Louisville

ACC · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 15 · Raw net 16.9 · Tempo 71.2 · 34 Division I games · Through 2026-03-21

Record: 23–11; 23 wins
AdjNet: 21.7β; rank 13 of 365
AdjO: 120.0β; rank 23 of 365
AdjD: 98.3β; rank 16 of 365
AdjT: 70.5β
SOS: 8.3β; rank 33 of 363
NCSOS: 0.3β
WAB: 3.3β; rank 31 of 363
RR: -1.9β
Exp. W: 24.9β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	118.136	101.235	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	56.220	48.346	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	16.9201	16.8165	16.7
Offensive rebound %	32.989	27.344	30.6
FTA / FGA %	33.0238	32.7126	35.0
Shooting
3P%	35.771	32.166	33.9
2P%	59.112	48.550	51.7
FT%	76.446	71.3115	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	53.1	39.6	39.5
Assists / FGM %	59.3	48.5	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	9.4	13.0	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	41.4	31.7	31.4
2-pointers %	40.3	48.8	48.8
Free throws %	18.3	19.4	19.8

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

Rotation Depth

Effective Rotation Size: 9.2
Top Three Share of Minutes: 43%
Bench Share of Minutes: 35%
Players with Logged Minutes: 14

Bench: players outside the top five in minutes. Definitions

Schedule and Results

Schedule and results
Date	Opponent	Result	Poss.	Site	Record
11-03	South Carolina St.	W 104–45	81.6	Home	1–0
11-06	Jackson St.	W 106–70	77.1	Home	2–0
11-11	Kentucky	W 96–88	76.7	Home	3–0
11-15	Ohio	W 106–81	76.3	Home	4–0
11-21	Cincinnati	W 74–64	71.4	Neutral	5–0
11-24	Eastern Mich.	W 87–46	67.1	Home	6–0
11-26	NJIT	W 104–47	69.0	Home	7–0
12-03	Arkansas	L 80–89	75.6	Away	7–1
12-06	Indiana	W 87–78	74.2	Neutral	8–1
12-13	Memphis	W 99–73	71.7	Home	9–1
12-16	Tennessee	L 62–83	68.9	Away	9–2
12-20	Montana	W 94–54	74.6	Home	10–2
12-30	California	W 90–70	71.2	Away	11–2
01-02	Stanford	L 76–80	63.9	Away	11–3
01-06	Duke	L 73–84	74.5	Home	11–4
01-10	Boston College	W 75–62	69.7	Home	12–4
01-13	Virginia	L 70–79	66.2	Home	12–5
01-17	Pittsburgh	W 100–59	65.4	Away	13–5
01-24	Virginia Tech	W 85–71	71.0	Home	14–5
01-26	Duke	L 52–83	64.9	Away	14–6
01-31	SMU	W 88–74	74.6	Home	15–6
02-04	Notre Dame	W 76–65	69.1	Home	16–6
02-07	Wake Forest	W 88–80	70.8	Away	17–6
02-09	NC State	W 118–77	80.4	Home	18–6
02-14	Baylor	W 82–71	67.9	Neutral	19–6
02-17	SMU	L 85–95	76.4	Away	19–7
02-21	Georgia Tech	W 87–70	73.6	Home	20–7
02-23	North Carolina	L 74–77	66.6	Away	20–8
02-28	Clemson	L 75–80	69.9	Away	20–9
03-03	Syracuse	W 77–62	67.7	Home	21–9
03-11	SMU	W 62–58	61.5	Neutral	22–9
03-12	Miami (FL)	L 73–78	68.4	Neutral	22–10
03-19	South Fla.	W 83–79	75.2	—	23–10
03-21	Michigan St.	L 69–77	66.9	—	23–11

