ETSU

SC · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 49 · Raw net 10.0 · Tempo 66.5 · 32 Division I games · Through 2026-03-09

Record: 21–11; 21 wins
AdjNet: 3.8β; rank 112 of 365
AdjO: 110.3β; rank 123 of 365
AdjD: 106.5β; rank 125 of 365
AdjT: 67.1β
SOS: -5.5β; rank 330 of 363
NCSOS: -2.4β
WAB: -6.0β; rank 129 of 363
RR: -1.8β
Exp. W: 22.8β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	114.666	104.679	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	55.332	51.0161	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	15.278	18.574	16.7
Offensive rebound %	28.3251	27.965	30.6
FTA / FGA %	35.0180	36.4225	35.0
Shooting
3P%	34.7131	32.9110	33.9
2P%	57.226	52.6221	51.7
FT%	74.793	71.9151	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	37.8	47.7	39.5
Assists / FGM %	50.8	55.2	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	11.5	7.5	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	28.8	36.6	31.4
2-pointers %	52.1	43.0	48.8
Free throws %	19.1	20.4	19.8

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

Rotation Depth

Effective Rotation Size: 8.4
Top Three Share of Minutes: 44%
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
11-08	Presbyterian	L 64–68	64.7	Away	0–1
11-12	Northern Ky.	W 75–63	72.2	Home	1–1
11-15	North Ala.	W 78–74	68.3	Away	2–1
11-21	Morehead St.	W 77–62	65.0	Home	3–1
11-23	ULM	W 97–55	69.2	Home	4–1
11-29	Central Ark.	W 80–57	71.7	Home	5–1
12-02	Dayton	L 71–88	73.9	Away	5–2
12-05	South Alabama	W 91–65	69.4	Home	6–2
12-12	Austin Peay	L 75–76	69.9	Away	6–3
12-16	North Carolina	L 58–77	60.8	Away	6–4
12-20	Jacksonville St.	L 75–81	61.8	Home	6–5
12-30	The Citadel	W 74–49	63.1	Away	7–5
01-03	Mercer	W 77–71	67.0	Home	8–5
01-07	VMI	W 81–67	66.4	Home	9–5
01-10	UNC Greensboro	W 86–60	71.8	Home	10–5
01-14	Western Caro.	L 68–72	62.8	Away	10–6
01-17	Samford	W 76–75	60.1	Away	11–6
01-21	Chattanooga	W 67–66	67.2	Away	12–6
01-23	The Citadel	W 84–55	64.1	Home	13–6
01-29	Western Caro.	L 88–90	68.5	Home	13–7
02-01	Wofford	W 86–72	64.9	Away	14–7
02-04	Furman	W 75–71 1OT	72.6	Home	15–7
02-07	VMI	W 87–70	70.6	Away	16–7
02-11	Chattanooga	W 73–61	66.2	Home	17–7
02-14	Samford	L 72–82 1OT	75.2	Home	17–8
02-18	Furman	W 78–69	68.2	Away	18–8
02-21	UNC Greensboro	W 87–75	66.9	Away	19–8
02-25	Wofford	L 69–72	66.5	Home	19–9
02-28	Mercer	L 76–82	63.9	Away	19–10
03-07	The Citadel	W 83–76	65.0	Neutral	20–10
03-08	Western Caro.	W 69–67	65.4	Neutral	21–10
03-09	Furman	L 61–76	61.8	Neutral	21–11

