Sacramento St.

BSky · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 317 · Raw net -10.6 · Tempo 72.3 · 28 Division I games · Through 2026-03-07

Record: 7–21; 7 wins
AdjNet: -8.0β; rank 280 of 365
AdjO: 105.1β; rank 247 of 365
AdjD: 113.1β; rank 298 of 365
AdjT: 71.8β
SOS: 1.2β; rank 129 of 363
NCSOS: 7.0β
WAB: -14.2β; rank 306 of 363
RR: -1.1β
Exp. W: 8.1β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	104.5261	115.1325	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	47.0337	55.0332	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	14.126	17.1139	16.7
Offensive rebound %	25.2336	33.4306	30.6
FTA / FGA %	41.240	36.2215	35.0
Shooting
3P%	31.9284	35.2256	33.9
2P%	46.6336	56.8340	51.7
FT%	78.114	72.5186	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	35.6	43.7	39.5
Assists / FGM %	48.9	57.9	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	7.8	8.5	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	27.0	33.8	31.4
2-pointers %	47.5	46.9	48.8
Free throws %	25.5	19.3	19.8

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

Rotation Depth

Effective Rotation Size: 8.8
Top Three Share of Minutes: 45%
Bench Share of Minutes: 33%
Players with Logged Minutes: 13

Bench: players outside the top five in minutes. Definitions

Schedule and Results

Schedule and results
Date	Opponent	Result	Poss.	Site	Record
11-11	UC Santa Barbara	L 87–92	73.4	Home	0–1
11-14	UC Davis	L 73–77	72.4	Away	0–2
11-16	Presbyterian	W 64–62	66.4	Home	1–2
11-18	UCLA	L 48–79	70.8	Away	1–3
11-21	California	L 67–91	75.1	Away	1–4
11-29	Pacific	L 54–68	70.8	Away	1–5
12-02	Baylor	L 88–110	75.9	Away	1–6
12-20	California Baptist	L 67–74	67.5	Away	1–7
12-22	CSUN	L 88–100	82.5	Away	1–8
01-01	Idaho St.	L 84–97	80.7	Away	1–9
01-03	Weber St.	L 82–95	77.3	Away	1–10
01-10	Portland St.	L 69–96	72.4	Away	1–11
01-15	Northern Ariz.	W 83–69	66.3	Home	2–11
01-17	Northern Colo.	W 93–89 1OT	80.2	Home	3–11
01-22	Idaho	L 76–86	71.8	Away	3–12
01-24	Eastern Wash.	L 67–75	64.9	Away	3–13
01-29	Montana St.	W 83–80	71.8	Home	4–13
01-31	Montana	W 86–79	72.2	Home	5–13
02-02	Weber St.	W 104–90	78.0	Home	6–13
02-07	Portland St.	L 73–74	68.3	Home	6–14
02-12	Northern Colo.	L 79–95	79.4	Away	6–15
02-14	Northern Ariz.	L 74–79	71.0	Away	6–16
02-19	Eastern Wash.	L 94–102	72.8	Home	6–17
02-21	Idaho	L 80–86	73.3	Home	6–18
02-26	Montana	L 73–81	72.0	Away	6–19
02-28	Montana St.	L 61–82	66.4	Away	6–20
03-02	Idaho St.	W 83–65	69.9	Home	7–20
03-07	Idaho	L 45–68	69.3	Neutral	7–21

