KJ Younger
UNC Greensboro · 2025–26 · 32 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
918:33 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 32
- Minutes per game
- 28:42
- Points per game
- 15.1
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 4.3 / 1.1
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 15.1 | 4.3 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 2.2 |
| Per 40 minutes | 21.0 | 6.1 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 1.7 | 3.0 |
| Season totals | 482 | 139 | 34 | 28 | 6 | 40 | 70 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 158–357 | 44.3% | 11.2 | 15.5 |
| 2P | 98–182 | 53.8% | 5.7 | 7.9 |
| 3P | 60–175 | 34.3% | 5.5 | 7.6 |
| FT | 106–150 | 70.7% | 4.7 | 6.5 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 52.7% | 57.0% | 49.0% | 42.0% | 0.85 |
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
UNC Greensboro · 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
- $21K
- 80% range $2K to $85K
- Median share of team pool
- 13.2%
- team pool $205K, 80% range $73K to $555K
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $19K to $26K
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $1K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 71.4%
- 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.
UNC Greensboro: 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 | UNC Greensboro | $21Kspeculative | $2K to $85K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | -0.7 | -1.8 to +0.9 | Sufficient evidence | +0.5 | -1.3 | +3.9range +3.4 to +4.6 | 2,673 | 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 | 29:50 | 28:42 | 18:15–38:51 | |
| Points | 18.2 | 15.1 | 4.0–30.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 55.8% | 50.4% | 12.5%–88.9% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-08 | Furman | L 75–81 | 33:21 | 15 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5-11 | 2-7 | 3-4 | 54.5% |
| 2026-03-07 · NCAA | Wofford | W 75–72 | 30:00 | 19 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6-12 | 3-7 | 4-4 | 62.5% |
| 2026-03-06 | VMI | W 84–70 | 27:31 | 29 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 10-16 | 3-7 | 6-6 | 71.9% |
| 2026-02-28 | Samford | L 78–87 | 28:38 | 11 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-9 | 2-2 | 3-3 | 44.4% |
| 2026-02-26 | Chattanooga | W 85–80 | 29:42 | 17 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5-12 | 1-5 | 6-6 | 45.8% |
| 2026-02-21 | ETSU | L 75–87 | 24:32 | 20 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 7-13 | 5-9 | 1-2 | 73.1% |
| 2026-02-18 | Western Caro. | L 77–91 | 28:23 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3-8 | 2-5 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-14 · NCAA | Wofford | W 99–89 | 27:54 | 22 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 6-10 | 4-5 | 6-9 | 80.0% |
| 2026-02-11 | VMI | W 92–71 | 29:28 | 21 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5-12 | 3-8 | 8-8 | 54.2% |
| 2026-02-08 | Furman | W 67–64 | 27:21 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1-5 | 0-2 | 2-3 | 20.0% |
| 2026-02-04 | Western Caro. | W 81–78 | 18:15 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 2-8 | 0-4 | 2-2 | 25.0% |
| 2026-01-31 | The Citadel | L 66–71 | 38:51 | 24 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 9-17 | 3-10 | 3-6 | 61.8% |
| 2026-01-29 | Mercer | L 77–95 | 33:16 | 30 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 11-20 | 4-9 | 4-5 | 65.0% |
| 2026-01-23 | Furman | L 66–89 | 30:35 | 17 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6-13 | 4-7 | 1-3 | 61.5% |
| 2026-01-21 | VMI | W 85–78 | 33:29 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6-13 | 2-5 | 1-2 | 53.8% |
| 2026-01-17 | Mercer | L 92–102 | 30:12 | 21 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7-16 | 1-6 | 6-7 | 46.9% |
| 2026-01-15 | The Citadel | W 69–66 | 30:14 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3-12 | 0-5 | 1-6 | 25.0% |
| 2026-01-10 | ETSU | L 60–86 | 29:23 | 13 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5-12 | 0-4 | 3-3 | 41.7% |
| 2026-01-07 · NCAA | Wofford | L 85–97 | 30:48 | 13 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5-12 | 3-8 | 0-0 | 54.2% |
| 2026-01-03 | Samford | W 89–82 | 31:05 | 15 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5-11 | 2-4 | 3-4 | 54.5% |
| 2026-01-01 | Chattanooga | W 77–72 | 28:08 | 24 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 7-14 | 1-6 | 9-11 | 53.6% |
| 2025-12-16 | N.C. A&T | L 65–71 | 31:39 | 17 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6-12 | 2-7 | 3-5 | 58.3% |
| 2025-12-06 | East Carolina | W 82–78 | 30:23 | 8 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3-7 | 2-5 | 0-0 | 57.1% |
| 2025-12-02 | UNC Asheville | L 77–82 | 27:59 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2-9 | 0-4 | 3-5 | 22.2% |
| 2025-11-26 | Miami (OH) | L 71–82 | 28:56 | 14 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 5-9 | 2-5 | 2-4 | 66.7% |
| 2025-11-25 | Delaware | L 60–73 | 29:39 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1-8 | 0-3 | 8-9 | 12.5% |
| 2025-11-23 | Youngstown St. | W 68–62 | 27:21 | 11 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 4-8 | 1-3 | 2-5 | 56.3% |
| 2025-11-20 | Queens (NC) | L 94–101 | 24:49 | 22 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 7-9 | 2-3 | 6-9 | 88.9% |
| 2025-11-15 | Austin Peay | L 63–69 | 24:59 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2-8 | 1-4 | 3-4 | 31.3% |
| 2025-11-12 | NC State | L 64–110 | 18:23 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1-6 | 0-3 | 5-13 | 16.7% |
| 2025-11-08 | Elon | L 90–92 | 23:44 | 16 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 6-11 | 4-7 | 0-0 | 72.7% |
| 2025-11-04 | Kansas St. | L 64–93 | 29:35 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4-14 | 1-6 | 0-0 | 32.1% |