Miles Barnstable
Tulsa · 2025–26 · 35 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
1073:03 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 35
- Minutes per game
- 30:40
- Points per game
- 14.5
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 3.9 / 1.4
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 14.5 | 3.9 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 1.8 |
| Per 40 minutes | 18.9 | 5.0 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1.3 | 2.4 |
| Season totals | 507 | 135 | 50 | 28 | 13 | 34 | 64 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 154–337 | 45.7% | 9.6 | 12.6 |
| 2P | 59–101 | 58.4% | 2.9 | 3.8 |
| 3P | 95–236 | 40.3% | 6.7 | 8.8 |
| FT | 104–118 | 88.1% | 3.4 | 4.4 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 59.8% | 65.2% | 70.0% | 35.0% | 1.47 |
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
Tulsa · Mid and high major · 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
- $97K
- 80% range $32K to $240K
- Median share of team pool
- 11.8%
- team pool $925K, 80% range $415K to $2.05M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $88K to $100K
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $7K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 76.0%
- 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.
Tulsa: 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 | Tulsa | $97Kspeculative | $32K to $240K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +1.6 | +0.6 to +2.6 | Sufficient evidence | +2.3 | -0.7 | +6.3range +5.6 to +7.1 | 3,637 | 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 | 33:12 | 30:40 | 17:27–41:07 | |
| Points | 14.4 | 14.5 | 7.0–25.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 48.2% | 60.2% | 30.0%–100.0% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-05 | Auburn | L 86–92 | 41:07 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2-7 | 1-5 | 3-3 | 35.7% |
| 2026-04-02 | New Mexico | W 74–69 | 28:04 | 11 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4-10 | 3-8 | 0-0 | 55.0% |
| 2026-03-24 | Wichita St. | W 83–79 | 34:43 | 24 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 6-15 | 5-9 | 7-8 | 56.7% |
| 2026-03-22 | UNLV | W 77–66 | 29:29 | 16 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6-14 | 3-10 | 1-2 | 53.6% |
| 2026-03-17 | SFA | W 89–84 | 32:39 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3-10 | 2-9 | 5-5 | 40.0% |
| 2026-03-14 | Wichita St. | L 68–81 | 28:57 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4-10 | 4-9 | 2-2 | 60.0% |
| 2026-03-13 | North Texas | W 90–84 | 35:38 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1-5 | 1-4 | 4-6 | 30.0% |
| 2026-03-08 | Temple | W 78–76 | 31:43 | 13 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5-8 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 81.3% |
| 2026-03-05 | East Carolina | W 93–66 | 30:03 | 14 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5-12 | 1-6 | 3-6 | 45.8% |
| 2026-02-25 | Tulane | W 90–56 | 26:24 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4-6 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 91.7% |
| 2026-02-22 | UTSA | W 100–74 | 26:58 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-9 | 1-6 | 0-0 | 38.9% |
| 2026-02-18 | Charlotte | W 79–74 | 35:03 | 25 | 5 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 9-16 | 6-13 | 1-2 | 75.0% |
| 2026-02-14 | Wichita St. | L 77–81 | 33:17 | 19 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5-9 | 4-7 | 5-5 | 77.8% |
| 2026-02-11 | UAB | L 63–68 | 35:14 | 15 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6-14 | 3-10 | 0-0 | 53.6% |
| 2026-02-08 | South Fla. | L 74–80 | 28:54 | 13 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5-12 | 3-10 | 0-0 | 54.2% |
| 2026-02-04 | Fla. Atlantic | W 78–76 | 33:41 | 15 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3-8 | 3-8 | 6-7 | 56.3% |
| 2026-02-01 | Wichita St. | W 93–83 | 32:30 | 14 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 5-10 | 3-6 | 1-2 | 65.0% |
| 2026-01-28 | North Texas | W 82–66 | 26:40 | 18 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6-12 | 2-7 | 4-4 | 58.3% |
| 2026-01-24 | Rice | W 87–81 | 28:11 | 21 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5-10 | 3-7 | 8-9 | 65.0% |
| 2026-01-21 | Memphis | W 83–66 | 29:51 | 17 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 4-8 | 2-6 | 7-7 | 62.5% |
| 2026-01-18 | UAB | W 99–77 | 30:47 | 25 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 8-11 | 6-8 | 3-3 | 100.0% |
| 2026-01-14 | Charlotte | W 86–74 | 37:17 | 18 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4-10 | 2-5 | 8-8 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-10 | South Fla. | L 78–93 | 35:56 | 14 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 3-9 | 3-8 | 5-5 | 50.0% |
| 2026-01-04 | North Texas | L 67–72 | 32:22 | 12 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2-5 | 1-3 | 7-7 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-31 | Rice | W 97–48 | 17:27 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3-5 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 70.0% |
| 2025-12-22 | Denver | W 90–85 | 27:37 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3-12 | 2-6 | 2-2 | 33.3% |
| 2025-12-19 | Western Ky. | W 82–81 | 30:01 | 12 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4-8 | 3-6 | 1-2 | 68.8% |
| 2025-12-10 | Ark.-Pine Bluff | W 117–84 | 22:44 | 17 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5-7 | 2-3 | 5-6 | 85.7% |
| 2025-12-06 | Missouri St. | W 98–74 | 22:09 | 10 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3-7 | 2-5 | 2-3 | 57.1% |
| 2025-11-26 | UNI | W 63–60 | 27:53 | 11 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4-8 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 68.8% |
| 2025-11-25 | San Jose St. | W 81–51 | 26:25 | 14 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 6-9 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 77.8% |
| 2025-11-21 | Austin Peay | W 84–75 | 34:15 | 10 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3-8 | 2-7 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-17 | Kansas St. | L 83–84 | 35:52 | 18 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6-16 | 4-11 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-12 | Oral Roberts | W 88–87 | 31:04 | 21 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 5-9 | 4-7 | 7-7 | 77.8% |
| 2025-11-07 | Rhode Island | W 82–65 | 32:08 | 13 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4-8 | 2-5 | 3-3 | 62.5% |