Isaac Asuma
Minnesota · 2025–26 · 33 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
1131:02 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 33
- Minutes per game
- 34:16
- Points per game
- 10.9
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 4.0 / 3.7
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 10.9 | 4.0 | 3.7 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 2.2 | 2.7 |
| Per 40 minutes | 12.7 | 4.6 | 4.4 | 1.5 | 0.6 | 2.5 | 3.1 |
| Season totals | 359 | 131 | 123 | 41 | 17 | 71 | 88 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 126–317 | 39.7% | 9.6 | 11.2 |
| 2P | 68–126 | 54.0% | 3.8 | 4.5 |
| 3P | 58–191 | 30.4% | 5.8 | 6.8 |
| FT | 49–66 | 74.2% | 2.0 | 2.3 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48.9% | 51.9% | 60.3% | 20.8% | 1.73 |
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
Minnesota · 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
- $560K
- 80% range $285K to $860K
- Median share of team pool
- 16.1%
- team pool $3.60M, 80% range $2.55M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $560K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $29K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 85.1%
- 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.
Minnesota: 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 | Minnesota | $560Kspeculative | $285K to $860K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +1.5 | +0.1 to +3.0 | Sufficient evidence | +1.3 | +0.1 | +5.3range +4.7 to +6.0 | 3,571 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Minnesota | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +0.0 | -1.3 to +1.4 | Sufficient evidence | +0.8 | -0.8 | +2.5range +2.1 to +3.0 | 2,334 | 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 | 35:26 | 34:16 | 22:22–43:01 | |
| Points | 10.6 | 10.9 | 0.0–18.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 49.9% | 48.9% | 0.0%–80.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-01 | Baylor | L 48–67 | 27:50 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2-7 | 0-4 | 0-2 | 28.6% |
| 2026-03-11 | Rutgers | L 67–72 | 36:33 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 3 | 3-8 | 1-3 | 2-3 | 43.8% |
| 2026-03-07 | Northwestern | W 67–66 | 36:48 | 14 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4-7 | 2-3 | 4-4 | 71.4% |
| 2026-03-04 | Indiana | L 47–77 | 37:06 | 13 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5-15 | 0-6 | 3-5 | 33.3% |
| 2026-02-28 | UCLA | W 78–73 | 38:52 | 13 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6-9 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 72.2% |
| 2026-02-24 | Michigan | L 67–77 | 37:18 | 12 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5-12 | 2-8 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-21 | Rutgers | W 80–61 | 35:40 | 11 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4-8 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 68.8% |
| 2026-02-17 | Oregon | W 61–44 | 36:22 | 15 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 6-14 | 3-10 | 0-0 | 53.6% |
| 2026-02-14 | Washington | L 57–69 | 39:57 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 2 | 5-11 | 1-7 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-08 | Maryland | L 62–67 | 38:58 | 18 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 6-12 | 6-9 | 0-1 | 75.0% |
| 2026-02-04 | Michigan St. | W 76–73 | 36:49 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-6 | 0-2 | 4-5 | 50.0% |
| 2026-02-01 | Penn St. | L 75–77 | 36:33 | 12 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 5-10 | 1-6 | 1-2 | 55.0% |
| 2026-01-28 | Wisconsin | L 63–67 | 35:56 | 16 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6-16 | 4-13 | 0-0 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-24 | Nebraska | L 57–76 | 28:04 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0-5 | 0-4 | 0-1 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-20 | Ohio St. | L 74–82 | 43:01 | 12 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3-12 | 3-9 | 3-4 | 37.5% |
| 2026-01-17 | Illinois | L 67–77 | 36:03 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3-12 | 3-8 | 0-0 | 37.5% |
| 2026-01-13 | Wisconsin | L 75–78 | 37:43 | 17 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6-11 | 2-5 | 3-4 | 63.6% |
| 2026-01-09 | Southern California | L 69–70 | 32:17 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 3-9 | 2-6 | 0-0 | 44.4% |
| 2026-01-06 | Iowa | W 70–67 | 36:32 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 2-7 | 0-5 | 6-6 | 28.6% |
| 2026-01-03 | Northwestern | W 84–78 | 40:00 | 18 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6-11 | 4-7 | 2-2 | 72.7% |
| 2025-12-29 | FDU | W 60–43 | 29:24 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2-14 | 1-10 | 0-0 | 17.9% |
| 2025-12-21 | Campbell | W 78–50 | 32:56 | 15 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 5-11 | 2-7 | 3-4 | 54.5% |
| 2025-12-14 | Texas Southern | W 89–53 | 26:36 | 13 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5-9 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 72.2% |
| 2025-12-10 | Purdue | L 57–85 | 28:46 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 2-8 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 31.3% |
| 2025-12-03 | Indiana | W 73–64 | 39:11 | 15 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4-10 | 1-5 | 6-9 | 45.0% |
| 2025-11-28 | Santa Clara | L 75–86 | 37:00 | 13 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4-11 | 3-7 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-27 | Stanford | L 68–72 | 27:24 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2-5 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 60.0% |
| 2025-11-22 | San Francisco | L 65–77 | 22:54 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1-8 | 0-3 | 0-0 | 12.5% |
| 2025-11-18 | Chicago St. | W 66–54 | 34:27 | 14 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4-9 | 2-6 | 4-4 | 55.6% |
| 2025-11-15 | Green Bay | W 72–65 | 42:41 | 9 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2-6 | 2-5 | 3-4 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-12 | Missouri | L 60–83 | 33:32 | 13 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4-11 | 3-9 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-08 | Alcorn | W 95–50 | 25:27 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4-8 | 0-2 | 1-1 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-03 | Gardner-Webb | W 87–60 | 22:22 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4-5 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 80.0% |