South Dakota

Sum · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 264 · Raw net -6.1 · Tempo 71.5 · 28 Division I games · Through 2026-03-06

Record: 12–16; 12 wins
AdjNet: -9.1β; rank 293 of 365
AdjO: 104.9β; rank 252 of 365
AdjD: 114.0β; rank 309 of 365
AdjT: 70.6β
SOS: -4.4β; rank 303 of 363
NCSOS: -2.7β
WAB: -10.9β; rank 237 of 363
RR: 0.6β
Exp. W: 11.4β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	107.1206	113.2295	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	49.9240	54.9326	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	16.4164	15.8229	16.7
Offensive rebound %	28.0268	30.8193	30.6
FTA / FGA %	45.35	29.855	35.0
Shooting
3P%	32.6249	35.0246	33.9
2P%	50.4242	55.9324	51.7
FT%	74.2120	73.9260	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	36.2	30.2	39.5
Assists / FGM %	46.0	42.7	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	6.1	9.5	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	26.5	24.1	31.4
2-pointers %	48.2	59.2	48.8
Free throws %	25.2	16.7	19.8

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

Rotation Depth

Effective Rotation Size: 9.9
Top Three Share of Minutes: 43%
Bench Share of Minutes: 39%
Players with Logged Minutes: 16

Bench: players outside the top five in minutes. Definitions

Schedule and Results

Schedule and results
Date	Opponent	Result	Poss.	Site	Record
11-03	Utah Tech	L 79–81 1OT	82.4	Home	0–1
11-05	Creighton	L 76–92	72.9	Away	0–2
11-12	Southern Ind.	W 89–74	83.8	Home	1–2
11-16	Western Mich.	W 83–78	68.8	Home	2–2
11-20	Missouri	L 68–102	74.1	Away	2–3
11-23	South Carolina St.	W 82–81	70.7	Home	3–3
12-03	Portland St.	L 71–77	76.8	Home	3–4
12-06	Northern Colo.	L 87–89 1OT	76.3	Away	3–5
12-09	Wyoming	L 79–106	74.3	Away	3–6
12-13	Prairie View	W 97–85	79.2	Home	4–6
12-20	Kansas St.	L 76–106	75.5	Away	4–7
12-31	North Dakota St.	L 61–84	63.6	Away	4–8
01-07	St. Thomas (MN)	L 86–99	73.5	Away	4–9
01-10	Denver	W 82–72	70.3	Home	5–9
01-15	Kansas City	W 99–83	76.2	Home	6–9
01-17	North Dakota	L 80–96	69.9	Away	6–10
01-21	Omaha	W 68–64	72.2	Away	7–10
01-24	St. Thomas (MN)	L 78–90	69.4	Home	7–11
01-29	Oral Roberts	W 77–69	70.8	Home	8–11
01-31	North Dakota St.	L 84–89 1OT	74.1	Home	8–12
02-04	Kansas City	W 82–75 1OT	80.4	Away	9–12
02-07	South Dakota St.	W 68–67	69.7	Away	10–12
02-11	North Dakota	L 71–72	66.8	Home	10–13
02-19	Denver	L 70–90	65.3	Away	10–14
02-21	Oral Roberts	L 62–67	72.6	Away	10–15
02-25	Omaha	W 89–72	73.3	Home	11–15
02-28	South Dakota St.	W 75–70	69.4	Home	12–15
03-06	Omaha	L 62–76	64.7	Neutral	12–16