Roster · 14 players

Player logs in 34 of 34 team games

Team roster, per game
Column groups	Minutes			Per Game							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
Ryan Conwell	33	30:43	74.5%	18.6	4.8	2.7	1.1	0.2	2.1	2.8	86–163	52.8%	108–316	34.2%	118–143	82.5%	51.8%	56.7%	29.9%	5	34:39 +3:56	86.6%	20.0 +1.4
Isaac McKneely	34	28:36	71.5%	10.8	3.0	1.3	0.6	0.1	0.9	1.4	22–45	48.9%	94–237	39.7%	42–48	87.5%	57.8%	60.7%	17.0%	5	33:23 +4:47	83.5%	12.8 +2.0
J'Vonne Hadley	33	27:46	67.4%	11.4	5.2	1.8	0.9	0.3	0.8	2.1	105–171	61.4%	35–81	43.2%	60–84	71.4%	62.5%	64.9%	33.3%	5	32:27 +4:42	81.1%	11.8 +0.4
Adrian Wooley	34	22:14	55.6%	8.5	3.9	1.6	0.7	0.1	1.1	2.2	58–106	54.7%	40–114	35.1%	52–66	78.8%	53.6%	57.8%	30.0%	5	29:58 +7:45	74.9%	9.6 +1.1
Sananda Fru	34	21:49	54.5%	9.1	6.2	1.2	0.5	1.4	1.4	2.3	122–160	76.3%	4–8	50.0%†	54–88	61.4%	76.2%	75.0%	52.4%	5	19:21 −2:28	48.4%	6.0 −3.1
Mikel Brown Jr.	21	29:07	45.0%	18.2	3.3	4.7	1.2	0.1	3.1	1.6	57–113	50.4%	55–160	34.4%	103–122	84.4%	51.1%	58.5%	44.7%	—	—	—	—
Khani Rooths	30	16:20	36.0%	5.5	4.3	1.0	0.6	0.5	0.8	1.4	44–69	63.8%	13–58	22.4%	37–57	64.9%	50.0%	53.9%	44.9%	5	8:11 −8:09	20.5%	3.4 −2.1
Kobe Rodgers	33	14:06	34.2%	3.3	2.6	1.5	0.9	0.2	0.8	2.0	25–44	56.8%†	10–31	32.3%†	29–33	87.9%	53.3%†	60.9%†	44.0%†	5	18:47 +4:40	46.9%	1.6 −1.7
Aly Khalifa	34	11:48	29.5%	3.2	1.9	2.4	0.4	0.4	1.0	1.7	14–29	48.3%†	25–64	39.1%	5–8	62.5%†	55.4%†	55.9%†	8.6%†	5	9:19 −2:30	23.3%	2.6 −0.6
Vangelis Zougris	26	9:14	17.7%	2.6	2.5	0.7	0.3	0.2	0.8	1.5	26–45	57.8%†	0–0	—	15–22	68.2%†	57.8%†	61.3%†	48.9%†	5	12:47 +3:33	32.0%	5.0 +2.4
Kasean Pryor	23	6:19	10.7%	2.2	1.8	0.3	0.4	0.2	0.5	1.0	15–26	57.7%†	5–22	22.7%†	6–12	50.0%†	46.9%†	47.9%†	25.0%†	3	1:54 −4:26	2.8%	0.0 −2.2
Cole ShermanUnder 100 minutes	10	0:50	0.6%	1.2	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.2	0.1	0–0	—	4–9	44.4%†	0–0	—	66.7%†	66.7%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Will HankeUnder 100 minutes	10	0:41	0.5%	0.2	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1	1–3	33.3%†	0–0	—	0–0	—	33.3%†	33.3%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Spencer LeggFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	9	0:40	0.4%	0.8	0.4	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.0	1–1	100.0%†	1–3	33.3%†	2–2	100.0%†	62.5%†	71.7%†	50.0%†	—	—	—	—
Team, games with logs · per game	34 games			84.0	38.8	16.9	not published	3.4	12.1	not published	576–975	59.1%	394–1103	35.7%	523–685	76.4%	56.2%	60.0%	33.0%
Sum of players				84.0	36.5	16.9	6.9	3.4	11.7	18.4	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0.0	+2.4	0.0	not published	+0.1	+0.4	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: $3.55M; 80% Range $2.55M to $4.95M
Tier: Power 4; medium evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $3.55M in all four; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 14; 3 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
Ryan Conwell	74.3%	$540K	$350K to $830K	15.0%	$540K in all four	$25K	Sufficient evidence
Isaac McKneely	71.8%	$625K	$415K to $980K	16.9%	$625K in all four	$25K	Sufficient evidence
J'Vonne Hadley	66.3%	$415K	$255K to $615K	12.0%	$415K in all four	$25K	Sufficient evidence
Sananda Fru	55.5%	$410K	$260K to $620K	11.5%	$410K in all four	$25K	Sufficient evidence
Adrian Wooley	54.4%	$400K	$255K to $625K	11.4%	$400K in all four	$25K	Sufficient evidence
Mikel Brown Jr.	47.5%	$280K	$145K to $435K	8.1%	$280K in all four	$25K	Sufficient evidence
Khani Rooths	36.4%	$230K	$130K to $350K	6.6%	$230K in all four	$25K	Sufficient evidence
Kobe Rodgers	34.4%	$160K	$58K to $265K	4.8%	$160K in all four	$25K	Sufficient evidence
Aly Khalifa	29.4%	$235K	$150K to $365K	6.5%	$235K in all four	$25K	Sufficient evidence
Vangelis Zougris	17.1%	$82K	$36K to $135K	2.4%	$82K in all four	$25K	Sufficient evidence
Kasean Pryor	11.0%	$52K	$24K to $90K	1.5%	$52K in all four	$25K	Limited evidence
Cole Sherman	0.7%	$25K	$14K to $40K	0.7%	$25K in all four	$25K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimate
Will Hanke	0.6%	$25K	$14K to $40K	0.7%	$25K in all four	$25K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimate
Spencer Legg	0.5%	$25K	$14K to $40K	0.7%	$25K in all four	$25K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimate
Team Pool	—	$3.55M	$2.55M to $4.95M	100%	$3.55M in all four	—