Roster · 13 players

Player logs in 32 of 32 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
Brian Taylor	32	33:51	84.0%	14.8	3.7	2.9	1.2	0.1	1.4	2.1	120–228	52.6%	52–149	34.9%	78–102	76.5%	52.5%	56.2%	27.1%	5	36:46 +2:54	91.9%	15.2 +0.4
Blake Barkley	31	29:09	70.0%	14.7	5.9	1.2	0.8	0.2	1.7	1.5	140–223	62.8%	18–46	39.1%†	123–146	84.2%	62.1%	68.6%	54.3%	5	28:14 −0:55	70.6%	17.8 +3.1
Cam Morris III	32	26:12	65.0%	13.4	5.2	1.6	1.2	1.2	1.4	2.6	145–237	61.2%	10–30	33.3%†	109–164	66.5%	59.9%	63.2%	61.4%	5	22:25 −3:47	56.0%	6.6 −6.8
Jaylen Smith	32	24:42	61.3%	9.2	2.4	3.0	1.3	0.2	1.7	2.3	51–110	46.4%	50–144	34.7%	42–53	79.2%	49.6%	53.0%	20.9%	5	26:46 +2:04	66.9%	9.2 0.0
Maki Johnson	32	22:22	55.5%	5.8	3.2	0.7	1.1	0.2	0.3	2.2	13–21	61.9%	50–126	39.7%	9–14	64.3%†	59.9%	60.4%	9.5%	5	26:43 +4:21	66.8%	5.8 0.0
Allen Strothers	32	21:55	54.4%	4.2	2.0	2.8	1.3	0.2	1.3	2.1	40–78	51.3%	9–27	33.3%†	26–37	70.3%	51.0%	54.8%	35.2%	5	14:44 −7:11	36.8%	3.0 −1.2
Jordan McCullum	32	21:39	53.7%	7.8	3.6	0.9	0.9	0.9	1.2	2.1	86–138	62.3%	8–40	20.0%†	55–77	71.4%	55.1%	59.2%	43.3%	5	23:52 +2:14	59.7%	9.4 +1.6
Isaiah Sutherland	22	10:21	17.7%	3.2	1.6	0.1	0.3	0.0	0.2	1.0	8–16	50.0%†	17–47	36.2%†	4–7	57.1%†	53.2%†	53.7%†	11.1%†	5	11:21 +0:59	28.4%	3.6 +0.4
Milton Matthews	21	9:05	14.8%	3.2	1.3	0.5	0.4	0.1	0.1	1.0	4–10	40.0%†	19–51	37.3%	3–4	75.0%†	53.3%†	54.2%†	6.6%†	5	8:38 −0:26	21.6%	0.6 −2.6
Gabe Sisk	16	9:07	11.3%	3.1	1.9	0.6	0.5	0.1	0.4	0.8	16–24	66.7%†	0–8	0.0%†	17–19	89.5%†	50.0%†	60.7%†	59.4%†	1	1:18 −7:49	0.7%	2.0 −1.1
Brayden CrumpFew games	9	14:30	10.1%	4.8	2.8	0.6	0.3	0.4	0.6	1.3	15–29	51.7%†	3–10	30.0%†	4–6	66.7%†	50.0%†	51.6%†	15.4%†	—	—	—	—
Henry SisemoreFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	5	1:34	0.6%	0.8	1.0	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.0	2–5	40.0%†	0–0	—	0–0	—	40.0%†	40.0%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Joseph CarterFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	5	1:30	0.6%	0.0	0.6	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.2	0.0	0–0	—	0–2	0.0%†	0–0	—	0.0%†	0.0%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Team, games with logs · per game	32 games			76.8	32.9	13.9	not published	3.3	10.2	not published	640–1119	57.2%	236–680	34.7%	470–629	74.7%	55.3%	59.2%	35.0%
Sum of players				76.8	29.8	13.9	8.6	3.3	9.6	16.8	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0.0	+3.0	0.0	not published	0.0	+0.6	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: $235K; 80% Range $88K to $635K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $230K to $240K; 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
Brian Taylor	86.1%	$34K	$10K to $105K	16.0%	$33K to $35K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Blake Barkley	72.3%	$30K	$10K to $90K	13.7%	$29K to $31K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Cam Morris III	65.6%	$43K	$14K to $130K	16.8%	$42K to $44K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jaylen Smith	61.1%	$23K	$6K to $69K	10.9%	$22K to $23K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Allen Strothers	55.3%	$18K	$5K to $58K	9.1%	$18K to $19K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jordan McCullum	54.5%	$21K	$7K to $62K	10.0%	$20K to $22K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Maki Johnson	54.4%	$26K	$8K to $79K	11.2%	$25K to $27K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Isaiah Sutherland	16.3%	$3K	$1K to $12K	1.6%	$3K to $4K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Milton Matthews	13.1%	$6K	$2K to $17K	2.7%	$6K in all four	$2K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Gabe Sisk	10.8%	$4K	$1K to $12K	1.8%	$4K in all four	$2K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Brayden Crump	10.1%	$6K	$2K to $17K	2.6%	$6K in all four	$2K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Henry Sisemore	0.3%	$2K	$1K to $5K	0.8%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Joseph Carter	0.3%	$2K	$1K to $5K	0.8%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$235K	$88K to $635K	100%	$230K to $240K	—

