Miami (OH)

MAC · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 26 · Raw net 13.6 · Tempo 71.0 · 31 Division I games · Through 2026-03-20

Record: 29–2; 29 wins
AdjNet: 9.5β; rank 70 of 365
AdjO: 116.5β; rank 52 of 365
AdjD: 107.0β; rank 145 of 365
AdjT: 70.3β
SOS: -2.5β; rank 246 of 363
NCSOS: -7.4β
WAB: 4.0β; rank 24 of 363
RR: 5.5β
Exp. W: 23.5β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	119.618	106.1107	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	58.66	51.2166	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	14.334	17.4125	16.7
Offensive rebound %	25.5331	28.792	30.6
FTA / FGA %	39.664	30.266	35.0
Shooting
3P%	37.125	33.1131	33.9
2P%	61.02	52.0195	51.7
FT%	74.989	74.0267	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	45.6	36.5	39.5
Assists / FGM %	51.4	47.2	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	8.0	7.7	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	34.6	29.1	31.4
2-pointers %	45.3	53.0	48.8
Free throws %	20.2	17.9	19.8

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

Rotation Depth

Effective Rotation Size: 8.3
Top Three Share of Minutes: 46%
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	Old Dominion	W 87–72	74.7	Home	1–0
11-15	Air Force	W 76–61	66.9	Away	2–0
11-20	Mercyhurst	W 76–71	65.4	Home	3–0
11-23	Ark.-Pine Bluff	W 111–84	81.5	Home	4–0
11-26	UNC Greensboro	W 82–71	72.7	Neutral	5–0
12-06	Maine	W 93–61	71.2	Home	6–0
12-10	UNC Asheville	W 90–87 1OT	77.9	Away	7–0
12-13	Eastern Ky.	W 79–69	67.4	Away	8–0
12-16	Wright St.	W 83–76	72.3	Away	9–0
12-20	Ball St.	W 86–77	70.0	Away	10–0
12-30	Bowling Green	W 93–83	75.7	Away	11–0
01-03	Akron	W 76–73	71.5	Home	12–0
01-06	Western Mich.	W 87–76	73.8	Home	13–0
01-09	Toledo	W 87–73	69.7	Away	14–0
01-13	Central Mich.	W 100–61	70.0	Home	15–0
01-17	Buffalo	W 105–102 1OT	83.6	Home	16–0
01-20	Kent St.	W 107–101 1OT	82.4	Away	17–0
01-27	Massachusetts	W 86–84	67.1	Home	18–0
01-31	NIU	W 85–61	73.3	Home	19–0
02-03	Buffalo	W 73–71	68.2	Away	20–0
02-07	Marshall	W 90–74	70.5	Away	21–0
02-13	Ohio	W 90–74	71.9	Home	22–0
02-17	Massachusetts	W 86–77	70.6	Away	23–0
02-20	Bowling Green	W 91–77	74.0	Home	24–0
02-24	Eastern Mich.	W 74–64	71.5	Away	25–0
02-27	Western Mich.	W 69–67	68.2	Away	26–0
03-03	Toledo	W 74–72	68.8	Home	27–0
03-06	Ohio	W 110–108 1OT	83.2	Away	28–0
03-12	Massachusetts	L 83–87	69.0	Neutral	28–1
03-18	SMU	W 89–79	66.3	—	29–1
03-20	Tennessee	L 56–78	65.7	—	29–2

