Algosys College Basketball

Search teams and players

Type a team or player name. Results are alphabetical; players show their 2026 team. Up and Down move, Enter opens the highlighted result or the first one, Esc closes.

Bryant

AE · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 345 · Raw net -15.8 · Tempo 64.4 · 29 Division I games · Through 2026-03-07

All seasons
Record
7–22
7 wins
AdjNet
-16.6β
rank 346 of 365
AdjO
98.2β
rank 346 of 365
AdjD
114.8β
rank 320 of 365
AdjT
65.6β
SOS
-3.9β
rank 286 of 363
NCSOS
4.4β
WAB
-16.4β
rank 334 of 363
RR
-0.5β
Exp. W
7.5β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
CategoryOffenseDefenseD-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.96.6348112.4277108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%46.934052.725751.4
TO / 100 poss.20.235114.631516.7
Offensive rebound %27.727631.020530.6
FTA / FGA %29.432033.514135.0
Shooting
3P%30.034236.331933.9
2P%48.729351.817951.7
FT%76.05371.110672.5
Style
3PA / FGA %47.935.839.5
Assists / FGM %53.151.352.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %10.88.79.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %37.130.231.4
2-pointers %43.751.448.8
Free throws %19.318.419.8

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
30%
Players with Logged Minutes
18

Bench: players outside the top five in minutes. Definitions

Schedule and Results

Schedule and results
DateOpponentResultPoss.SiteRecord
11-03SienaL 66–8266.6Away0–1
11-07Georgia TechL 45–7474.2Away0–2
11-12DartmouthW 82–7574.5Home1–2
11-16ValparaisoL 50–6862.6Away1–3
11-19Virginia TechL 61–7869.0Away1–4
11-23UConnL 49–7265.2Away1–5
11-29HarvardL 53–5658.1Away1–6
12-02StonehillW 77–6561.7Home2–6
12-05BrownL 56–7567.5Away2–7
12-10IonaL 63–6966.6Away2–8
12-13MaristL 74–8268.8Home2–9
12-22High PointL 47–9364.2Away2–10
01-03MaineW 56–5168.5Away3–10
01-08UMass LowellL 63–7764.7Home3–11
01-10UAlbanyL 46–7156.9Away3–12
01-15UMBCW 79–74 1OT68.6Home4–12
01-19NJITL 55–7962.4Away4–13
01-24VermontL 52–6253.0Home4–14
01-29BinghamtonL 60–6359.0Away4–15
01-31New HampshireW 92–8473.9Home5–15
02-05UAlbanyL 63–6560.4Home5–16
02-07MaineW 73–6767.8Home6–16
02-12UMass LowellL 69–8865.3Away6–17
02-14VermontL 63–9066.8Away6–18
02-19BinghamtonL 67–7960.6Home6–19
02-26UMBCL 58–7063.3Away6–20
02-28NJITW 69–5264.3Home7–20
03-03New HampshireL 83–88 2OT78.1Away7–21
03-07VermontL 57–7759.5Away7–22

