Nebraska

B10 · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 16 · Raw net 16.1 · Tempo 66.8 · 35 Division I games · Through 2026-03-26

Record: 28–7; 28 wins
AdjNet: 20.9β; rank 18 of 365
AdjO: 116.0β; rank 55 of 365
AdjD: 95.1β; rank 8 of 365
AdjT: 67.5β
SOS: 8.1β; rank 36 of 363
NCSOS: -5.6β
WAB: 7.4β; rank 13 of 363
RR: 2.7β
Exp. W: 25.3β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	114.467	98.314	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	55.528	48.140	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	14.440	18.954	16.7
Offensive rebound %	26.7307	27.448	30.6
FTA / FGA %	26.2356	25.17	35.0
Shooting
3P%	35.590	30.519	33.9
2P%	58.021	50.5119	51.7
FT%	75.565	72.8205	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	51.1	50.2	39.5
Assists / FGM %	65.8	61.2	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	8.7	9.3	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	41.5	40.0	31.4
2-pointers %	43.4	44.0	48.8
Free throws %	15.1	16.0	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: 47%
Bench Share of Minutes: 28%
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
11-03	West Ga.	W 86–53	70.5	Home	1–0
11-08	FIU	W 96–66	76.8	Home	2–0
11-11	UMES	W 69–50	66.9	Home	3–0
11-15	Oklahoma	W 105–99	71.6	Neutral	4–0
11-20	New Mexico	W 84–72	81.0	Neutral	5–0
11-21	Kansas St.	W 86–85	75.5	Neutral	6–0
11-25	Winthrop	W 80–73	69.0	Home	7–0
11-29	USC Upstate	W 72–63	71.7	Home	8–0
12-07	Creighton	W 71–50	63.8	Home	9–0
12-10	Wisconsin	W 90–60	69.7	Home	10–0
12-13	Illinois	W 83–80	63.1	Away	11–0
12-21	North Dakota	W 78–55	66.7	Home	12–0
12-30	New Hampshire	W 86–55	68.8	Home	13–0
01-02	Michigan St.	W 58–56	65.2	Home	14–0
01-05	Ohio St.	W 72–69	68.1	Away	15–0
01-10	Indiana	W 83–77	66.9	Away	16–0
01-13	Oregon	W 90–55	64.2	Home	17–0
01-17	Northwestern	W 77–58	59.9	Away	18–0
01-21	Washington	W 76–66	64.2	Home	19–0
01-24	Minnesota	W 76–57	65.0	Away	20–0
01-27	Michigan	L 72–75	71.4	Away	20–1
02-01	Illinois	L 69–78	63.4	Home	20–2
02-07	Rutgers	W 80–68	68.2	Away	21–2
02-10	Purdue	L 77–80 1OT	76.0	Home	21–3
02-14	Northwestern	W 68–49	64.5	Home	22–3
02-17	Iowa	L 52–57	60.1	Away	22–4
02-21	Penn St.	W 87–64	69.4	Home	23–4
02-25	Maryland	W 74–61	63.6	Home	24–4
02-28	Southern California	W 82–67	68.8	Away	25–4
03-03	UCLA	L 52–72	60.6	Away	25–5
03-08	Iowa	W 84–75 1OT	74.5	Home	26–5
03-13	Purdue	L 58–74	60.5	Neutral	26–6
03-19	Troy	W 76–47	60.8	—	27–6
03-21	Vanderbilt	W 74–72	63.9	—	28–6
03-26	Iowa	L 71–77	60.5	—	28–7