Roster · 15 players

Player logs in 31 of 31 team games

Team roster, per game
Column groups	Minutes			Per Game							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
Brant Byers	31	31:46	78.2%	14.3	4.1	0.6	0.6	0.4	1.0	2.0	66–114	57.9%	63–164	38.4%	123–156	78.8%	57.7%	64.0%	56.1%	5	35:45 +3:59	87.2%	14.6 +0.3
Eian Elmer	31	31:14	76.8%	12.8	6.1	1.1	1.2	0.7	1.3	2.4	61–105	58.1%	69–161	42.9%	68–91	74.7%	61.8%	64.9%	34.2%	5	31:55 +0:42	77.9%	16.6 +3.8
Peter Suder	30	32:07	76.5%	15.1	4.7	4.0	1.3	0.4	1.9	3.0	131–220	59.5%	34–87	39.1%	88–119	73.9%	59.3%	62.9%	38.8%	5	34:39 +2:33	84.5%	15.2 +0.1
Luke Skaljac	29	28:26	65.4%	10.5	2.8	4.6	1.4	0.2	1.8	1.6	76–135	56.3%	35–107	32.7%	48–62	77.4%	53.1%	56.6%	25.6%	5	27:00 −1:25	65.9%	9.8 −0.7
Antwone Woolfolk	31	23:31	57.8%	10.0	5.5	1.5	1.3	0.7	1.6	2.3	115–166	69.3%	11–35	31.4%†	46–83	55.4%	65.4%	65.0%	41.3%	5	23:50 +0:20	58.1%	8.6 −1.4
Almar Atlason	31	19:07	47.0%	9.5	2.4	0.9	0.2	0.3	0.7	2.3	43–67	64.2%	51–147	34.7%	55–70	78.6%	55.8%	60.0%	32.7%	5	18:47 −0:20	45.8%	5.0 −4.5
Trey Perry	29	12:38	29.1%	4.7	1.5	1.0	0.3	0.0	0.6	1.1	35–64	54.7%†	12–35	34.3%†	31–40	77.5%	53.5%†	58.7%†	40.4%†	5	15:24 +2:46	37.6%	6.8 +2.1
Justin Kirby	21	17:00	28.3%	6.2	3.2	0.6	0.4	0.1	0.5	1.3	25–38	65.8%†	17–42	40.5%†	30–37	81.1%	63.1%†	68.0%†	46.3%†	5	16:46 −0:14	40.9%	5.8 −0.4
Evan Ipsaro	10	29:41	23.6%	14.4	2.4	3.6	1.1	0.0	1.3	1.5	35–54	64.8%†	12–31	38.7%†	38–46	82.6%	62.4%†	68.4%†	54.1%†	—	—	—	—
Tyler Robbins	24	4:20	8.3%	1.6	1.0	0.1	0.0	0.5	0.3	0.8	13–21	61.9%†	2–10	20.0%†	7–10	70.0%†	51.6%†	55.1%†	32.3%†	1	1:15 −3:05	0.6%	0.0 −1.6
Kyle WaltzUnder 100 minutes	18	4:40	6.7%	0.9	0.8	0.4	0.2	0.1	0.2	0.3	4–6	66.7%†	2–10	20.0%†	2–3	66.7%†	43.8%†	46.2%†	18.8%†	—	—	—	—
Brady GanleyFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	3	1:09	0.3%	0.7	0.0	0.3	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0–0	—	0–0	—	2–2	100.0%†	—	113.6%†	—	—	—	—	—
Jackson KoteckiFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	3	1:03	0.3%	0.7	0.7	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0–0	—	0–0	—	2–2	100.0%†	—	113.6%†	—	—	—	—	—
Eli YofanFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	1	2:44	0.2%	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	0–0	—	0–1	0.0%†	0–0	—	0.0%†	0.0%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Ethan WrightFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	2	0:46	0.1%	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1–1	100.0%†	0–0	—	0–0	—	100.0%†	100.0%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Team, games with logs · per game	31 games			86.3	34.0	15.1	not published	3.1	10.3	not published	605–991	61.0%	308–830	37.1%	540–721	74.9%	58.6%	62.5%	39.6%
Sum of players				86.3	30.8	15.1	7.0	3.1	9.8	16.5	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0.0	+3.2	0.0	not published	0.0	+0.5	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: $295K; 80% Range $110K to $805K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $260K to $325K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 15; 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
Brant Byers	78.6%	$35K	$10K to $110K	13.3%	$30K to $38K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Peter Suder	76.8%	$51K	$18K to $140K	16.6%	$44K to $55K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Eian Elmer	76.7%	$44K	$15K to $125K	15.2%	$38K to $47K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Luke Skaljac	66.2%	$43K	$14K to $125K	14.2%	$37K to $46K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Antwone Woolfolk	58.3%	$51K	$18K to $150K	16.0%	$44K to $55K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Almar Atlason	47.0%	$14K	$3K to $47K	5.7%	$12K to $15K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Trey Perry	29.5%	$7K	$1K to $26K	2.8%	$6K to $7K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Justin Kirby	28.3%	$12K	$3K to $38K	4.6%	$10K to $13K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Evan Ipsaro	22.5%	$14K	$5K to $40K	4.9%	$13K to $16K	$2K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Tyler Robbins	8.3%	$4K	$1K to $13K	1.6%	$4K to $5K	$2K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Kyle Waltz	6.8%	$2K	$1K to $6K	0.7%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Brady Ganley	0.3%	$2K	$1K to $6K	0.7%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Jackson Kotecki	0.3%	$2K	$1K to $6K	0.7%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Eli Yofan	0.3%	$2K	$1K to $6K	0.7%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Ethan Wright	0.1%	$2K	$1K to $6K	0.7%	$2K in all four	$2K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$295K	$110K to $805K	100%	$260K to $325K	—