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, University of Louisville (NCAA Division I-FBS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$22,792,373
Men's basketball expenses	$14,854,067
Athletics department expenses	$154,819,604
Athletics department revenue	$155,903,308

Team Totalsβ

Season per game, 34 games, 2,420 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	84.0	72.0
Field goals made	28.5	25.2
Field goals attempted	61.1	60.0
3-pointers made	11.6	7.6
3-pointers attempted	32.4	23.8
Free throws made	15.4	14.0
Free throws attempted	20.1	19.6
Offensive rebounds	11.5	10.3
Defensive rebounds	27.4	23.4
Total rebounds	38.8	33.6
Assists	16.9	12.2
Blocks	3.4	3.7
Turnovers	12.1	12.0
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 233.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 627.
Minutes (derived)	200.0	not published

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
Ryan Conwell	74.3%	+4.1range +2.8 to +5.6Sufficient evidence
Isaac McKneely	71.8%	+5.2range +3.7 to +6.4Sufficient evidence
J'Vonne Hadley	66.3%	+3.5range +2.4 to +4.4Sufficient evidence
Sananda Fru	55.5%	+4.2range +2.5 to +5.8Sufficient evidence
Adrian Wooley	54.4%	+4.3range +2.7 to +5.6Sufficient evidence
Mikel Brown Jr.	47.5%	+3.0range +1.6 to +4.5Sufficient evidence
Khani Rooths	36.4%	+3.2range +1.9 to +4.6Sufficient evidence
Kobe Rodgers	34.4%	+1.8range +0.4 to +3.0Sufficient evidence
Aly Khalifa	29.4%	+4.3range +3.3 to +5.3Sufficient evidence
Vangelis Zougris	17.1%	+1.3range +0.1 to +2.2Sufficient evidence
Kasean Pryor	11.0%	+0.4range -0.7 to +1.5Limited evidence
Cole Sherman	0.7%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Will Hanke	0.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Spencer Legg	0.5%	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: +13.2range +12.1 to +14.1Sufficient evidence

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

11 valued players hold 99.7% of on-court time. 3 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 0.3%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 2.2%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value