Bellarmine

ASUN · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 266 · Raw net -6.5 · Tempo 66.2 · 30 Division I games · Through 2026-03-06

Record: 11–19; 11 wins
AdjNet: -7.8β; rank 277 of 365
AdjO: 114.4β; rank 69 of 365
AdjD: 122.3β; rank 365 of 365
AdjT: 66.0β
SOS: -3.0β; rank 263 of 363
NCSOS: 2.5β
WAB: -13.3β; rank 286 of 363
RR: -1.1β
Exp. W: 12.1β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	118.331	124.9365	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	59.43	59.4365	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	15.5105	15.0286	16.7
Offensive rebound %	22.4354	34.2320	30.6
FTA / FGA %	35.0178	34.3156	35.0
Shooting
3P%	38.118	40.4364	33.9
2P%	61.03	58.1352	51.7
FT%	78.87	73.3235	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	41.2	50.5	39.5
Assists / FGM %	53.4	61.9	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	5.9	9.3	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	32.2	42.6	31.4
2-pointers %	49.0	39.9	48.8
Free throws %	18.8	17.4	19.8

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

Rotation Depth

Effective Rotation Size: 8.5
Top Three Share of Minutes: 47%
Bench Share of Minutes: 29%
Players with Logged Minutes: 15

Bench: players outside the top five in minutes. Definitions

Schedule and Results

Schedule and results
Date	Opponent	Result	Poss.	Site	Record
11-03	Georgia	L 59–104	76.4	Away	0–1
11-08	Kansas St.	L 71–98	71.0	Away	0–2
11-15	Wofford	L 86–94	70.6	Home	0–3
11-19	Notre Dame	L 79–86	69.5	Away	0–4
11-24	The Citadel	W 70–58	60.1	Away	1–4
11-25	Houston Christian	W 74–69	61.0	Neutral	2–4
12-06	Murray St.	L 68–81	65.4	Away	2–5
12-13	Northern Ky.	L 76–80	70.1	Home	2–6
12-17	Chattanooga	W 79–64	67.8	Home	3–6
12-23	Kentucky	L 85–99	66.8	Away	3–7
01-01	West Ga.	L 85–87	68.6	Away	3–8
01-03	Queens (NC)	L 76–98	71.5	Away	3–9
01-08	Central Ark.	W 84–78 1OT	74.1	Home	4–9
01-10	North Ala.	L 73–82	60.3	Home	4–10
01-15	Lipscomb	L 71–81	66.6	Away	4–11
01-17	Eastern Ky.	L 69–89	63.4	Away	4–12
01-22	Jacksonville	W 77–70	62.4	Away	5–12
01-24	North Florida	L 114–117 1OT	79.2	Away	5–13
01-28	West Ga.	W 77–74	61.8	Home	6–13
01-31	Queens (NC)	W 78–75	63.6	Home	7–13
02-05	Stetson	W 92–71	61.5	Home	8–13
02-07	FGCU	W 81–65	67.3	Home	9–13
02-11	Central Ark.	L 76–84	65.6	Away	9–14
02-14	Austin Peay	L 70–90	60.5	Away	9–15
02-18	Lipscomb	L 72–75	64.0	Home	9–16
02-21	Eastern Ky.	L 92–95	63.7	Home	9–17
02-25	North Ala.	L 68–73	58.8	Away	9–18
02-28	Austin Peay	W 111–97	82.7	Home	10–18
03-04	Jacksonville	W 82–79	63.8	Neutral	11–18
03-06	Central Ark.	L 73–86	63.1	Neutral	11–19