Roster · 18 players

Player logs in 29 of 29 team games

Team roster, per game
Column groupsMinutesPer GameShootingLast Five Team Games
PlayerGMPGTeam Min%PtsRebAstStlBlkTOPF2P2P%3P3P%FTFT%eFG%TS%FTA/FGAGMPGMin%Pts/G
Timofei Rudovskii2932:0579.2%13.14.81.81.00.72.62.755–11547.8%63–17536.0%80–9683.3%51.6%57.0%33.1%534:33 +2:2882.3%13.6 +0.5
Ashley Sims, II2931:5478.7%7.24.92.10.70.41.21.684–15155.6%7–3818.4%†20–3951.3%50.0%50.7%20.6%533:40 +1:4680.1%6.2 −1.0
Ty Tabales2828:1567.3%9.02.03.31.40.22.42.043–11437.7%42–16625.3%39–4979.6%37.9%41.6%17.5%535:22 +7:0784.2%11.6 +2.6
Keegan Harvey2926:3165.5%10.94.81.10.20.62.12.379–13658.1%26–6639.4%80–9683.3%58.4%64.7%47.5%534:12 +7:4181.4%19.8 +8.9
Aaron Davis2823:4356.5%9.33.50.71.10.41.12.334–7247.2%51–14435.4%38–5667.9%51.2%53.8%25.9%522:39 −1:0353.9%7.4 −1.8
Jakai Robinson2816:1138.6%3.21.90.90.30.30.41.323–5343.4%†2–1020.0%†37–4484.1%41.3%†54.0%†69.8%†523:41 +7:2956.4%2.4 −0.8
Quincy Allen1424:5029.6%9.54.20.71.61.41.42.334–6949.3%16–6425.0%17–2763.0%43.6%45.9%20.3%122:27 −2:2310.7%7.0 −2.5
Khalil Williams2111:4220.9%2.81.61.10.20.01.21.010–3330.3%†10–4522.2%†8–988.9%†32.1%†35.4%†11.5%†511:35 −0:0727.6%1.4 −1.4
Gio Sanford1612:1516.7%1.71.30.60.10.20.41.49–1850.0%†1–1010.0%†6–875.0%†37.5%†42.8%†28.6%†————
Lennart Weber198:5814.5%2.01.40.30.20.10.30.511–1957.9%†4–1625.0%†4–757.1%†48.6%†49.9%†20.0%†22:43 −6:152.6%1.0 −1.0
Ethane Bourgade189:1114.1%1.21.30.10.20.30.30.76–1833.3%†1–520.0%†7–1258.3%†32.6%†38.9%†52.2%†10:23 −8:480.2%0.0 −1.2
Daniel Akoue1211:5912.2%3.02.10.30.30.91.11.68–1266.7%†2–1118.2%†14–1877.8%†47.8%†58.2%†78.3%†312:11 +0:1217.4%4.3 +1.3
Joseph GreenFew gamesUnder 100 minutes74:092.5%0.30.40.30.10.00.90.71–425.0%†0–0—0–0—25.0%†25.0%†0.0%†————
Langston BaileyFew gamesUnder 100 minutes71:210.8%1.30.10.00.00.00.10.62–366.7%†1–333.3%†2–2100.0%†58.3%†65.4%†33.3%†10:52 −0:290.4%0.0 −1.3
Frankie VassalluzzoFew gamesUnder 100 minutes51:220.6%0.00.20.00.00.00.00.20–20.0%†0–10.0%†0–0—0.0%†0.0%†0.0%†10:52 −0:300.4%0.0 0.0
Jaheim NyamFew gamesUnder 100 minutes40:590.3%0.00.00.00.00.00.30.30–0—0–0—0–0————10:52 −0:070.4%0.0 0.0
Jason SepeFew gamesUnder 100 minutes40:590.3%0.00.00.00.00.00.00.30–0—0–0—0–0————10:52 −0:070.4%0.0 0.0
Michael DeOrseyFew gamesUnder 100 minutes40:590.3%0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00–10.0%†0–0—0–0—0.0%†0.0%†0.0%†10:52 −0:070.4%0.0 0.0
Team, games with logs · per game29 games63.032.411.4not published3.913.2not published399–82048.7%226–75430.0%352–46376.0%46.9%51.4%29.4%
Sum of players63.028.311.45.93.912.616.4Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players0.0+4.00.0not published+0.0+0.6not 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
$250K
80% Range $91K to $660K
Tier
Low and other
low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4
$245K to $255K
Scenario medians
Players with Figures
18
6 floor only
Players in possession-share order
PlayerPoss. ShareSpeculative Best Guess80% RangeRange GraphicMedian % of Team PoolScenarios Z1 to Z4Floor PartEvidence and Flags
Timofei Rudovskii78.9%$31K$1K to $120K15.3%$30K to $31K$1KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ashley Sims, II78.2%$11K$1K to $63K8.7%$11K to $12K$1KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ty Tabales67.7%$26K$1K to $110K12.9%$25K to $27K$1KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Keegan Harvey67.0%$18K$1K to $81K10.8%$18K to $19K$1KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Aaron Davis54.8%$17K$1K to $76K9.4%$16K to $17K$1KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jakai Robinson37.6%$17K$1K to $86K7.7%$16K to $17K$1KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Quincy Allen32.9%$6K$1K to $28K3.7%$5K to $6K$1KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Khalil Williams21.9%$3K$1K to $15K0.9%$3K in all four$1KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ethane Bourgade14.6%$6K$1K to $22K3.1%$6K in all four$1KLimited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Lennart Weber14.4%$8K$1K to $34K3.4%$8K in all four$1KLimited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Gio Sanford14.3%$6K$1K to $25K3.0%$6K in all four$1KLimited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Daniel Akoue12.7%$11K$3K to $58K3.6%$10K to $11K$1KLimited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Joseph Green2.6%$1K$0 to $4K0.5%$1K in all four$1KFloor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Langston Bailey0.8%$1K$0 to $4K0.5%$1K in all four$1KFloor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Frankie Vassalluzzo0.5%$1K$0 to $4K0.5%$1K in all four$1KFloor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Jaheim Nyam0.3%$1K$0 to $4K0.5%$1K in all four$1KFloor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Jason Sepe0.3%$1K$0 to $4K0.5%$1K in all four$1KFloor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Michael DeOrsey0.3%$1K$0 to $4K0.5%$1K in all four$1KFloor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool—$250K$91K to $660K100%$245K to $255K—

