Moustapha Thiam
Cincinnati · 2025–26 · 31 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
840:44 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 31
- Minutes per game
- 27:07
- Points per game
- 12.8
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 7.1 / 0.5
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 12.8 | 7.1 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 2.0 |
| Per 40 minutes | 18.9 | 10.5 | 0.8 | 1.1 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 2.9 |
| Season totals | 397 | 221 | 16 | 24 | 50 | 42 | 62 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 160–305 | 52.5% | 9.8 | 14.5 |
| 2P | 145–253 | 57.3% | 8.2 | 12.0 |
| 3P | 15–52 | 28.8% | 1.7 | 2.5 |
| FT | 62–98 | 63.3% | 3.2 | 4.7 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 54.9% | 57.0% | 17.0% | 32.1% | 0.38 |
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
- $500K
- 80% range $305K to $795K
- Median share of team pool
- 13.9%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.50M to $5.00M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $500K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $26K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 64.9%
- 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.
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 | $500Kspeculative | $305K to $795K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +3.3 | +2.2 to +4.5 | Sufficient evidence | +0.1 | +3.3 | +5.3range +4.7 to +5.8 | 2,787 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | UCF | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +1.1 | -0.1 to +2.0 | Sufficient evidence | -0.1 | +1.1 | +3.4range +2.9 to +4.0 | 3,010 | 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 | 32:44 | 27:07 | 11:24–42:20 | |
| Points | 16.0 | 12.8 | 0.0–28.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 53.1% | 52.8% | 0.0%–92.9% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-11 | UCF | L 65–66 | 42:20 | 18 | 16 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 4 | 7-14 | 3-4 | 1-1 | 60.7% |
| 2026-03-10 | Utah | W 73–66 | 34:06 | 14 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5-13 | 1-3 | 3-6 | 42.3% |
| 2026-03-07 | TCU | L 63–73 | 27:57 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4-8 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-03-03 | BYU | W 90–68 | 31:14 | 16 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6-12 | 1-1 | 3-5 | 54.2% |
| 2026-02-28 | Oklahoma St. | W 91–68 | 28:05 | 24 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 10-18 | 1-5 | 3-4 | 58.3% |
| 2026-02-24 | Texas Tech | L 68–80 | 35:55 | 21 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7-19 | 1-4 | 6-7 | 39.5% |
| 2026-02-21 | Kansas | W 84–68 | 30:15 | 28 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11-17 | 2-5 | 4-7 | 70.6% |
| 2026-02-15 | Utah | W 69–65 | 24:47 | 15 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 5-9 | 0-0 | 5-7 | 55.6% |
| 2026-02-08 | UCF | W 92–72 | 30:48 | 15 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 7-13 | 0-2 | 1-3 | 53.8% |
| 2026-01-31 | Houston | L 54–76 | 11:24 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1-5 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 20.0% |
| 2026-01-28 | Baylor | W 67–57 | 27:22 | 14 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 6-13 | 0-1 | 2-3 | 46.2% |
| 2026-01-24 | Arizona St. | L 68–82 | 27:38 | 15 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 7-13 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 53.8% |
| 2026-01-21 | Arizona | L 51–77 | 17:50 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1-7 | 0-2 | 3-3 | 14.3% |
| 2026-01-17 | Iowa St. | W 79–70 | 22:43 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2-5 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-14 | Colorado | W 77–68 | 29:57 | 15 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6-8 | 0-1 | 3-4 | 75.0% |
| 2026-01-11 | UCF | L 72–73 | 30:56 | 24 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 10-15 | 1-2 | 3-3 | 70.0% |
| 2026-01-06 | West Virginia | L 60–62 | 27:01 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2-6 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 33.3% |
| 2026-01-03 | Houston | L 60–67 | 27:10 | 13 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 6-7 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 92.9% |
| 2025-12-29 | Lipscomb | W 89–62 | 23:59 | 18 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 8-13 | 0-0 | 2-3 | 61.5% |
| 2025-12-21 | Clemson | L 65–68 | 25:31 | 15 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5-8 | 1-1 | 4-4 | 68.8% |
| 2025-12-17 | Alabama St. | W 88–51 | 25:27 | 9 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4-6 | 0-1 | 1-1 | 66.7% |
| 2025-12-13 | Georgia | L 65–84 | 21:31 | 11 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5-11 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-05 | Xavier | L 74–79 | 26:54 | 9 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4-9 | 0-1 | 1-2 | 44.4% |
| 2025-12-01 | Tarleton St. | W 76–58 | 21:11 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-26 | Eastern Mich. | L 56–64 | 33:27 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2-5 | 0-0 | 4-6 | 40.0% |
| 2025-11-24 | NJIT | W 94–67 | 25:06 | 15 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7-12 | 0-2 | 1-1 | 58.3% |
| 2025-11-21 | Louisville | L 64–74 | 26:14 | 10 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 5-7 | 0-1 | 0-2 | 71.4% |
| 2025-11-16 | Mount St. Mary's | W 72–55 | 26:30 | 13 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 5-9 | 0-3 | 3-6 | 55.6% |
| 2025-11-11 | Dayton | W 74–62 | 25:30 | 5 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 1-4 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-07 | Georgia St. | W 74–64 | 27:19 | 10 | 9 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 4-11 | 0-2 | 2-7 | 36.4% |
| 2025-11-03 | Western Caro. | W 94–63 | 24:37 | 18 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 6-7 | 1-2 | 5-7 | 92.9% |