Roster · 13 players

Player logs in 35 of 35 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
Pryce Sandfort	35	33:34	83.3%	21.6	5.8	2.4	1.2	0.3	0.8	2.0	88–143	61.5%	129–310	41.6%	71–83	85.5%	62.1%	64.8%	18.3%	5	36:31 +2:57	89.1%	18.6 +0.5
Sam Hoiberg	35	32:22	80.3%	11.5	6.5	5.5	2.5	0.1	1.5	3.1	92–145	63.4%	32–84	38.1%	45–60	75.0%	61.1%	63.6%	26.2%	5	35:09 +2:47	85.7%	7.6 −1.7
Rienk Mast	34	29:19	70.7%	18.2	7.9	4.2	0.6	0.4	2.3	2.4	119–221	53.8%	50–161	31.1%	65–79	82.3%	50.8%	54.3%	20.7%	5	32:41 +3:22	79.7%	11.6 −1.7
Jamarques Lawrence	35	28:04	69.7%	13.9	3.4	5.4	1.3	0.0	2.8	3.4	59–116	50.9%	55–155	35.5%	59–78	75.6%	52.2%	56.0%	28.8%	5	28:09 +0:05	68.6%	9.0 −0.8
Berke Buyuktuncel	33	24:25	57.2%	10.7	9.1	3.1	1.4	1.7	1.9	2.9	68–119	57.1%	13–54	24.1%	41–67	61.2%	50.6%	53.3%	38.7%	5	26:09 +1:44	63.8%	6.8 +0.3
Braden Frager	33	23:28	54.9%	20.2	6.4	1.8	1.2	0.1	1.8	2.2	77–113	68.1%	57–162	35.2%	66–82	80.5%	59.1%	62.8%	29.8%	5	22:56 −0:32	55.9%	11.6 −0.2
Cale Jacobsen	35	19:23	48.1%	9.6	6.0	2.7	2.0	0.6	1.3	3.7	46–76	60.5%	15–41	36.6%†	25–42	59.5%	58.5%	59.8%	35.9%	5	16:58 −2:25	41.4%	5.2 +0.6
Jared Garcia	28	8:05	16.1%	14.7	10.6	1.6	0.9	2.5	3.5	3.5	16–38	42.1%†	10–41	24.4%†	21–27	77.8%	39.2%†	45.7%†	34.2%†	3	6:55 −1:11	10.1%	3.0 0.0
Connor EssegianFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	7	14:00	6.9%	15.5	3.7	2.4	0.8	0.0	2.0	2.4	6–13	46.2%†	8–31	25.8%†	2–4	50.0%†	40.9%†	41.5%†	9.1%†	—	—	—	—
Leo CurtisUnder 100 minutes	17	3:41	4.4%	17.2	5.7	2.6	1.9	0.6	3.2	5.1	10–14	71.4%†	0–3	0.0%†	7–8	87.5%†	58.8%†	65.8%†	47.1%†	2	1:51 −1:50	1.8%	1.0 −0.6
Kendall BlueUnder 100 minutes	19	3:13	4.3%	8.5	3.9	2.6	0.7	0.0	4.6	3.9	1–5	20.0%†	3–8	37.5%†	2–2	100.0%†	42.3%†	46.8%†	15.4%†	2	1:42 −1:31	1.7%	0.0 −0.7
Justin BolisUnder 100 minutes	17	1:13	1.5%	5.8	9.7	1.9	1.9	1.9	0.0	5.8	0–2	0.0%†	0–1	0.0%†	3–6	50.0%†	0.0%†	26.6%†	200.0%†	1	1:26 +0:13	0.7%	0.0 −0.2
Ugnius JaruseviciusFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	1	10:31	0.7%	26.6	7.6	0.0	0.0	7.6	7.6	3.8	2–2	100.0%†	1–1	100.0%†	0–1	0.0%†	116.7%†	101.7%†	33.3%†	—	—	—	—
Team, games with logs · per 40 team minutes	35 games			76.4	34.6	17.9	not published	2.5	9.6	not published	584–1007	58.0%	373–1052	35.5%	407–539	75.5%	55.5%	58.7%	26.2%
Sum of players				76.4	32.1	17.9	7.1	2.5	9.2	14.2	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0.0	+2.5	−0.0	not published	0.0	+0.4	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: $3.60M; 80% Range $2.60M to $4.95M
Tier: Power 4; medium evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $3.60M in all four; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 13; 5 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
Pryce Sandfort	84.4%	$875K	$580K to $1.40M	23.7%	$875K in all four	$27K	Sufficient evidence
Sam Hoiberg	81.2%	$820K	$540K to $1.30M	22.0%	$820K in all four	$27K	Sufficient evidence
Rienk Mast	71.6%	$395K	$210K to $605K	11.7%	$395K in all four	$27K	Sufficient evidence
Jamarques Lawrence	70.5%	$290K	$87K to $500K	8.6%	$290K in all four	$27K	Sufficient evidence
Berke Buyuktuncel	57.8%	$415K	$255K to $645K	11.7%	$415K in all four	$27K	Sufficient evidence
Braden Frager	54.2%	$280K	$105K to $460K	8.3%	$280K in all four	$27K	Sufficient evidence
Cale Jacobsen	47.7%	$245K	$105K to $400K	7.3%	$245K in all four	$27K	Sufficient evidence
Jared Garcia	16.2%	$59K	$24K to $115K	1.7%	$59K in all four	$27K	Sufficient evidence
Connor Essegian	6.4%	$27K	$15K to $43K	0.8%	$27K in all four	$27K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimate
Leo Curtis	4.2%	$27K	$15K to $43K	0.8%	$27K in all four	$27K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimate
Kendall Blue	3.8%	$27K	$15K to $43K	0.8%	$27K in all four	$27K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimate
Justin Bolis	1.3%	$27K	$15K to $43K	0.8%	$27K in all four	$27K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimate
Ugnius Jarusevicius	0.8%	$27K	$15K to $43K	0.8%	$27K in all four	$27K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimate
Team Pool	—	$3.60M	$2.60M to $4.95M	100%	$3.60M in all four	—

