Prairie View

SWAC · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 259 · Raw net -5.6 · Tempo 72.4 · 33 Division I games · Through 2026-03-20

Record: 15–18; 15 wins
AdjNet: -10.6β; rank 308 of 365
AdjO: 101.4β; rank 317 of 365
AdjD: 112.0β; rank 270 of 365
AdjT: 71.1β
SOS: -6.9β; rank 349 of 363
NCSOS: 7.2β
WAB: -12.4β; rank 268 of 363
RR: -0.0β
Exp. W: 15.0β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	103.0288	108.6184	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	47.4330	50.9149	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	15.8126	19.050	16.7
Offensive rebound %	26.7306	35.4344	30.6
FTA / FGA %	41.636	42.6333	35.0
Shooting
3P%	32.9237	35.0247	33.9
2P%	46.5339	50.1101	51.7
FT%	75.664	72.5184	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	30.6	32.9	39.5
Assists / FGM %	43.2	49.4	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	12.4	8.3	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	23.9	26.0	31.4
2-pointers %	51.2	50.7	48.8
Free throws %	24.9	23.3	19.8

Best · Median · Worst · Mark: further right is a better national rank, of 365 teams.

Rotation Depth

Effective Rotation Size: 8.2
Top Three Share of Minutes: 52%
Bench Share of Minutes: 28%
Players with Logged Minutes: 15

Bench: players outside the top five in minutes. Definitions

Schedule and Results

Schedule and results
Date	Opponent	Result	Poss.	Site	Record
11-08	Wichita St.	L 62–105	76.9	Away	0–1
11-12	Oklahoma St.	L 67–94	79.2	Away	0–2
11-17	Missouri	L 73–91	76.2	Away	0–3
11-22	UT Martin	L 68–69	69.5	Neutral	0–4
11-23	North Florida	W 85–82	73.1	Neutral	1–4
11-30	North Texas	L 69–72	70.4	Away	1–5
12-13	South Dakota	L 85–97	79.2	Away	1–6
12-22	LSU	L 90–104	74.3	Away	1–7
12-29	Texas A&M	L 82–111	86.2	Away	1–8
01-03	Grambling	L 72–76	74.7	Away	1–9
01-05	Southern U.	W 89–85	76.0	Away	2–9
01-10	Mississippi Val.	W 70–69	71.1	Home	3–9
01-12	Ark.-Pine Bluff	W 73–61	69.3	Home	4–9
01-17	Jackson St.	L 78–82	74.1	Away	4–10
01-19	Alcorn	L 75–76	69.8	Away	4–11
01-24	Alabama St.	L 80–95	84.0	Home	4–12
01-27	Alabama A&M	L 60–80	68.4	Home	4–13
01-31	Texas Southern	W 85–78	73.3	Home	5–13
02-07	Bethune-Cookman	L 76–82	76.3	Away	5–14
02-09	Florida A&M	L 96–100	85.9	Away	5–15
02-14	Southern U.	L 82–87	76.9	Home	5–16
02-16	Grambling	W 68–63	70.5	Home	6–16
02-19	Mississippi Val.	W 72–62	67.9	Away	7–16
02-21	Ark.-Pine Bluff	L 82–84	67.9	Away	7–17
02-26	Jackson St.	W 85–76 1OT	74.4	Home	8–17
02-28	Alcorn	W 72–51	70.4	Home	9–17
03-05	Texas Southern	W 70–59	67.0	Away	10–17
03-10	Alcorn	W 65–56	66.5	Neutral	11–17
03-11	Bethune-Cookman	W 71–67	65.8	Neutral	12–17
03-13	Alabama A&M	W 74–55	63.1	Neutral	13–17
03-14	Southern U.	W 72–66	65.9	Neutral	14–17
03-18	Lehigh	W 67–55	65.2	—	15–17
03-20	Florida	L 55–114	69.3	—	15–18