Roster · 13 players

Player logs in 28 of 28 team games

Team roster, per 40 minutes
Column groups	Minutes			Per 40 Minutes							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
Prophet Johnson	27	36:19	87.2%	19.9	8.0	4.0	2.8	0.4	2.6	2.0	135–268	50.4%	40–109	36.7%	98–132	74.2%	51.7%	56.1%	35.0%	5	35:33 −0:46	88.9%	14.6 −3.5
Mark Lavrenov	28	27:35	68.6%	15.3	10.6	0.7	0.6	0.4	1.5	4.8	80–168	47.6%	9–33	27.3%†	108–131	82.4%	46.5%	57.0%	65.2%	5	29:47 +2:12	74.5%	10.4 −0.1
Jahni Summers	28	26:34	66.1%	14.7	3.6	1.4	1.3	0.2	1.8	3.7	46–96	47.9%	48–118	40.7%	37–48	77.1%	55.1%	58.1%	22.4%	5	25:24 −1:10	63.5%	8.4 −1.3
Mikey Williams	18	35:45	57.2%	20.2	3.3	4.5	1.4	0.4	3.4	2.4	75–187	40.1%	18–71	25.4%	121–145	83.4%	39.5%	50.5%	56.2%	—	—	—	—
Arman Madi	27	23:16	55.8%	13.1	5.0	2.6	2.2	0.9	1.3	3.1	51–87	58.6%	21–73	28.8%	40–54	74.1%	51.6%	55.8%	33.8%	5	34:55 +11:39	87.3%	12.4 +4.8
Shaqir O'Neal	28	19:33	48.7%	10.6	6.6	1.2	0.8	0.9	1.5	6.1	28–64	43.8%	14–44	31.8%†	47–60	78.3%	45.4%	53.9%	55.6%	5	21:36 +2:03	54.0%	4.4 −0.8
Taj Glover	26	13:54	32.1%	12.9	4.4	3.7	1.1	0.2	1.2	3.5	24–53	45.3%†	8–33	24.2%†	45–60	75.0%	41.9%†	52.0%†	69.8%†	5	12:27 −1:28	31.1%	7.6 +3.1
Jayden Teat	26	13:47	31.8%	14.6	3.9	2.3	0.8	0.0	1.6	3.1	19–62	30.6%	25–80	31.3%	18–22	81.8%†	39.8%	43.2%	15.5%	5	17:49 +4:03	44.6%	6.2 +1.2
Romari Robinson	21	10:30	19.6%	6.7	5.1	2.0	2.7	0.4	2.0	4.4	8–19	42.1%†	4–17	23.5%†	9–14	64.3%†	38.9%†	43.9%†	38.9%†	5	21:25 +10:55	53.5%	4.4 +2.6
Brandon Gardner	13	15:55	18.4%	8.9	6.6	1.0	0.2	2.1	1.4	7.5	12–27	44.4%†	4–18	22.2%†	10–12	83.3%†	40.0%†	45.7%†	26.7%†	—	—	—	—
Jeremiah CherryFew games	4	29:30	10.5%	20.7	9.2	1.4	1.4	2.0	4.1	3.7	26–48	54.2%†	0–3	0.0%†	9–14	64.3%†	51.0%†	53.4%†	27.5%†	—	—	—	—
Jeremiah NyarkoFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	4	4:33	1.6%	4.4	6.6	0.0	0.0	2.2	2.2	15.4	1–5	20.0%†	0–0	—	0–0	—	20.0%†	20.0%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Isaiah BronsonFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	4	1:55	0.7%	0.0	5.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	5.2	5.2	0–0	—	0–0	—	0–2	0.0%†	—	0.0%†	—	—	—	—	—
Team, games with logs · per 40 team minutes	28 games			75.6	32.6	12.1	not published	2.7	10.2	not published	505–1084	46.6%	191–599	31.9%	542–694	78.1%	47.0%	53.4%	41.2%
Sum of players				75.6	30.5	12.1	7.5	2.7	9.9	18.6	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0.0	+2.1	0.0	not published	0.0	+0.3	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: $300K; 80% Range $105K to $785K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $230K to $325K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 13; 2 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
Prophet Johnson	87.7%	$30K	$2K to $115K	15.0%	$23K to $33K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Mark Lavrenov	69.0%	$27K	$2K to $110K	12.2%	$21K to $29K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jahni Summers	66.7%	$8K	$1K to $54K	4.5%	$7K to $9K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Mikey Williams	58.0%	$13K	$1K to $62K	7.7%	$10K to $14K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Arman Madi	55.6%	$56K	$14K to $210K	16.1%	$43K to $61K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Shaqir O'Neal	49.5%	$18K	$2K to $74K	8.5%	$14K to $20K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Taj Glover	32.0%	$32K	$7K to $145K	9.4%	$25K to $36K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jayden Teat	31.2%	$8K	$1K to $36K	4.3%	$7K to $9K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Romari Robinson	19.1%	$11K	$2K to $39K	4.2%	$8K to $12K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Brandon Gardner	18.6%	$11K	$2K to $36K	4.2%	$8K to $12K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jeremiah Cherry	10.3%	$8K	$2K to $24K	2.8%	$6K to $9K	$2K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jeremiah Nyarko	1.5%	$2K	$1K to $6K	0.8%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Isaiah Bronson	0.7%	$2K	$1K to $6K	0.8%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$300K	$105K to $785K	100%	$230K to $325K	—

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, California State University-Sacramento (NCAA Division I-FCS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$2,265,832	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$2,265,832
Athletics department expenses	$46,274,655
Athletics department revenue	$46,274,655

Team Totalsβ

Season per 40 minutes, 28 games, 2,033 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Per 40 uses 1125 game minutes, 5 per overtime period. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	75.6	83.2
Field goals made	24.7	28.9
Field goals attempted	59.8	61.0
3-pointers made	6.8	9.4
3-pointers attempted	21.3	26.7
Free throws made	19.3	16.0
Free throws attempted	24.7	22.1
Offensive rebounds	9.5	11.6
Defensive rebounds	23.1	28.1
Total rebounds	32.6	39.7
Assists	12.1	16.7
Blocks	2.7	3.3
Turnovers	10.2	12.4
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 211.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 522.
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
Prophet Johnson	87.7%	-0.8range -1.8 to +0.1Sufficient evidence
Mark Lavrenov	69.0%	-0.7range -1.9 to +0.5Sufficient evidence
Jahni Summers	66.7%	-2.3range -3.6 to -1.1Sufficient evidence
Mikey Williams	58.0%	-1.5range -2.3 to -0.5Sufficient evidence
Arman Madi	55.6%	+0.6range -0.4 to +1.7Sufficient evidence
Shaqir O'Neal	49.5%	-0.9range -2.1 to +0.2Sufficient evidence
Taj Glover	32.0%	+0.6range -0.7 to +2.1Sufficient evidence
Jayden Teat	31.2%	-1.5range -2.6 to -0.4Sufficient evidence
Romari Robinson	19.1%	-0.5range -1.6 to +0.7Sufficient evidence
Brandon Gardner	18.6%	-0.4range -1.0 to +0.1Sufficient evidence
Jeremiah Cherry	10.3%	-0.2range -0.7 to +0.3Limited evidence
Jeremiah Nyarko	1.5%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Isaiah Bronson	0.7%	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 +7.9 to +9.3Sufficient evidence

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

11 valued players hold 99.6% of on-court time. 2 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 0.4%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 2.1%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value