Troy

SB · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 108 · Raw net 4.0 · Tempo 67.0 · 32 Division I games · Through 2026-03-19

Record: 20–12; 20 wins
AdjNet: 2.4β; rank 137 of 365
AdjO: 110.4β; rank 121 of 365
AdjD: 108.0β; rank 168 of 365
AdjT: 66.4β
SOS: -1.6β; rank 212 of 363
NCSOS: 3.2β
WAB: -5.4β; rank 112 of 363
RR: 1.1β
Exp. W: 18.9β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	111.1119	107.1132	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	51.5171	50.2109	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	17.3224	16.7172	16.7
Offensive rebound %	34.656	31.7243	30.6
FTA / FGA %	36.2148	31.493	35.0
Shooting
3P%	33.0230	31.647	33.9
2P%	53.2122	52.0194	51.7
FT%	74.2124	71.096	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	45.9	39.1	39.5
Assists / FGM %	57.5	50.0	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	9.1	10.9	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	35.0	30.2	31.4
2-pointers %	44.3	51.7	48.8
Free throws %	20.7	18.2	19.8

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

Rotation Depth

Effective Rotation Size: 7.7
Top Three Share of Minutes: 49%
Bench Share of Minutes: 26%
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	Kent St.	W 103–97 1OT	85.7	Away	1–0
11-07	Furman	W 64–61	68.4	Away	2–0
11-14	LMU (CA)	L 63–74	69.4	Away	2–1
11-16	CSUN	L 85–94	73.0	Away	2–2
11-18	San Diego St.	W 108–107 2OT	89.6	Away	3–2
11-20	Southern California	L 106–107 3OT	100.7	Away	3–3
11-24	Toledo	L 68–75	68.9	Neutral	3–4
11-26	Saint Francis	W 74–64	73.4	Neutral	4–4
12-01	West Ga.	L 89–93 2OT	86.1	Home	4–5
12-14	UAB	W 86–85	67.9	Away	5–5
12-20	Marshall	W 70–63	69.8	Home	6–5
12-31	Texas St.	W 100–80	67.9	Home	7–5
01-03	South Alabama	W 59–49	58.7	Home	8–5
01-07	Arkansas St.	L 74–86	75.2	Away	8–6
01-10	Louisiana	W 90–70	63.7	Away	9–6
01-14	Southern Miss.	W 91–65	70.3	Home	10–6
01-17	Arkansas St.	W 99–74	66.7	Home	11–6
01-21	Old Dominion	W 83–77 2OT	81.5	Away	12–6
01-24	Ga. Southern	W 83–78	63.7	Away	13–6
01-29	James Madison	L 64–73	66.0	Home	13–7
01-31	App State	L 44–66	58.8	Home	13–8
02-04	Georgia St.	W 74–63	63.9	Away	14–8
02-07	Akron	W 79–69	64.1	Home	15–8
02-11	Texas St.	L 62–74	63.7	Away	15–9
02-14	Southern Miss.	L 65–69	66.1	Away	15–10
02-18	ULM	W 77–76	70.6	Away	16–10
02-21	South Alabama	L 54–65	58.5	Away	16–11
02-24	Louisiana	W 78–59	57.1	Home	17–11
02-27	ULM	W 80–65	62.3	Home	18–11
03-08	Southern Miss.	W 78–70	71.3	Neutral	19–11
03-09	Ga. Southern	W 77–61	63.1	Neutral	20–11
03-19	Nebraska	L 47–76	60.8	—	20–12

