Utah Valley

WAC · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 54 · Raw net 9.8 · Tempo 69.4 · 31 Division I games · Through 2026-03-18

Record: 22–9; 22 wins
AdjNet: 7.9β; rank 80 of 365
AdjO: 111.4β; rank 108 of 365
AdjD: 103.5β; rank 65 of 365
AdjT: 69.3β
SOS: -0.7β; rank 186 of 363
NCSOS: 2.5β
WAB: -2.7β; rank 78 of 363
RR: 0.0β
Exp. W: 22.0β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	110.6123	100.832	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	54.937	49.479	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	20.1350	21.36	16.7
Offensive rebound %	34.850	31.4221	30.6
FTA / FGA %	38.297	39.2292	35.0
Shooting
3P%	34.0171	35.2259	33.9
2P%	56.930	47.738	51.7
FT%	68.6308	73.0224	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	32.9	33.3	39.5
Assists / FGM %	62.0	52.7	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	13.7	8.1	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	24.7	27.6	31.4
2-pointers %	56.1	49.9	48.8
Free throws %	19.3	22.5	19.8

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

Rotation Depth

Effective Rotation Size: 8.8
Top Three Share of Minutes: 45%
Bench Share of Minutes: 35%
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
11-08	Boise St.	L 77–101	74.8	Away	0–1
11-15	Fresno St.	L 74–75	70.9	Away	0–2
11-19	UC Irvine	W 79–72	70.4	Home	1–2
11-25	South Dakota St.	W 75–52	69.9	Neutral	2–2
11-26	Samford	W 89–45	73.4	Neutral	3–2
12-03	San Diego St.	L 66–77	70.2	Away	3–3
12-06	Bowling Green	W 82–71	71.8	Away	4–3
12-10	Idaho St.	W 73–69	68.6	Home	5–3
12-13	UC Santa Barbara	W 68–53	67.6	Neutral	6–3
12-17	Weber St.	W 90–74	65.5	Home	7–3
12-29	California Baptist	W 73–66	70.5	Home	8–3
01-01	Tarleton St.	W 91–85	76.2	Away	9–3
01-03	Abilene Christian	L 68–85	69.4	Away	9–4
01-08	Southern Utah	W 89–72	72.8	Home	10–4
01-10	Utah Tech	W 92–76	76.7	Home	11–4
01-17	UT Arlington	W 86–74	69.3	Home	12–4
01-21	Southern Utah	L 70–84	70.8	Away	12–5
01-24	California Baptist	L 71–78 1OT	76.0	Away	12–6
01-29	Tarleton St.	W 83–55	72.2	Away	13–6
02-05	Abilene Christian	W 68–55	68.5	Home	14–6
02-07	UT Arlington	W 81–60	58.9	Home	15–6
02-12	Utah Tech	L 77–81	67.6	Away	15–7
02-19	California Baptist	W 65–46	65.4	Home	16–7
02-21	UT Arlington	W 66–54	66.6	Away	17–7
02-26	Tarleton St.	W 79–72	69.4	Home	18–7
02-28	Abilene Christian	W 74–67	69.3	Home	19–7
03-05	Southern Utah	W 92–88	71.3	Away	20–7
03-07	Utah Tech	W 104–101 2OT	85.2	Away	21–7
03-13	UT Arlington	W 67–65	62.4	Neutral	22–7
03-14	California Baptist	L 61–63	66.3	—	22–8
03-18	George Washington	L 78–79	69.0	—	22–9