Roster · 15 players

Player logs in 33 of 33 team games

Team roster, season totals
Column groups	Minutes			Season Totals							Shooting									Last Five Team Games
Player	G	MPG	Team Min%	Pts	Reb	Ast	Stl	Blk	TO	PF	2P	2P%	3P	3P%	FT	FT%	eFG%	TS%	FTA/FGA	G	MPG	Min%	Pts/G
Lance Williams	33	36:05	89.9%	329	106	104	31	9	54	62	76–169	45.0%	26–63	41.3%	99–123	80.5%	49.6%	57.5%	53.0%	5	39:22 +3:17	98.4%	13.2 +3.2
Cory Wells	33	33:48	84.2%	436	227	63	39	41	72	114	104–269	38.7%	41–112	36.6%	105–141	74.5%	43.4%	49.2%	37.0%	5	37:46 +3:58	94.4%	16.6 +3.4
Dontae Horne	33	33:11	82.6%	686	151	99	63	10	90	78	181–375	48.3%	46–146	31.5%	186–231	80.5%	48.0%	55.1%	44.3%	5	39:06 +5:56	97.8%	21.4 +0.6
Tai'Reon Joseph	25	29:32	55.7%	410	56	23	25	0	45	52	91–192	47.4%	50–172	29.1%	78–103	75.7%	45.6%	50.1%	28.3%	5	17:27 −12:05	43.6%	7.4 −9.0
Corey Dunning	32	17:57	43.4%	40	106	20	23	37	11	94	19–32	59.4%†	0–3	0.0%†	2–7	28.6%†	54.3%†	52.5%†	20.0%†	5	27:03 +9:06	67.6%	2.4 +1.1
Joey Madimba	25	17:03	32.2%	189	85	12	13	16	19	27	55–100	55.0%	12–48	25.0%†	43–59	72.9%	49.3%	54.3%	39.9%	4	3:26 −13:37	6.9%	0.0 −7.6
Keeshawn Mason	25	15:22	29.0%	105	60	4	8	15	10	61	27–64	42.2%†	8–20	40.0%†	27–40	67.5%	46.4%†	51.7%†	47.6%†	4	2:10 −13:12	4.3%	0.0 −4.2
Elijah Mitchell	24	11:55	21.6%	58	30	9	5	3	2	29	7–24	29.2%†	7–16	43.8%†	23–26	88.5%	43.8%†	56.4%†	65.0%†	5	21:26 +9:31	53.6%	2.8 +0.4
Jannoy Thomas	27	10:15	20.9%	50	34	13	12	3	11	23	19–33	57.6%†	0–1	0.0%†	12–20	60.0%†	55.9%†	58.4%†	58.8%†	3	0:56 −9:18	1.4%	1.0 −0.9
Hassane Diallo	26	10:22	20.4%	76	77	7	6	19	17	41	25–50	50.0%†	0–0	—	26–44	59.1%	50.0%†	54.8%†	88.0%†	5	12:25 +2:02	31.0%	3.4 +0.5
Marcel BryantFew games	9	12:43	8.6%	59	22	1	4	5	14	25	15–27	55.6%†	5–9	55.6%†	14–20	70.0%†	62.5%†	65.8%†	55.6%†	—	—	—	—
Doug YoungFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	2	27:31	4.2%	22	5	2	1	0	6	5	8–14	57.1%†	2–8	25.0%†	0–0	—	50.0%†	50.0%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Ryan Bolton Jr.Under 100 minutes	13	3:44	3.7%	8	19	1	1	3	6	20	4–6	66.7%†	0–0	—	0–0	—	66.7%†	66.7%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Seryee LewisFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	2	3:42	0.6%	2	0	0	0	2	0	2	1–3	33.3%†	0–0	—	0–0	—	33.3%†	33.3%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Isaiah FosterFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	4	1:08	0.3%	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0–0	—	0–0	—	0–0	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Team, games with logs · season totals	33 games			2470	1084	358	not published	163	379	not published	632–1358	46.5%	197–598	32.9%	615–814	75.6%	47.4%	53.4%	41.6%
Sum of players				2470	978	358	231	163	357	634	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0	+106	0	not published	0	+22	not published

G: logged games. Team Min%: share of team minutes on court (40 per game plus overtime). 2P, 3P and FT show made–attempted. † Few attempts: under 100 FGA, 50 3PA or 25 FTA. Few G: under 10 games. <100 min: under 100 minutes. Last Five Team Games columns show change from the season value and hide on narrow screens.

Speculative Compensation · 2025–26β

Estimated share of the school's revenue-sharing budget for men's basketball. Not observed pay.

Team Pool: $180K; 80% Range $66K to $480K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $165K to $190K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 15; 4 floor only

Players in possession-share order
Player	Poss. Share	Speculative Best Guess	80% Range	Median % of Team Pool	Scenarios Z1 to Z4	Floor Part	Evidence and Flags
Lance Williams	89.5%	$24K	$2K to $76K	17.2%	$22K to $25K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Cory Wells	83.9%	$28K	$4K to $86K	17.3%	$26K to $29K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Dontae Horne	82.5%	$23K	$2K to $74K	15.8%	$21K to $24K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Tai'Reon Joseph	58.4%	$3K	$1K to $19K	1.0%	$3K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Corey Dunning	41.3%	$17K	$3K to $54K	9.4%	$15K to $18K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Joey Madimba	33.4%	$10K	$1K to $38K	6.7%	$9K to $11K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Keeshawn Mason	30.1%	$2K	$1K to $12K	1.0%	$2K to $3K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jannoy Thomas	21.8%	$7K	$1K to $25K	4.7%	$7K to $8K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Hassane Diallo	20.1%	$17K	$5K to $73K	8.0%	$16K to $18K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Elijah Mitchell	19.6%	$11K	$3K to $47K	5.7%	$10K to $12K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Marcel Bryant	9.4%	$3K	$1K to $11K	2.1%	$3K in all four	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Doug Young	4.8%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Ryan Bolton Jr.	4.1%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Seryee Lewis	0.6%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Isaiah Foster	0.4%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$180K	$66K to $480K	100%	$165K to $190K	—

What-If Calculator · Speculativeβ

Re-runs the 4,000 joint draws with your inputs. The address saves your inputs.