Roster · 15 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
Kenyon Goodin	29	33:24	80.0%	338	82	57	24	4	22	84	42–70	60.0%	62–148	41.9%	68–78	87.2%	61.9%	67.0%	35.8%	5	30:57 −2:27	77.4%	9.2 −2.5
Brian Waddell	30	31:54	79.1%	451	130	65	20	14	49	63	149–220	67.7%	25–61	41.0%	78–98	79.6%	66.4%	69.6%	34.9%	5	33:32 +1:38	83.8%	17.0 +2.0
Jack Karasinski	30	30:08	74.7%	650	142	35	18	8	43	61	141–207	68.1%	71–171	41.5%	155–192	80.7%	65.5%	70.3%	50.8%	5	32:14 +2:06	80.6%	29.2 +7.5
Sam Donald	29	26:52	64.4%	189	96	60	22	8	23	56	35–54	64.8%	31–74	41.9%	26–34	76.5%	63.7%	66.1%	26.6%	5	28:47 +1:55	71.9%	7.8 +1.3
Tyler Doyle	25	28:00	57.9%	251	72	100	15	2	41	51	88–155	56.8%	14–42	33.3%†	33–44	75.0%	55.3%	58.0%	22.3%	5	31:54 +3:54	79.7%	13.4 +3.4
Michael Wilson Jr.	28	13:03	30.2%	138	41	17	16	1	21	32	40–74	54.1%	9–32	28.1%†	31–49	63.3%	50.5%	54.1%	46.2%	4	4:31 −8:31	9.0%	0.8 −4.2
Donovan Hunter	28	12:15	28.4%	107	49	20	12	4	16	45	16–40	40.0%	23–72	31.9%	6–10	60.0%†	45.1%	46.0%	8.9%	5	8:42 −3:34	21.7%	0.0 −3.8
Myles Watkins	28	10:27	24.2%	90	29	31	18	1	24	23	33–60	55.0%†	3–13	23.1%†	15–17	88.2%†	51.4%†	55.9%†	23.3%†	5	13:37 +3:09	34.0%	3.8 +0.6
Darrius Bolden	26	10:17	22.1%	28	21	40	16	0	14	29	4–18	22.2%†	3–11	27.3%†	11–16	68.8%†	29.3%†	38.8%†	55.2%†	2	0:34 −9:43	0.6%	0.0 −1.1
Jacob Wassler	20	12:07	20.0%	67	42	6	4	9	13	45	15–25	60.0%†	9–24	37.5%†	10–10	100.0%†	58.2%†	62.7%†	20.4%†	5	13:14 +1:07	33.1%	3.4 0.0
Grant Whitaker	25	6:49	14.1%	35	17	11	5	0	14	22	11–18	61.1%†	2–7	28.6%†	7–9	77.8%†	56.0%†	60.4%†	36.0%†	3	3:44 −3:05	5.6%	1.3 −0.1
Grant NealFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	9	2:25	1.8%	14	2	1	2	0	1	2	5–8	62.5%†	0–3	0.0%†	4–7	57.1%†	45.5%†	49.7%†	63.6%†	1	0:39 −1:46	0.3%	0.0 −1.6
Tommy ClarkUnder 100 minutes	12	1:38	1.6%	8	3	2	2	0	0	2	0–0	—	2–8	25.0%†	2–2	100.0%†	37.5%†	45.0%†	25.0%†	2	0:24 −1:14	0.4%	0.0 −0.7
Dominique Murphy JrFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	2	1:33	0.3%	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	1–2	50.0%†	0–0	—	0–0	—	50.0%†	50.0%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Luke AndersonFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	2	0:24	0.1%	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0–0	—	0–0	—	0–0	—	—	—	—	2	0:24 0:00	0.4%	0.0 0.0
Team, games with logs · season totals	30 games			2368	814	445	not published	51	310	not published	580–951	61.0%	254–666	38.1%	446–566	78.8%	59.4%	63.4%	35.0%
Sum of players				2368	728	445	174	51	281	515	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0	+86	0	not published	0	+29	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: $215K; 80% Range $75K to $595K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $200K to $245K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 15; 4 floor only

The widest scenario range, $88K to $675K, is wider than the 80% Range above (soft check S5). Methodology