Roster · 13 players

Player logs in 31 of 31 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
Trevan Leonhardt	31	35:13	87.0%	13.7	6.2	6.5	2.5	0.7	3.3	1.5	100–168	59.5%	37–103	35.9%	62–82	75.6%	57.4%	60.7%	30.3%	5	40:22 +5:09	96.1%	12.0 0.0
Jackson Holcombe	31	30:24	75.1%	20.9	8.6	4.8	3.0	1.5	3.4	4.3	175–314	55.7%	5–33	15.2%†	127–189	67.2%	52.6%	57.2%	54.5%	5	34:03 +3:39	81.1%	19.2 +3.3
Tyler Hendricks	25	30:40	61.1%	14.5	5.4	2.5	1.6	0.9	1.8	2.7	50–96	52.1%	50–118	42.4%	28–36	77.8%	58.4%	60.5%	16.8%	—	—	—	—
Braden Housley	26	26:07	54.1%	7.5	4.2	4.1	1.8	0.1	2.8	4.1	27–60	45.0%	14–46	30.4%†	32–58	55.2%	45.3%	48.7%	54.7%	5	26:18 +0:11	62.6%	4.4 −0.5
Isaac Davis	31	19:26	48.0%	22.1	8.0	2.5	1.9	0.6	3.9	6.8	125–198	63.1%	5–17	29.4%†	68–102	66.7%	61.6%	64.1%	47.4%	5	22:46 +3:20	54.2%	11.4 +0.7
Noah Taitz	27	19:46	42.5%	9.7	3.5	2.3	1.0	0.2	1.7	2.2	15–39	38.5%	26–76	34.2%	22–32	68.8%	47.0%	50.4%	27.8%	5	13:27 −6:19	32.0%	1.4 −3.4
Hayden Welling	31	16:30	40.8%	18.4	6.6	2.1	0.9	1.5	2.7	4.3	72–139	51.8%	14–59	23.7%	49–71	69.0%	47.0%	51.3%	35.9%	5	10:57 −5:33	26.1%	5.8 −1.8
Sherman Weatherspoon IV	29	16:23	37.9%	12.0	4.5	1.1	1.5	0.2	1.7	3.0	14–27	51.9%	33–91	36.3%	16–22	72.7%†	53.8%	56.0%	18.6%	5	31:40 +15:17	75.4%	12.6 +7.7
Isaac Hawkins	31	13:50	34.2%	20.3	9.6	1.6	1.2	4.1	2.0	6.1	81–119	68.1%	3–10	30.0%†	47–63	74.6%	66.3%	69.6%	48.8%	5	13:52 +0:02	33.0%	6.2 −0.8
Tyler Weaver	18	7:13	10.4%	13.5	5.5	1.5	1.8	0.6	2.2	4.9	5–12	41.7%†	9–24	37.5%†	7–9	77.8%†	51.4%†	55.1%†	25.0%†	5	13:01 +5:48	31.0%	6.8 +4.4
Tyler MedarisUnder 100 minutes	13	4:16	4.4%	13.0	15.9	2.9	0.0	1.4	1.4	5.8	6–10	60.0%†	0–1	0.0%†	6–12	50.0%†	54.5%†	55.3%†	109.1%†	3	5:51 +1:34	8.3%	1.0 −0.4
Joul KarramFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	6	3:20	1.6%	16.0	14.0	2.0	0.0	4.0	2.0	8.0	4–4	100.0%†	0–0	—	0–0	—	100.0%†	100.0%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
AJ RiggsFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	8	2:09	1.4%	18.6	2.3	2.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1–1	100.0%†	2–4	50.0%†	0–0	—	80.0%†	80.0%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Team, games with logs · per 40 team minutes	31 games			76.7	34.4	17.2	not published	5.0	14.0	not published	675–1187	56.9%	198–582	34.0%	464–676	68.6%	54.9%	58.3%	38.2%
Sum of players				76.7	31.9	17.3	9.2	5.0	13.3	18.5	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0.0	+2.5	−0.0	not published	0.0	+0.6	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 $81K to $605K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $215K to $235K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 13; 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
Trevan Leonhardt	86.6%	$49K	$17K to $140K	21.1%	$48K to $52K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jackson Holcombe	76.0%	$53K	$18K to $150K	22.4%	$51K to $56K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Tyler Hendricks	62.8%	$27K	$9K to $78K	12.5%	$26K to $29K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Braden Housley	55.7%	$11K	$2K to $38K	6.5%	$11K to $12K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Isaac Davis	47.4%	$22K	$7K to $62K	9.9%	$21K to $23K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Noah Taitz	42.1%	$13K	$3K to $39K	6.8%	$12K to $13K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Hayden Welling	40.9%	$5K	$1K to $21K	2.4%	$4K to $5K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Sherman Weatherspoon IV	36.3%	$7K	$1K to $25K	3.9%	$7K in all four	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Isaac Hawkins	34.4%	$17K	$5K to $47K	7.6%	$16K to $18K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Tyler Weaver	10.2%	$3K	$1K to $10K	1.6%	$3K in all four	$2K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Tyler Medaris	4.5%	$2K	$1K to $5K	0.8%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Joul Karram	1.6%	$2K	$1K to $5K	0.8%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
AJ Riggs	1.5%	$2K	$1K to $5K	0.8%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$225K	$81K to $605K	100%	$215K to $235K	—