Roster · 14 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
Thomas Dowd	32	36:55	88.8%	14.5	10.3	2.0	1.2	1.4	1.5	2.4	97–177	54.8%	60–186	32.3%	91–114	79.8%	51.5%	56.3%	31.4%	5	37:16 +0:21	93.2%	15.8 +1.3
Cooper Campbell	32	34:46	83.6%	12.8	3.5	4.1	1.5	0.1	1.9	1.8	72–151	47.7%	67–170	39.4%	66–80	82.5%	53.7%	57.7%	24.9%	5	33:14 −1:31	83.1%	10.4 −2.4
Victor Valdes	32	29:42	71.5%	14.9	4.0	4.5	1.3	0.4	3.4	2.9	112–227	49.3%	29–125	23.2%	165–218	75.7%	44.2%	53.1%	61.9%	5	27:27 −2:14	68.6%	12.8 −2.1
Cobi Campbell	31	28:32	66.5%	9.0	1.9	1.5	1.0	0.0	0.9	1.5	29–66	43.9%	66–164	40.2%	24–29	82.8%	55.7%	57.7%	12.6%	5	26:30 −2:02	66.3%	7.4 −1.6
Theo Seng	26	29:37	57.9%	12.9	5.9	1.1	0.5	0.3	1.0	2.0	96–156	61.5%	24–76	31.6%	71–93	76.3%	56.9%	61.4%	40.1%	1	19:52 −9:45	9.9%	9.0 −3.9
Jerrell Bellamy	32	16:35	39.9%	7.8	3.1	0.4	0.5	0.9	1.1	2.6	96–142	67.6%	6–18	33.3%†	39–62	62.9%	65.6%	66.5%	38.8%	5	29:19 +12:44	73.3%	15.2 +7.4
Kerrington Kiel	32	16:12	39.0%	3.6	3.5	1.0	0.9	0.3	0.8	1.8	24–55	43.6%	11–47	23.4%†	34–47	72.3%	39.7%	46.9%	46.1%	5	14:48 −1:24	37.0%	3.2 −0.4
Austin Cross	32	15:53	38.2%	3.2	1.5	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.4	1.0	10–27	37.0%	24–79	30.4%	9–18	50.0%†	43.4%	44.3%	17.0%	5	18:56 +3:03	47.3%	3.8 +0.6
Javen ColbertUnder 100 minutes	17	3:20	4.3%	0.9	0.4	0.1	0.2	0.0	0.5	0.5	2–4	50.0%†	2–5	40.0%†	5–8	62.5%†	55.6%†	59.9%†	88.9%†	3	1:13 −2:07	1.8%	0.0 −0.9
Evan GriffinUnder 100 minutes	11	4:16	3.5%	1.2	1.2	0.2	0.2	0.0	0.3	0.9	5–14	35.7%†	0–0	—	3–8	37.5%†	35.7%†	37.1%†	57.1%†	5	4:20 +0:03	10.8%	1.2 0.0
Corbin GreenUnder 100 minutes	13	2:56	2.9%	0.8	1.0	0.2	0.2	0.2	0.4	0.3	4–8	50.0%†	0–2	0.0%†	3–7	42.9%†	40.0%†	42.0%†	70.0%†	2	1:38 −1:18	1.6%	0.0 −0.8
Emmanuel ClartonUnder 100 minutes	12	1:20	1.2%	0.2	0.5	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.4	1–1	100.0%†	0–1	0.0%†	0–2	0.0%†	50.0%†	34.7%†	100.0%†	3	1:01 −0:19	1.5%	0.7 +0.5
Kameryn MitchellFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	7	1:08	0.6%	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0–0	—	0–0	—	0–0	—	—	—	—	4	1:04 −0:04	2.1%	0.0 0.0
Hikaru AwataFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	5	1:07	0.4%	0.2	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.6	0.4	0–2	0.0%†	0–2	0.0%†	1–3	33.3%†	0.0%†	9.4%†	75.0%†	2	0:34 −0:33	0.6%	0.0 −0.2
Team, games with logs · per game	32 games			77.3	37.4	15.0	not published	3.4	12.0	not published	548–1030	53.2%	289–875	33.0%	511–689	74.2%	51.5%	56.0%	36.2%
Sum of players				77.3	33.8	15.0	7.2	3.3	11.5	16.6	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0.0	+3.7	0.0	not published	+0.0	+0.5	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: $295K; 80% Range $105K to $775K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $240K to $320K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 14; 6 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
Thomas Dowd	89.2%	$76K	$26K to $215K	24.5%	$62K to $83K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Cooper Campbell	84.2%	$54K	$18K to $150K	18.0%	$44K to $58K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Victor Valdes	73.2%	$39K	$13K to $110K	14.2%	$32K to $43K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Cobi Campbell	66.2%	$26K	$6K to $79K	10.7%	$22K to $29K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Theo Seng	61.2%	$32K	$10K to $93K	11.7%	$27K to $35K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Kerrington Kiel	38.1%	$16K	$4K to $51K	6.5%	$14K to $18K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jerrell Bellamy	38.1%	$13K	$3K to $41K	5.4%	$10K to $14K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Austin Cross	37.5%	$9K	$2K to $32K	3.8%	$7K to $10K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Javen Colbert	4.6%	$2K	$1K to $6K	0.7%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Corbin Green	2.8%	$2K	$1K to $6K	0.7%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Evan Griffin	2.5%	$2K	$1K to $6K	0.7%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Emmanuel Clarton	1.3%	$2K	$1K to $6K	0.7%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Kameryn Mitchell	0.5%	$2K	$1K to $6K	0.7%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Hikaru Awata	0.5%	$2K	$1K to $6K	0.7%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$295K	$105K to $775K	100%	$240K to $320K	—