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, East Tennessee State University (NCAA Division I-FCS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$2,170,170	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$2,170,170
Athletics department expenses	$22,346,359
Athletics department revenue	$22,346,359

Team Totalsβ

Season per game, 32 games, 2,145 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	76.8	70.1
Field goals made	27.4	23.6
Field goals attempted	56.2	54.7
3-pointers made	7.4	8.6
3-pointers attempted	21.3	26.1
Free throws made	14.7	14.3
Free throws attempted	19.7	19.9
Offensive rebounds	8.9	9.3
Defensive rebounds	24.0	22.5
Total rebounds	32.9	31.8
Assists	13.9	13.0
Blocks	3.3	2.6
Turnovers	10.2	12.4
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 275.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 538.
Minutes (derived)	201.6	not published

32 of 32 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	2,458	2,458	0	±12.3	0
Field goals made	Reconciled	876	876	0	±4.4	0
Field goals attempted	Reconciled	1,799	1,799	0	±9.0	0
3-pointers made	Reconciled	236	236	0	±2.0	0
3-pointers attempted	Reconciled	680	680	0	±3.4	0
Free throws made	Reconciled	470	470	0	±2.4	0
Free throws attempted	Reconciled	629	629	0	±3.1	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	1,052	955	+97	±84.2	0
Assists	Reconciled	445	445	0	±2.2	0
Blocks	Reconciled	105	105	0	±2.0	0
Turnovers	Residual shown	325	307	+18	±9.8	0
Steals	No team figure	not published	275	not published	not published	not published
Personal fouls	No team figure	not published	538	not published	not published	not published
Minutes (derived)	Reconciled	6,450	6,435	+14.5	±129.0	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
Brian Taylor	86.1%	+1.4range +0.1 to +2.8Sufficient evidence
Blake Barkley	72.3%	+1.4range +0.3 to +2.6Sufficient evidence
Cam Morris III	65.6%	+2.8range +1.7 to +4.1Sufficient evidence
Jaylen Smith	61.1%	+1.3range -0.1 to +2.6Sufficient evidence
Allen Strothers	55.3%	+0.8range -0.3 to +2.2Sufficient evidence
Jordan McCullum	54.5%	+1.2range +0.4 to +2.2Sufficient evidence
Maki Johnson	54.4%	+2.1range +0.5 to +3.3Sufficient evidence
Isaiah Sutherland	16.3%	-1.3range -2.6 to -0.3Sufficient evidence
Milton Matthews	13.1%	+0.9range -0.1 to +1.6Limited evidence
Gabe Sisk	10.8%	-0.4range -1.6 to +0.9Limited evidence
Brayden Crump	10.1%	+1.5range +0.5 to +2.5Limited evidence
Henry Sisemore	0.3%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Joseph Carter	0.3%	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: +10.9range +10.0 to +11.7Sufficient evidence

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

11 valued players hold 99.9% of on-court time. 2 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 0.1%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 6.8%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value