Chance Trujillo
Utah Tech · 2025–26 · 31 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
1027:49 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 31
- Minutes per game
- 33:09
- Points per game
- 12.3
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 3.3 / 2.7
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 12.3 | 3.3 | 2.7 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 2.6 |
| Per 40 minutes | 14.9 | 3.9 | 3.3 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 1.8 | 3.2 |
| Season totals | 382 | 101 | 84 | 29 | 8 | 47 | 81 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 127–310 | 41.0% | 10.0 | 12.1 |
| 2P | 56–111 | 50.5% | 3.6 | 4.3 |
| 3P | 71–199 | 35.7% | 6.4 | 7.7 |
| FT | 57–72 | 79.2% | 2.3 | 2.8 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 52.4% | 55.9% | 64.2% | 23.2% | 1.79 |
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
Utah Tech · Low and other · 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
- $35K
- 80% range $10K to $105K
- Median share of team pool
- 17.0%
- team pool $210K, 80% range $77K to $555K
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $35K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $2K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 81.4%
- 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. Tier prior from anonymous surveys and sources, scaled so that all non-Power budgets sum to the national total the College Sports Commission reported paid for 2025-26 ($1,770,453,776 over 307 schools) less the Power 4 total, times a men's basketball share; weak anchor.
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.
Utah Tech: 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 | Utah Tech | $35Kspeculative | $10K to $105K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +0.6 | -0.3 to +1.6 | Sufficient evidence | +1.1 | -0.5 | +5.2range +4.6 to +5.8 | 3,199 | 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 | 35:22 | 33:09 | 17:40–48:10 | |
| Points | 17.4 | 12.3 | 3.0–24.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 77.8% | 52.1% | 20.0%–109.1% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-13 | California Baptist | L 72–86 | 32:18 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5-12 | 3-8 | 2-4 | 54.2% |
| 2026-03-12 | Abilene Christian | W 80–74 | 27:29 | 11 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3-5 | 3-4 | 2-2 | 90.0% |
| 2026-03-07 | Utah Valley | L 101–104 | 46:17 | 18 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 6-12 | 2-7 | 4-4 | 58.3% |
| 2026-02-28 | Southern Utah | L 67–81 | 33:47 | 19 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 6-11 | 5-8 | 2-3 | 77.3% |
| 2026-02-26 | Abilene Christian | W 85–81 | 36:58 | 24 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 9-11 | 6-8 | 0-1 | 109.1% |
| 2026-02-21 | Tarleton St. | W 80–72 | 29:37 | 19 | 10 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7-13 | 5-9 | 0-0 | 73.1% |
| 2026-02-19 | UT Arlington | L 50–63 | 29:56 | 8 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2-9 | 1-5 | 3-4 | 27.8% |
| 2026-02-14 | California Baptist | W 70–65 | 29:57 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2-5 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 60.0% |
| 2026-02-12 | Utah Valley | W 81–77 | 31:20 | 14 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5-13 | 3-7 | 1-3 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-05 | UT Arlington | W 87–84 | 41:38 | 22 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 9-13 | 4-7 | 0-1 | 84.6% |
| 2026-01-31 | Tarleton St. | W 65–59 | 34:09 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3-12 | 2-8 | 0-0 | 33.3% |
| 2026-01-29 | Abilene Christian | W 76–70 | 33:46 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-6 | 1-3 | 3-4 | 58.3% |
| 2026-01-24 | Southern Utah | W 102–91 | 31:37 | 17 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 7-13 | 3-7 | 0-0 | 65.4% |
| 2026-01-21 | California Baptist | L 64–73 | 27:20 | 7 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 3-11 | 1-5 | 0-0 | 31.8% |
| 2026-01-17 | Tarleton St. | W 75–71 | 31:25 | 13 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4-11 | 3-8 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-15 | UT Arlington | L 52–56 | 35:21 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3-15 | 0-6 | 1-2 | 20.0% |
| 2026-01-10 | Utah Valley | L 76–92 | 34:09 | 12 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2-10 | 0-5 | 8-8 | 20.0% |
| 2026-01-08 | California Baptist | L 72–84 | 36:40 | 13 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4-10 | 1-5 | 4-4 | 45.0% |
| 2026-01-01 · NCAA | Abilene Christian | W 79–64 | 34:12 | 19 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 7-12 | 5-9 | 0-0 | 79.2% |
| 2025-12-29 | Southern Utah | W 80–66 | 17:40 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1-6 | 1-5 | 0-0 | 25.0% |
| 2025-12-22 | Creighton | L 69–92 | 30:03 | 8 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3-6 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 66.7% |
| 2025-12-20 | Weber St. | W 82–80 | 32:05 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1-6 | 1-5 | 1-2 | 25.0% |
| 2025-12-03 | Santa Clara | L 80–90 | 27:15 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 4-12 | 0-7 | 0-0 | 33.3% |
| 2025-11-29 | UC Riverside | W 77–69 | 36:21 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1-4 | 1-4 | 5-6 | 37.5% |
| 2025-11-25 | Portland St. | L 63–68 | 34:03 | 12 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3-9 | 1-6 | 5-5 | 38.9% |
| 2025-11-16 | Hawaii | L 62–68 | 31:44 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 3-7 | 2-5 | 1-2 | 57.1% |
| 2025-11-14 | Mississippi Val. | W 81–75 | 48:10 | 12 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4-13 | 2-11 | 2-2 | 38.5% |
| 2025-11-12 | Manhattan | L 75–79 | 19:15 | 15 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4-9 | 4-8 | 3-4 | 66.7% |
| 2025-11-09 | Arizona St. | L 66–81 | 36:01 | 15 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5-14 | 3-10 | 2-2 | 46.4% |
| 2025-11-07 | Arizona | L 67–93 | 32:16 | 9 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2-7 | 1-4 | 4-4 | 35.7% |
| 2025-11-03 | South Dakota | W 81–79 | 45:00 | 17 | 12 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 6-13 | 3-9 | 2-3 | 57.7% |