School Finances · School-Reported (EADA)

Self-reported to the U.S. Department of Education. Expenses cover coaching, travel, aid and operations, not player pay.

School-reported finances, 2024-25, Prairie View A & M University (NCAA Division I-FCS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$1,166,481	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$1,166,481
Athletics department expenses	$15,374,541
Athletics department revenue	$15,374,541

Team Totalsβ

Season totals, 33 games, 2,399 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	2,470	2,604
Field goals made	829	886
Field goals attempted	1,956	1,963
3-pointers made	197	226
3-pointers attempted	598	646
Free throws made	615	606
Free throws attempted	814	836
Offensive rebounds	324	416
Defensive rebounds	760	890
Total rebounds	1,084	1,306
Assists	358	438
Blocks	163	113
Turnovers	379	456
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 231.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 634.
Minutes (derived)	6,625	not published

33 of 33 games have player logs. Residual is team total minus sum of players. Team rebounds and team turnovers have no player owner, so a residual is expected. Definitions

Player lines against team totals
Statistic	Status	Team Total, Logged Games	Sum of Players	Residual	Tolerance	Team Total, Games Without Logs
Points	Reconciled	2,470	2,470	0	±12.3	0
Field goals made	Reconciled	829	829	0	±4.1	0
Field goals attempted	Reconciled	1,956	1,956	0	±9.8	0
3-pointers made	Reconciled	197	197	0	±2.0	0
3-pointers attempted	Reconciled	598	598	0	±3.0	0
Free throws made	Reconciled	615	615	0	±3.1	0
Free throws attempted	Reconciled	814	814	0	±4.1	0
Offensive rebounds	No player split	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published
Defensive rebounds	No player split	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published
Total rebounds	Residual shown	1,084	978	+106	±86.7	0
Assists	Reconciled	358	358	0	±2.0	0
Blocks	Reconciled	163	163	0	±2.0	0
Turnovers	Residual shown	379	357	+22	±11.4	0
Steals	No team figure	not published	231	not published	not published	not published
Personal fouls	No team figure	not published	634	not published	not published	not published
Minutes (derived)	Reconciled	6,625	6,587	+38.3	±132.5	0

Model-Implied Player Valueβ

Ranges are the 10th to 90th percentile of whole-game resampling draws. They are not calibrated intervals.

Open circle: limited evidence. Filled circle: sufficient evidence. Line: zero. No graphic: insufficient evidence.

Net points per 100 possessions, in possession-share order.
Player	Poss. Share	Net and Rangeβ
Lance Williams	89.5%	-0.3range -1.3 to +0.7Sufficient evidence
Cory Wells	83.9%	+0.0range -0.9 to +1.0Sufficient evidence
Dontae Horne	82.5%	-0.4range -1.5 to +0.9Sufficient evidence
Tai'Reon Joseph	58.4%	-4.0range -5.5 to -2.3Sufficient evidence
Corey Dunning	41.3%	+0.4range -0.9 to +1.5Sufficient evidence
Joey Madimba	33.4%	-0.2range -1.4 to +0.8Sufficient evidence
Keeshawn Mason	30.1%	-3.7range -4.9 to -2.4Sufficient evidence
Jannoy Thomas	21.8%	-0.2range -1.1 to +0.8Sufficient evidence
Hassane Diallo	20.1%	+1.7range +0.7 to +2.6Sufficient evidence
Elijah Mitchell	19.6%	+0.9range -0.3 to +2.0Sufficient evidence
Marcel Bryant	9.4%	-0.6range -1.4 to +0.3Limited evidence
Doug Young	4.8%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Ryan Bolton Jr.	4.1%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Seryee Lewis	0.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Isaiah Foster	0.4%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence

Team Aggregate of Player Values, 2026β

Summary of the player values below. Split role: descriptive: not used in fit or gates. Model nil-value-v3. Definitions · NIL Methodology

Average value over five on-court slots, net points per 100 possessions: +8.6range +7.6 to +9.5Sufficient evidence

200 joint draws. The range is the 10th to 90th percentile. Player ranges cannot be added.

11 valued players hold 98.0% of on-court time. 4 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 2.0%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 1.9%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value