Ark.-Pine Bluff

SWAC · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 319 · Raw net -11.0 · Tempo 71.2 · 30 Division I games · Through 2026-03-12

Record: 11–19; 11 wins
AdjNet: -12.8β; rank 328 of 365
AdjO: 102.8β; rank 293 of 365
AdjD: 115.6β; rank 330 of 365
AdjT: 70.1β
SOS: -4.5β; rank 304 of 363
NCSOS: 13.0β
WAB: -12.6β; rank 273 of 363
RR: 0.1β
Exp. W: 10.9β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	103.5280	114.5316	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	50.0234	52.6249	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	18.7310	16.5188	16.7
Offensive rebound %	27.9270	34.2321	30.6
FTA / FGA %	38.489	43.6343	35.0
Shooting
3P%	33.6190	33.2135	33.9
2P%	49.8263	54.4287	51.7
FT%	75.566	75.7335	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	37.2	37.3	39.5
Assists / FGM %	56.3	53.8	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	7.9	8.7	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	29.1	26.9	31.4
2-pointers %	48.5	49.3	48.8
Free throws %	22.5	23.9	19.8

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

Rotation Depth

Effective Rotation Size: 7.3
Top Three Share of Minutes: 51%
Bench Share of Minutes: 20%
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	Washington	L 50–94	73.2	Away	0–1
11-06	Portland	L 74–83	82.5	Away	0–2
11-08	LMU (CA)	L 72–94	70.8	Away	0–3
11-11	Oklahoma	L 69–95	69.8	Away	0–4
11-15	Vanderbilt	L 75–104	74.5	Away	0–5
11-18	SMU	L 60–106	80.4	Away	0–6
11-20	Marshall	L 70–98	76.7	Away	0–7
11-23	Miami (OH)	L 84–111	81.5	Away	0–8
12-03	UIC	W 63–62	72.1	Away	1–8
12-06	DePaul	L 72–76	73.9	Away	1–9
12-10	Tulsa	L 84–117	77.3	Away	1–10
01-03	Alabama A&M	W 95–83	63.8	Home	2–10
01-05	Alabama St.	W 90–79	74.9	Home	3–10
01-10	Texas Southern	W 74–66	69.3	Away	4–10
01-12	Prairie View	L 61–73	69.3	Away	4–11
01-17	Florida A&M	L 67–71	65.7	Home	4–12
01-19	Bethune-Cookman	L 82–87 1OT	78.9	Home	4–13
01-24	Southern U.	W 75–74	69.3	Away	5–13
01-31	Mississippi Val.	W 78–70	71.2	Away	6–13
02-04	Grambling	W 67–64	67.5	Away	7–13
02-07	Alcorn	W 84–77	66.3	Home	8–13
02-09	Jackson St.	W 84–63	65.5	Home	9–13
02-14	Alabama St.	L 61–79	72.4	Away	9–14
02-16	Alabama A&M	L 70–82	63.4	Away	9–15
02-19	Texas Southern	L 64–83	68.3	Home	9–16
02-21	Prairie View	W 84–82	67.9	Home	10–16
02-28	Mississippi Val.	L 69–70	69.7	Home	10–17
03-03	Jackson St.	L 78–81	69.3	Away	10–18
03-05	Alcorn	W 83–48	74.4	Away	11–18
03-12	Southern U.	L 81–84	65.4	Neutral	11–19