Roster · 16 players

Player logs in 28 of 28 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
Jordan Crawford	28	31:41	77.8%	18.4	3.3	1.7	1.4	0.1	1.6	2.3	66–145	45.5%	71–190	37.4%	64–86	74.4%	51.5%	54.8%	25.7%	5	36:34 +4:53	91.4%	15.4 +0.8
Uzziah Buntyn	27	30:51	73.1%	16.3	3.4	4.2	1.7	0.0	2.8	2.1	60–132	45.5%	28–103	27.2%	135–158	85.4%	43.4%	55.7%	67.2%	4	32:39 +1:48	65.3%	12.8 +0.2
Cameron Fens	28	25:57	63.8%	22.9	13.6	1.4	0.6	2.4	2.8	3.6	162–284	57.0%	0–0	—	93–158	58.9%	57.0%	59.0%	55.6%	5	29:24 +3:26	73.5%	15.6 +0.7
Isaac Bruns	16	31:56	44.8%	25.9	6.7	1.6	1.5	0.2	2.7	2.3	86–187	46.0%	23–64	35.9%	90–107	84.1%	48.0%	55.5%	42.6%	—	—	—	—
Vince Buzelis	21	24:00	44.2%	12.5	7.5	2.3	1.3	0.6	3.0	4.5	47–76	61.8%†	5–21	23.8%†	48–63	76.2%	56.2%†	62.9%†	64.9%†	5	31:16 +7:16	78.2%	12.6 +5.1
Silas Bennion	15	29:08	38.3%	6.6	3.7	4.3	0.9	0.0	1.6	2.4	13–32	40.6%†	10–39	25.6%†	16–20	80.0%†	39.4%†	45.1%†	28.2%†	5	28:39 −0:29	71.6%	4.0 −0.8
Ethan Kizer	28	15:00	36.8%	10.4	4.0	0.4	1.0	0.3	0.9	2.9	2–3	66.7%†	30–87	34.5%	15–30	50.0%	52.2%†	52.8%†	33.3%†	5	19:25 +4:25	48.5%	4.4 +0.5
Evan Anderson	24	14:35	30.7%	6.7	4.8	1.7	0.9	0.1	1.6	2.9	14–23	60.9%†	6–16	37.5%†	13–16	81.3%†	59.0%†	64.1%†	41.0%†	1	0:07 −14:27	0.1%	0.0 −2.5
Jake Brack	22	13:46	26.6%	5.9	7.0	1.1	0.9	0.9	1.2	5.7	16–30	53.3%†	0–0	—	13–20	65.0%†	53.3%†	58.0%†	66.7%†	5	8:24 −5:22	21.0%	0.8 −1.2
Jesse Mcintosh	17	16:51	25.1%	15.5	7.8	2.8	1.4	0.4	2.4	2.8	23–51	45.1%†	13–45	28.9%†	26–30	86.7%	44.3%†	50.8%†	31.3%†	5	17:54 +1:03	44.8%	8.6 +2.1
Shey Eberwein	10	19:59	17.5%	15.8	4.2	3.6	1.6	0.0	3.8	2.8	22–43	51.2%†	3–12	25.0%†	26–38	68.4%	48.2%†	55.1%†	69.1%†	—	—	—	—
Trent Hudgens Jr.	15	10:56	14.4%	10.2	3.7	4.4	1.5	0.2	3.7	5.4	12–29	41.4%†	3–14	21.4%†	9–10	90.0%†	38.4%†	44.3%†	23.3%†	4	2:28 −8:28	4.9%	0.0 −2.8
Ashton SmithFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	5	4:26	1.9%	1.8	5.4	0.0	0.0	1.8	3.6	9.0	0–3	0.0%†	0–0	—	1–2	50.0%†	0.0%†	12.9%†	66.7%†	—	—	—	—
Josiah DotzlerFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	1	18:13	1.6%	11.0	6.6	2.2	0.0	0.0	2.2	0.0	1–2	50.0%†	1–1	100.0%†	0–0	—	83.3%†	83.3%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Caleb KizerFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	8	2:13	1.6%	11.3	4.5	0.0	0.0	2.3	2.3	9.0	2–3	66.7%†	0–0	—	1–2	50.0%†	66.7%†	64.4%†	66.7%†	1	0:00 −2:13	0.0%	0.0 −0.6
Porter IhnenFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	3	1:32	0.4%	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	8.7	0–0	—	0–0	—	0–1	0.0%†	—	0.0%†	—	—	—	—	—
Team, games with logs · per 40 team minutes	28 games			76.5	32.6	11.6	not published	2.6	11.8	not published	526–1043	50.4%	193–592	32.6%	550–741	74.2%	49.9%	55.6%	45.3%
Sum of players				76.5	29.8	11.6	6.0	2.6	11.3	15.3	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0.0	+2.8	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: $225K; 80% Range $85K to $600K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $210K to $230K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 15; 3 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
Jordan Crawford	79.3%	$14K	$1K to $62K	10.3%	$13K to $15K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Uzziah Buntyn	74.1%	$30K	$4K to $95K	14.8%	$28K to $31K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Cameron Fens	66.0%	$51K	$16K to $170K	20.2%	$48K to $53K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Vince Buzelis	48.8%	$13K	$1K to $48K	8.1%	$12K to $13K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Isaac Bruns	42.9%	$5K	$1K to $27K	3.2%	$5K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Silas Bennion	38.3%	$33K	$10K to $120K	12.5%	$31K to $34K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ethan Kizer	34.9%	$10K	$2K to $36K	6.3%	$10K to $11K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Evan Anderson	28.4%	$8K	$1K to $29K	4.9%	$7K to $8K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jake Brack	27.7%	$4K	$1K to $20K	2.7%	$4K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jesse Mcintosh	27.2%	$5K	$1K to $24K	3.5%	$5K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Shey Eberwein	18.1%	$3K	$1K to $12K	1.0%	$3K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Trent Hudgens Jr.	11.1%	$6K	$2K to $18K	2.8%	$6K in all four	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ashton Smith	1.6%	$1K	$0 to $4K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Caleb Kizer	1.5%	$1K	$0 to $4K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Porter Ihnen	0.3%	$1K	$0 to $4K	0.7%	$1K in all four	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$225K	$85K to $600K	100%	$210K to $230K	—