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 Nebraska-Lincoln (NCAA Division I-FBS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$18,447,339
Men's basketball expenses	$13,196,203
Athletics department expenses	$198,462,402
Athletics department revenue	$205,807,522

Team Totalsβ

Season per 40 minutes, 35 games, 2,355 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Per 40 uses 1410 game minutes, 5 per overtime period. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	76.4	65.7
Field goals made	27.1	23.2
Field goals attempted	58.4	57.3
3-pointers made	10.6	8.8
3-pointers attempted	29.8	28.8
Free throws made	11.5	10.5
Free throws attempted	15.3	14.4
Offensive rebounds	8.8	9.7
Defensive rebounds	25.8	24.3
Total rebounds	34.6	34.0
Assists	17.9	14.2
Blocks	2.5	2.7
Turnovers	9.6	12.7
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 250.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 499.
Minutes (derived)	200.0	not published

35 of 35 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	2,694	2,694	0	±13.5	0
Field goals made	Reconciled	957	957	0	±4.8	0
Field goals attempted	Reconciled	2,059	2,059	0	±10.3	0
3-pointers made	Reconciled	373	373	0	±2.0	0
3-pointers attempted	Reconciled	1,052	1,052	0	±5.3	0
Free throws made	Reconciled	407	407	0	±2.0	0
Free throws attempted	Reconciled	539	539	0	±2.7	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	Reconciled	1,220	1,133	+87	±97.6	0
Assists	Reconciled	630	631	−1	±3.1	0
Blocks	Reconciled	88	88	0	±2.0	0
Turnovers	Residual shown	340	325	+15	±10.2	0
Steals	No team figure	not published	250	not published	not published	not published
Personal fouls	No team figure	not published	499	not published	not published	not published
Minutes (derived)	Reconciled	7,050	7,025	+25.4	±141.0	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
Pryce Sandfort	84.4%	+6.6range +5.5 to +7.7Sufficient evidence
Sam Hoiberg	81.2%	+6.5range +4.9 to +7.8Sufficient evidence
Rienk Mast	71.6%	+3.3range +1.8 to +4.4Sufficient evidence
Jamarques Lawrence	70.5%	+2.1range +0.4 to +3.2Sufficient evidence
Berke Buyuktuncel	57.8%	+4.5range +3.1 to +5.7Sufficient evidence
Braden Frager	54.2%	+2.9range +1.2 to +4.4Sufficient evidence
Cale Jacobsen	47.7%	+2.7range +1.3 to +4.1Sufficient evidence
Jared Garcia	16.2%	-0.0range -1.0 to +1.1Sufficient evidence
Connor Essegian	6.4%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Leo Curtis	4.2%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Kendall Blue	3.8%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Justin Bolis	1.3%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Ugnius Jarusevicius	0.8%	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: +13.2range +12.2 to +13.9Sufficient evidence

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

8 valued players hold 96.7% of on-court time. 5 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 3.3%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 0.0%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value