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, Miami University-Oxford (NCAA Division I-FBS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$2,901,957	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$2,901,957
Athletics department expenses	$40,792,930
Athletics department revenue	$41,169,189

Team Totalsβ

Season per game, 31 games, 2,235 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	86.3	76.5
Field goals made	29.5	27.7
Field goals attempted	58.7	61.4
3-pointers made	9.9	7.4
3-pointers attempted	26.8	22.4
Free throws made	17.4	13.7
Free throws attempted	23.3	18.5
Offensive rebounds	8.2	10.4
Defensive rebounds	25.8	24.0
Total rebounds	34.0	34.4
Assists	15.1	13.1
Blocks	3.1	2.5
Turnovers	10.3	12.5
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 217.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 512.
Minutes (derived)	203.2	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	2,674	2,674	0	±13.4	0
Field goals made	Reconciled	913	913	0	±4.6	0
Field goals attempted	Reconciled	1,821	1,821	0	±9.1	0
3-pointers made	Reconciled	308	308	0	±2.0	0
3-pointers attempted	Reconciled	830	830	0	±4.2	0
Free throws made	Reconciled	540	540	0	±2.7	0
Free throws attempted	Reconciled	721	721	0	±3.6	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	1,055	956	+99	±84.4	0
Assists	Reconciled	469	469	0	±2.3	0
Blocks	Reconciled	96	96	0	±2.0	0
Turnovers	Residual shown	320	304	+16	±9.6	0
Steals	No team figure	not published	217	not published	not published	not published
Personal fouls	No team figure	not published	512	not published	not published	not published
Minutes (derived)	Reconciled	6,300	6,281	+18.9	±126.0	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
Brant Byers	78.6%	+1.7range +0.8 to +2.9Sufficient evidence
Peter Suder	76.8%	+3.2range +1.8 to +4.3Sufficient evidence
Eian Elmer	76.7%	+2.7range +1.7 to +3.6Sufficient evidence
Luke Skaljac	66.2%	+3.1range +1.8 to +4.3Sufficient evidence
Antwone Woolfolk	58.3%	+4.3range +3.0 to +5.4Sufficient evidence
Almar Atlason	47.0%	+0.5range -0.7 to +1.8Sufficient evidence
Trey Perry	29.5%	-0.4range -1.7 to +0.8Sufficient evidence
Justin Kirby	28.3%	+1.2range -0.2 to +2.7Sufficient evidence
Evan Ipsaro	22.5%	+2.6range +1.9 to +3.4Sufficient evidence
Tyler Robbins	8.3%	+0.8range -0.0 to +1.6Limited evidence
Kyle Waltz	6.8%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Brady Ganley	0.3%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Jackson Kotecki	0.3%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Eli Yofan	0.3%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Ethan Wright	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: +11.7range +10.8 to +12.5Sufficient 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. 5 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 1.6%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 1.7%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value