Roster · 14 players

Player logs in 30 of 30 team games

Team roster, season totals
Column groups	Minutes			Season Totals							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
Quion Williams	30	36:18	90.4%	511	231	148	48	24	100	67	152–318	47.8%	26–84	31.0%	129–174	74.1%	47.5%	53.4%	43.3%	5	38:02 +1:44	95.1%	18.6 +1.6
Trevon Payton	30	34:13	85.2%	280	99	81	30	6	54	81	40–68	58.8%	58–127	45.7%	26–35	74.3%	65.1%	66.5%	17.9%	5	35:16 +1:04	88.2%	9.6 +0.3
Alex Mirhosseini	29	31:47	76.5%	322	64	73	44	7	49	92	30–81	37.0%	72–217	33.2%	46–64	71.9%	46.3%	49.4%	21.5%	5	33:06 +1:19	82.7%	12.0 +0.9
Milhan Charles	30	29:58	74.6%	316	120	42	24	15	53	60	103–175	58.9%	6–26	23.1%†	92–127	72.4%	55.7%	61.5%	63.2%	5	25:56 −4:02	64.8%	9.6 −0.9
Jaquan Scott	30	28:37	71.3%	464	205	33	28	18	73	116	139–282	49.3%	14–44	31.8%†	144–169	85.2%	49.1%	57.9%	51.8%	5	31:20 +2:42	78.3%	19.0 +3.5
Ramel Lloyd Jr.	20	20:47	34.5%	136	46	20	16	4	23	37	33–66	50.0%	13–49	26.5%†	31–48	64.6%	45.7%	50.0%	41.7%	4	23:29 +2:42	47.0%	6.5 −0.3
Ahmad Johnson	27	11:12	25.1%	89	16	12	3	3	14	38	12–26	46.2%†	18–62	29.0%	11–15	73.3%†	44.3%†	47.0%†	17.0%†	5	7:48 −3:23	19.5%	2.0 −1.3
Kyle Brown	21	7:02	12.2%	23	33	7	4	6	3	25	6–23	26.1%†	2–7	28.6%†	5–6	83.3%†	30.0%†	35.2%†	20.0%†	3	1:57 −5:05	2.9%	0.7 −0.4
Dennis Asoro	28	4:54	11.4%	30	28	4	4	3	11	44	14–22	63.6%†	0–0	—	2–7	28.6%†	63.6%†	59.8%†	31.8%†	5	6:34 +1:39	16.4%	2.0 +0.9
Jai’chaunn HayesFew games	8	14:39	9.7%	39	7	2	1	0	2	14	6–13	46.2%†	6–20	30.0%†	9–11	81.8%†	45.5%†	51.5%†	33.3%†	—	—	—	—
Anthony SellarsUnder 100 minutes	13	5:03	5.4%	9	6	1	2	1	4	14	3–5	60.0%†	0–3	0.0%†	3–3	100.0%†	37.5%†	48.3%†	37.5%†	2	4:54 −0:08	4.9%	1.5 +0.8
Trejon WareFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	1	18:12	1.5%	0	1	1	1	0	2	3	0–1	0.0%†	0–0	—	0–0	—	0.0%†	0.0%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Travis PourciauFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	3	2:10	0.5%	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	0–1	0.0%†	0–0	—	1–2	50.0%†	0.0%†	26.6%†	200.0%†	—	—	—	—
Harrison PickettFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	1	0:42	0.1%	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0–0	—	0–0	—	0–0	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Team, games with logs · season totals	30 games			2220	962	424	not published	88	401	not published	538–1081	49.8%	215–639	33.6%	499–661	75.5%	50.0%	55.2%	38.4%
Sum of players				2220	857	424	205	87	389	592	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0	+105	0	not published	+1	+12	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: $140K; 80% Range $51K to $380K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $130K to $145K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 14; 4 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
Quion Williams	91.4%	$20K	$1K to $67K	17.7%	$19K to $21K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Trevon Payton	85.2%	$6K	$1K to $34K	7.3%	$5K to $6K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Alex Mirhosseini	78.5%	$11K	$1K to $45K	12.2%	$10K to $11K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Milhan Charles	75.1%	$27K	$4K to $115K	17.7%	$25K to $29K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jaquan Scott	70.2%	$24K	$4K to $90K	15.9%	$22K to $25K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ramel Lloyd Jr.	35.2%	$9K	$1K to $38K	7.5%	$9K to $10K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ahmad Johnson	23.3%	$2K	$1K to $11K	2.2%	$2K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Kyle Brown	12.8%	$2K	$1K to $7K	1.9%	$2K in all four	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Dennis Asoro	11.4%	$3K	$1K to $10K	2.6%	$3K in all four	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jai’chaunn Hayes	9.0%	$2K	$0 to $6K	1.3%	$2K in all four	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Anthony Sellars	5.8%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Trejon Ware	1.6%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Travis Pourciau	0.6%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Harrison Pickett	0.1%	$1K	$0 to $3K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$140K	$51K to $380K	100%	$130K to $145K	—

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 Arkansas at Pine Bluff (NCAA Division I-FCS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$731,790	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$731,790
Athletics department expenses	$9,302,196
Athletics department revenue	$9,302,196

Team Totalsβ

Season totals, 30 games, 2,145 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	2,220	2,456
Field goals made	753	825
Field goals attempted	1,720	1,776
3-pointers made	215	220
3-pointers attempted	639	663
Free throws made	499	586
Free throws attempted	661	774
Offensive rebounds	292	349
Defensive rebounds	670	755
Total rebounds	962	1,104
Assists	424	444
Blocks	88	94
Turnovers	401	353
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 205.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 592.
Minutes (derived)	6,025	not published

30 of 30 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	2,220	2,220	0	±11.1	0
Field goals made	Reconciled	753	753	0	±3.8	0
Field goals attempted	Reconciled	1,720	1,720	0	±8.6	0
3-pointers made	Reconciled	215	215	0	±2.0	0
3-pointers attempted	Reconciled	639	639	0	±3.2	0
Free throws made	Reconciled	499	499	0	±2.5	0
Free throws attempted	Reconciled	661	661	0	±3.3	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	962	857	+105	±77.0	0
Assists	Reconciled	424	424	0	±2.1	0
Blocks	Reconciled	88	87	+1	±2.0	0
Turnovers	Reconciled	401	389	+12	±12.0	0
Steals	No team figure	not published	205	not published	not published	not published
Personal fouls	No team figure	not published	592	not published	not published	not published
Minutes (derived)	Reconciled	6,025	6,005	+19.5	±120.5	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
Quion Williams	91.4%	-0.6range -1.4 to +0.4Sufficient evidence
Trevon Payton	85.2%	-2.3range -3.4 to -0.9Sufficient evidence
Alex Mirhosseini	78.5%	-1.3range -2.4 to -0.0Sufficient evidence
Milhan Charles	75.1%	+0.1range -1.1 to +1.2Sufficient evidence
Jaquan Scott	70.2%	-0.1range -1.0 to +0.9Sufficient evidence
Ramel Lloyd Jr.	35.2%	-0.5range -1.9 to +1.0Sufficient evidence
Ahmad Johnson	23.3%	-2.3range -3.3 to -1.2Sufficient evidence
Kyle Brown	12.8%	-2.0range -2.6 to -1.0Limited evidence
Dennis Asoro	11.4%	-0.9range -1.9 to +0.0Limited evidence
Jai’chaunn Hayes	9.0%	-2.0range -2.7 to -1.2Limited evidence
Anthony Sellars	5.8%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Trejon Ware	1.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Travis Pourciau	0.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Harrison Pickett	0.1%	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: +8.4range +7.5 to +9.3Sufficient evidence

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

10 valued players hold 98.4% of on-court time. 4 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 1.6%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 6.6%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value