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, Bryant University (NCAA Division I-FCS)
MeasureSchool-Reported AmountNote
Men's basketball revenue$2,706,415Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses$2,706,415
Athletics department expenses$28,476,424
Athletics department revenue$28,476,424

Team Totalsβ

Season per game, 29 games, 1,892 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
StatisticTeamOpponents
Points63.073.3
Field goals made21.626.2
Field goals attempted54.356.7
3-pointers made7.87.4
3-pointers attempted26.020.3
Free throws made12.113.5
Free throws attempted16.019.0
Offensive rebounds9.610.2
Defensive rebounds22.825.0
Total rebounds32.435.2
Assists11.413.4
Blocks3.92.4
Turnovers13.29.5
StealsNo team figure. Players sum to 170.
Personal foulsNo team figure. Players sum to 475.
Minutes (derived)202.6not published

29 of 29 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
StatisticStatusTeam Total, Logged GamesSum of PlayersResidualToleranceTeam Total, Games Without Logs
PointsReconciled1,8281,8280±9.10
Field goals madeReconciled6256250±3.10
Field goals attemptedReconciled1,5741,5740±7.90
3-pointers madeReconciled2262260±2.00
3-pointers attemptedReconciled7547540±3.80
Free throws madeReconciled3523520±2.00
Free throws attemptedReconciled4634630±2.30
Offensive reboundsNo player splitnot publishednot publishednot publishednot publishednot published
Defensive reboundsNo player splitnot publishednot publishednot publishednot publishednot published
Total reboundsResidual shown939822+117±75.10
AssistsReconciled3323320±2.00
BlocksReconciled114113+1±2.00
TurnoversResidual shown383365+18±11.50
StealsNo team figurenot published170not publishednot publishednot published
Personal foulsNo team figurenot published475not publishednot publishednot published
Minutes (derived)Reconciled5,8755,859+16.3±117.50

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.
PlayerPoss. ShareNet and RangeβRange Graphic
Timofei Rudovskii78.9%-1.1range -2.4 to +0.3Sufficient evidence
Ashley Sims, II78.2%-2.1range -3.3 to -0.8Sufficient evidence
Ty Tabales67.7%-1.0range -2.4 to +0.5Sufficient evidence
Keegan Harvey67.0%-1.4range -2.6 to -0.3Sufficient evidence
Aaron Davis54.8%-1.4range -2.4 to -0.1Sufficient evidence
Jakai Robinson37.6%-0.9range -2.3 to +0.4Sufficient evidence
Quincy Allen32.9%-2.2range -3.1 to -0.9Sufficient evidence
Khalil Williams21.9%-3.2range -4.0 to -1.9Sufficient evidence
Ethane Bourgade14.6%-1.0range -1.7 to -0.4Limited evidence
Lennart Weber14.4%-0.8range -1.6 to +0.1Limited evidence
Gio Sanford14.3%-1.1range -1.9 to -0.2Limited evidence
Daniel Akoue12.7%-0.2range -0.8 to +0.4Limited evidence
Joseph Green2.6%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Langston Bailey0.8%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Frankie Vassalluzzo0.5%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Jason Sepe0.3%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Jaheim Nyam0.3%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Michael DeOrsey0.3%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
+8.0range +7.1 to +9.0Limited evidence

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

12 valued players hold 99.0% of on-court time. 6 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 1.0%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 11.2%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value