LeJuan Watts
Texas Tech · 2025–26 · 33 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
901:34 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 33
- Minutes per game
- 27:19
- Points per game
- 11.8
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 6.0 / 2.4
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 11.8 | 6.0 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 2.5 | 2.4 |
| Per 40 minutes | 17.2 | 8.8 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 3.6 | 3.5 |
| Season totals | 388 | 199 | 80 | 22 | 8 | 82 | 80 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 130–300 | 43.3% | 9.1 | 13.3 |
| 2P | 105–222 | 47.3% | 6.7 | 9.8 |
| 3P | 25–78 | 32.1% | 2.4 | 3.5 |
| FT | 103–134 | 76.9% | 4.1 | 5.9 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 47.5% | 54.0% | 26.0% | 44.7% | 0.98 |
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
Texas Tech · 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
- $240K
- 80% range $49K to $445K
- Median share of team pool
- 7.3%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.60M to $5.00M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $240K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $27K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 66.9%
- 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. 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.
Texas 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 | Texas Tech | $240Kspeculative | $49K to $445K | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +0.8 | -0.5 to +1.9 | Sufficient evidence | +1.7 | -0.9 | +4.5range +3.8 to +5.1 | 2,911 | Season detail | |
| 2025 | Washington St | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +0.7 | -0.3 to +2.0 | Sufficient evidence | +1.6 | -0.9 | +4.0range +3.4 to +4.7 | 2,839 | Season detail | |
| 2024 | E Washington | None: no budget that season | — | evaluation: examined, post hoc | +1.3 | +0.3 to +2.4 | Sufficient evidence | +2.1 | -0.8 | +2.7range +2.2 to +3.2 | 2,364 | 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 | 23:12 | 27:19 | 11:48–37:15 | |
| Points | 10.6 | 11.8 | 0.0–36.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 47.0% | 45.9% | 0.0%–103.8% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-22 | Alabama | L 65–90 | 25:14 | 16 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 5-14 | 1-4 | 5-6 | 39.3% |
| 2026-03-20 | Akron | W 91–71 | 24:33 | 14 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 5 | 6-8 | 0-1 | 2-5 | 75.0% |
| 2026-03-12 | Iowa St. | L 53–75 | 27:44 | 12 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5-12 | 1-3 | 1-2 | 45.8% |
| 2026-03-07 | BYU | L 76–82 | 19:37 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2-5 | 1-1 | 2-2 | 50.0% |
| 2026-03-03 | TCU | L 65–73 | 18:50 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1-4 | 0-2 | 2-4 | 25.0% |
| 2026-02-28 | Iowa St. | W 82–73 | 26:13 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 2-4 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 62.5% |
| 2026-02-24 | Cincinnati | W 80–68 | 32:07 | 13 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4-7 | 0-1 | 5-6 | 57.1% |
| 2026-02-21 | Kansas St. | W 100–72 | 26:35 | 19 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6-11 | 1-2 | 6-6 | 59.1% |
| 2026-02-17 | Arizona St. | L 67–72 | 18:33 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1-4 | 0-1 | 3-4 | 25.0% |
| 2026-02-14 | Arizona | W 78–75 | 29:44 | 9 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2-7 | 0-2 | 5-7 | 28.6% |
| 2026-02-11 | Colorado | W 78–44 | 20:42 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2-6 | 0-1 | 1-3 | 33.3% |
| 2026-02-08 | West Virginia | W 70–63 | 31:11 | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 2-6 | 1-2 | 2-2 | 41.7% |
| 2026-02-02 | Kansas | L 61–64 | 37:15 | 19 | 12 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 8-22 | 2-7 | 1-2 | 40.9% |
| 2026-01-31 | UCF | L 80–88 | 23:02 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 3-9 | 2-6 | 1-2 | 44.4% |
| 2026-01-24 | Houston | W 90–86 | 22:11 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0-8 | 0-0 | 3-4 | 0.0% |
| 2026-01-20 | Baylor | W 92–73 | 29:24 | 13 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 4-6 | 0-1 | 5-6 | 66.7% |
| 2026-01-17 | BYU | W 84–71 | 35:26 | 20 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 6-13 | 2-4 | 6-8 | 53.8% |
| 2026-01-14 | Utah | W 88–74 | 33:55 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 4-10 | 0-2 | 1-2 | 40.0% |
| 2026-01-10 | Colorado | W 73–71 | 33:43 | 11 | 11 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 5-14 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 39.3% |
| 2026-01-06 | Houston | L 65–69 | 29:43 | 5 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 1-9 | 0-3 | 3-4 | 11.1% |
| 2026-01-03 | Oklahoma St. | W 102–80 | 31:08 | 19 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6-11 | 1-3 | 6-7 | 59.1% |
| 2025-12-28 | Winthrop | W 87–57 | 21:31 | 4 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 33.3% |
| 2025-12-20 | Duke | W 82–81 | 26:48 | 20 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 10-17 | 0-4 | 0-0 | 58.8% |
| 2025-12-16 | Northern Colo. | W 101–90 | 36:26 | 36 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 12-13 | 3-4 | 9-11 | 103.8% |
| 2025-12-13 | Arkansas | L 86–93 | 33:27 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3-10 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 40.0% |
| 2025-12-07 | LSU | W 82–58 | 25:03 | 15 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5-11 | 1-2 | 4-4 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-30 | Wyoming | W 76–72 | 28:36 | 19 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 6-12 | 2-4 | 5-5 | 58.3% |
| 2025-11-26 | LSU New Orleans | W 82–50 | 23:55 | 12 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2-11 | 1-3 | 7-10 | 22.7% |
| 2025-11-21 | Purdue | L 56–86 | 11:48 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | — |
| 2025-11-20 | Wake Forest | W 84–83 | 31:48 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1-9 | 0-4 | 6-7 | 11.1% |
| 2025-11-14 | Milwaukee | W 80–63 | 31:17 | 10 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4-9 | 0-1 | 2-2 | 44.4% |
| 2025-11-11 | Illinois | L 77–81 | 29:36 | 21 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 8-10 | 2-2 | 3-3 | 90.0% |
| 2025-11-07 | Sam Houston | W 98–77 | 24:29 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3-5 | 0-1 | 5-8 | 60.0% |