2025-12-29 | Lipscomb | W 89–62 | 25:47 | 16 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7-11 | 2-5 | 0-1 | 72.7% |
| 2025-12-21 | Clemson | L 65–68 | 29:08 | 10 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3-9 | 1-2 | 3-4 | 38.9% |
| 2025-12-17 | Alabama St. | W 88–51 | 18:44 | 16 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 6-9 | 3-5 | 1-1 | 83.3% |