1 rostered player has no figure: no recorded possessions or no matched player record.

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 South Dakota (NCAA Division I-FCS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$1,925,861	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$1,925,861
Athletics department expenses	$23,720,055
Athletics department revenue	$23,720,055

Team Totalsβ

Season per 40 minutes, 28 games, 2,037 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Per 40 uses 1140 game minutes, 5 per overtime period. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	76.5	80.9
Field goals made	25.2	30.5
Field goals attempted	57.4	61.4
3-pointers made	6.8	6.5
3-pointers attempted	20.8	18.6
Free throws made	19.3	13.5
Free throws attempted	26.0	18.3
Offensive rebounds	9.8	10.1
Defensive rebounds	22.8	25.2
Total rebounds	32.6	35.3
Assists	11.6	13.0
Blocks	2.6	3.5
Turnovers	11.8	11.3
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 171.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 435.
Minutes (derived)	200.0	not published

28 of 28 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	2,181	2,181	0	±10.9	0
Field goals made	Reconciled	719	719	0	±3.6	0
Field goals attempted	Reconciled	1,635	1,635	0	±8.2	0
3-pointers made	Reconciled	193	193	0	±2.0	0
3-pointers attempted	Reconciled	592	592	0	±3.0	0
Free throws made	Reconciled	550	550	0	±2.8	0
Free throws attempted	Reconciled	741	741	0	±3.7	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	Residual shown	928	848	+80	±74.2	0
Assists	Reconciled	331	331	0	±2.0	0
Blocks	Reconciled	75	75	0	±2.0	0
Turnovers	Residual shown	335	323	+12	±10.0	0
Steals	No team figure	not published	171	not published	not published	not published
Personal fouls	No team figure	not published	435	not published	not published	not published
Minutes (derived)	Reconciled	5,700	5,685	+15.5	±114.0	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
Jordan Crawford	79.3%	-1.2range -2.1 to -0.2Sufficient evidence
Uzziah Buntyn	74.1%	-0.1range -1.1 to +1.1Sufficient evidence
Cameron Fens	66.0%	+1.2range +0.4 to +2.1Sufficient evidence
Vince Buzelis	48.8%	-0.7range -1.7 to +0.4Sufficient evidence
Isaac Bruns	42.9%	-2.3range -3.5 to -0.9Sufficient evidence
Silas Bennion	38.3%	+1.4range +0.3 to +2.4Sufficient evidence
Ethan Kizer	34.9%	-0.5range -1.2 to +0.3Sufficient evidence
Evan Anderson	28.4%	-0.8range -1.7 to +0.2Sufficient evidence
Jake Brack	27.7%	-1.8range -2.7 to -0.9Sufficient evidence
Jesse Mcintosh	27.2%	-1.6range -2.7 to -0.1Sufficient evidence
Shey Eberwein	18.1%	-2.5range -3.4 to -1.7Sufficient evidence
Trent Hudgens Jr.	11.1%	+0.1range -0.5 to +0.7Limited evidence
Ashton Smith	1.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Caleb Kizer	1.5%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Porter Ihnen	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: +8.9range +8.1 to +9.7Sufficient evidence

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

12 valued players hold 99.3% of on-court time. 3 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 0.7%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 2.2%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value