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, Utah Valley University (NCAA Division I without football)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$2,332,401	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$2,332,401
Athletics department expenses	$19,556,182
Athletics department revenue	$19,556,182

Team Totalsβ

Season per 40 minutes, 31 games, 2,177 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Per 40 uses 1255 game minutes, 5 per overtime period. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	76.7	70.0
Field goals made	27.8	23.9
Field goals attempted	56.4	54.9
3-pointers made	6.3	6.4
3-pointers attempted	18.5	18.3
Free throws made	14.8	15.7
Free throws attempted	21.5	21.5
Offensive rebounds	11.2	10.6
Defensive rebounds	23.2	20.9
Total rebounds	34.4	31.5
Assists	17.2	12.6
Blocks	5.0	3.1
Turnovers	14.0	14.8
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 289.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 580.
Minutes (derived)	200.0	not published

31 of 31 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	2,408	2,408	0	±12.0	0
Field goals made	Reconciled	873	873	0	±4.4	0
Field goals attempted	Reconciled	1,769	1,769	0	±8.8	0
3-pointers made	Reconciled	198	198	0	±2.0	0
3-pointers attempted	Reconciled	582	582	0	±2.9	0
Free throws made	Reconciled	464	464	0	±2.3	0
Free throws attempted	Reconciled	676	676	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	Reconciled	1,078	1,000	+78	±86.2	0
Assists	Reconciled	541	542	−1	±2.7	0
Blocks	Reconciled	157	157	0	±2.0	0
Turnovers	Residual shown	438	418	+20	±13.1	0
Steals	No team figure	not published	289	not published	not published	not published
Personal fouls	No team figure	not published	580	not published	not published	not published
Minutes (derived)	Reconciled	6,275	6,254	+20.7	±125.5	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
Trevan Leonhardt	86.6%	+3.5range +2.2 to +4.5Sufficient evidence
Jackson Holcombe	76.0%	+4.2range +3.1 to +5.4Sufficient evidence
Tyler Hendricks	62.8%	+2.4range +1.2 to +3.7Sufficient evidence
Braden Housley	55.7%	+0.3range -0.9 to +1.5Sufficient evidence
Isaac Davis	47.4%	+2.5range +1.4 to +3.7Sufficient evidence
Noah Taitz	42.1%	+1.2range -0.1 to +2.3Sufficient evidence
Hayden Welling	40.9%	-1.6range -2.8 to -0.4Sufficient evidence
Sherman Weatherspoon IV	36.3%	-0.1range -1.2 to +0.9Sufficient evidence
Isaac Hawkins	34.4%	+2.6range +1.2 to +3.6Sufficient evidence
Tyler Weaver	10.2%	-0.4range -1.3 to +0.6Limited evidence
Tyler Medaris	4.5%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Joul Karram	1.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
AJ Riggs	1.5%	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: +11.3range +10.4 to +12.2Sufficient evidence

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

10 valued players hold 98.5% of on-court time. 3 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 1.5%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 2.0%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value