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, Troy University (NCAA Division I-FBS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$2,498,161
Men's basketball expenses	$2,405,521
Athletics department expenses	$39,742,013
Athletics department revenue	$39,742,013

Team Totalsβ

Season per game, 32 games, 2,227 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	77.3	74.5
Field goals made	26.2	26.8
Field goals attempted	59.5	60.8
3-pointers made	9.0	7.5
3-pointers attempted	27.3	23.8
Free throws made	16.0	13.5
Free throws attempted	21.5	19.1
Offensive rebounds	12.4	11.7
Defensive rebounds	25.1	23.4
Total rebounds	37.4	35.1
Assists	15.0	13.4
Blocks	3.4	3.5
Turnovers	12.0	11.6
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 230.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 532.
Minutes (derived)	207.8	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	2,474	2,474	0	±12.4	0
Field goals made	Reconciled	837	837	0	±4.2	0
Field goals attempted	Reconciled	1,905	1,905	0	±9.5	0
3-pointers made	Reconciled	289	289	0	±2.0	0
3-pointers attempted	Reconciled	875	875	0	±4.4	0
Free throws made	Reconciled	511	511	0	±2.6	0
Free throws attempted	Reconciled	689	689	0	±3.4	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	1,198	1,080	+118	±95.8	0
Assists	Reconciled	481	481	0	±2.4	0
Blocks	Reconciled	108	107	+1	±2.0	0
Turnovers	Residual shown	385	369	+16	±11.5	0
Steals	No team figure	not published	230	not published	not published	not published
Personal fouls	No team figure	not published	532	not published	not published	not published
Minutes (derived)	Reconciled	6,650	6,628	+22.0	±133.0	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
Thomas Dowd	89.2%	+3.4range +2.6 to +4.2Sufficient evidence
Cooper Campbell	84.2%	+2.3range +1.4 to +3.1Sufficient evidence
Victor Valdes	73.2%	+1.9range +0.7 to +2.7Sufficient evidence
Cobi Campbell	66.2%	+1.0range -0.1 to +2.1Sufficient evidence
Theo Seng	61.2%	+1.7range +0.9 to +2.8Sufficient evidence
Kerrington Kiel	38.1%	+1.2range -0.1 to +2.3Sufficient evidence
Jerrell Bellamy	38.1%	+0.5range -0.8 to +1.6Sufficient evidence
Austin Cross	37.5%	-0.5range -2.0 to +0.8Sufficient evidence
Javen Colbert	4.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Corbin Green	2.8%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Evan Griffin	2.5%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Emmanuel Clarton	1.3%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Kameryn Mitchell	0.5%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Hikaru Awata	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: +11.0range +10.0 to +11.8Sufficient evidence

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

8 valued players hold 97.5% of on-court time. 6 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 2.5%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 0.0%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value