Riley Kugel
UCF · 2025–26 · 30 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
862:06 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 30
- Minutes per game
- 28:44
- Points per game
- 14.4
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 3.1 / 2.5
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 14.4 | 3.1 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 1.7 | 2.7 |
| Per 40 minutes | 20.0 | 4.3 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 2.4 | 3.8 |
| Season totals | 432 | 92 | 76 | 31 | 7 | 52 | 81 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 156–373 | 41.8% | 12.4 | 17.3 |
| 2P | 100–230 | 43.5% | 7.7 | 10.7 |
| 3P | 56–143 | 39.2% | 4.8 | 6.6 |
| FT | 64–83 | 77.1% | 2.8 | 3.9 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 49.3% | 52.7% | 38.3% | 22.3% | 1.46 |
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
UCF · 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
- $450K
- 80% range $215K to $745K
- Median share of team pool
- 12.9%
- team pool $3.60M, 80% range $2.55M to $5.00M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $450K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $25K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 67.4%
- 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.
UCF: 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 | UCF | $450Kspeculative | $215K to $745K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +1.9 | +0.6 to +3.2 | Sufficient evidence | +2.0 | -0.1 | +5.1range +4.4 to +5.7 | 2,885 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Mississippi St | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +2.1 | +0.9 to +3.1 | Sufficient evidence | +1.8 | +0.3 | +3.7range +3.1 to +4.2 | 1,688 | Season detail | |
| 2024 | Florida | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +2.0 | +0.7 to +3.0 | Sufficient evidence | +0.8 | +1.2 | +3.0range +2.5 to +3.5 | 2,363 | Season detail | |
| 2023 | Florida | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +0.1 | -1.0 to +1.3 | Sufficient evidence | +0.5 | -0.5 | +2.4range +2.0 to +3.0 | 2,143 | 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 | 29:07 | 28:44 | 13:25–36:01 | |
| Points | 16.2 | 14.4 | 0.0–26.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 51.6% | 47.4% | 0.0%–83.3% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-12 | Arizona | L 59–81 | 13:25 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2-7 | 1-3 | 1-2 | 35.7% |
| 2026-03-11 | Cincinnati | W 66–65 | 34:53 | 15 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 7-17 | 1-4 | 0-1 | 44.1% |
| 2026-03-06 | West Virginia | L 62–77 | 27:17 | 16 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6-13 | 3-5 | 1-2 | 57.7% |
| 2026-03-03 | Oklahoma St. | L 104–111 | 35:47 | 18 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 7-14 | 2-6 | 2-2 | 57.1% |
| 2026-02-28 | Baylor | L 86–87 | 34:11 | 26 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 10-19 | 4-7 | 2-2 | 63.2% |
| 2026-02-17 | TCU | W 82–71 | 24:28 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 2-5 | 0-1 | 4-4 | 40.0% |
| 2026-02-14 | West Virginia | L 67–74 | 36:01 | 13 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3-10 | 2-4 | 5-5 | 40.0% |
| 2026-02-08 | Cincinnati | L 72–92 | 25:18 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 5-11 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 45.5% |
| 2026-02-04 | Houston | L 55–79 | 29:53 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1-10 | 1-5 | 6-6 | 15.0% |
| 2026-01-31 | Texas Tech | W 88–80 | 29:00 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2-9 | 1-4 | 4-5 | 27.8% |
| 2026-01-27 | Arizona St. | W 79–76 | 35:38 | 17 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 6-10 | 1-4 | 4-6 | 65.0% |
| 2026-01-24 | Colorado | W 95–86 | 23:58 | 22 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 7-12 | 6-8 | 2-2 | 83.3% |
| 2026-01-20 | Iowa St. | L 57–87 | 31:17 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 6-15 | 3-8 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-17 | Arizona | L 77–84 | 31:06 | 12 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5-18 | 1-5 | 1-2 | 30.6% |
| 2026-01-14 | Kansas St. | W 82–73 | 34:16 | 19 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 6-11 | 2-4 | 5-7 | 63.6% |
| 2026-01-11 | Cincinnati | W 73–72 | 34:35 | 19 | 5 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 7-10 | 2-4 | 3-4 | 80.0% |
| 2026-01-06 | Oklahoma St. | L 76–87 | 26:44 | 15 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 6-14 | 2-6 | 1-1 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-03 | Kansas | W 81–75 | 26:31 | 19 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 8-17 | 2-7 | 1-1 | 52.9% |
| 2025-12-23 | Fla. Atlantic | W 85–80 | 28:24 | 18 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 6-15 | 2-5 | 4-6 | 46.7% |
| 2025-12-20 · NCAA | FGCU | W 102–80 | 22:00 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0-6 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 0.0% |
| 2025-12-17 | Mercer | W 81–63 | 30:23 | 16 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 5-15 | 0-4 | 6-8 | 33.3% |
| 2025-12-07 | Towson | W 86–61 | 27:02 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3-12 | 0-4 | 0-0 | 25.0% |
| 2025-11-29 | VMI | W 82–57 | 16:07 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0-8 | 0-3 | 0-1 | 0.0% |
| 2025-11-25 | Quinnipiac | W 102–91 | 24:45 | 16 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6-13 | 3-6 | 1-2 | 57.7% |
| 2025-11-20 | Pittsburgh | W 77–67 | 24:21 | 18 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 8-14 | 1-3 | 1-2 | 60.7% |
| 2025-11-17 | Oakland | W 87–83 | 31:11 | 18 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 5-12 | 3-8 | 5-6 | 54.2% |
| 2025-11-14 | Texas A&M | W 86–74 | 32:43 | 12 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 5-12 | 1-3 | 1-2 | 45.8% |
| 2025-11-11 | Florida A&M | W 97–60 | 27:30 | 16 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6-10 | 3-3 | 1-1 | 75.0% |
| 2025-11-08 | Vanderbilt | L 93–105 | 32:32 | 25 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 9-19 | 4-5 | 3-3 | 57.9% |
| 2025-11-03 | Hofstra | W 82–78 | 30:50 | 19 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 7-15 | 5-9 | 0-0 | 63.3% |