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
Kenyon Goodin	78.5%	$29K	$6K to $94K	15.6%	$27K to $33K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Brian Waddell	78.4%	$15K	$1K to $63K	10.8%	$15K to $18K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jack Karasinski	75.4%	$46K	$13K to $150K	19.5%	$44K to $54K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Sam Donald	63.8%	$41K	$11K to $150K	17.0%	$39K to $47K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Tyler Doyle	57.4%	$18K	$2K to $67K	10.2%	$17K to $21K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Michael Wilson Jr.	31.6%	$5K	$1K to $22K	3.5%	$5K to $6K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Donovan Hunter	31.5%	$4K	$1K to $20K	2.4%	$4K in all four	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Darrius Bolden	22.9%	$6K	$1K to $22K	3.8%	$6K to $7K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Myles Watkins	22.8%	$3K	$1K to $14K	1.4%	$3K to $4K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jacob Wassler	18.9%	$6K	$1K to $20K	3.5%	$5K to $7K	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Grant Whitaker	14.4%	$3K	$1K to $9K	1.0%	$2K to $3K	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Grant Neal	2.0%	$1K	$0 to $4K	0.7%	$1K to $2K	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Tommy Clark	1.8%	$1K	$0 to $4K	0.7%	$1K to $2K	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Dominique Murphy Jr	0.4%	$1K	$0 to $4K	0.7%	$1K to $2K	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Luke Anderson	0.1%	$1K	$0 to $4K	0.7%	$1K to $2K	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$215K	$75K to $595K	100%	$200K to $245K	—

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, Bellarmine University (NCAA Division I without football)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$2,523,448	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$2,523,448
Athletics department expenses	$17,466,295
Athletics department revenue	$17,466,295

Team Totalsβ

Season totals, 30 games, 2,001 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	2,368	2,499
Field goals made	834	854
Field goals attempted	1,617	1,737
3-pointers made	254	355
3-pointers attempted	666	878
Free throws made	446	436
Free throws attempted	566	595
Offensive rebounds	188	326
Defensive rebounds	626	650
Total rebounds	814	976
Assists	445	529
Blocks	51	88
Turnovers	310	301
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 174.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 515.
Minutes (derived)	6,050	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	2,368	2,368	0	±11.8	0
Field goals made	Reconciled	834	834	0	±4.2	0
Field goals attempted	Reconciled	1,617	1,617	0	±8.1	0
3-pointers made	Reconciled	254	254	0	±2.0	0
3-pointers attempted	Reconciled	666	666	0	±3.3	0
Free throws made	Reconciled	446	446	0	±2.2	0
Free throws attempted	Reconciled	566	566	0	±2.8	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	814	728	+86	±65.1	0
Assists	Reconciled	445	445	0	±2.2	0
Blocks	Reconciled	51	51	0	±2.0	0
Turnovers	Residual shown	310	281	+29	±9.3	0
Steals	No team figure	not published	174	not published	not published	not published
Personal fouls	No team figure	not published	515	not published	not published	not published
Minutes (derived)	Reconciled	6,050	6,035	+14.9	±121.0	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
Kenyon Goodin	78.5%	+0.1range -0.9 to +1.1Sufficient evidence
Brian Waddell	78.4%	-0.8range -1.8 to +0.1Sufficient evidence
Jack Karasinski	75.4%	+1.0range -0.1 to +2.3Sufficient evidence
Sam Donald	63.8%	+1.1range -0.3 to +2.5Sufficient evidence
Tyler Doyle	57.4%	-0.3range -1.3 to +0.8Sufficient evidence
Michael Wilson Jr.	31.6%	-1.4range -2.4 to -0.5Sufficient evidence
Donovan Hunter	31.5%	-2.0range -3.0 to -1.0Sufficient evidence
Darrius Bolden	22.9%	-0.8range -2.4 to +0.5Sufficient evidence
Myles Watkins	22.8%	-2.4range -3.4 to -1.3Sufficient evidence
Jacob Wassler	18.9%	-0.6range -1.5 to +0.4Limited evidence
Grant Whitaker	14.4%	-2.6range -3.8 to -1.5Limited evidence
Grant Neal	2.0%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Tommy Clark	1.8%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Dominique Murphy Jr	0.4%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Luke Anderson	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: +9.1range +8.2 to +10.0Sufficient evidence

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

11 valued players hold 99.1% of on-court time. 4 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 0.9%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 6.7%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value