Central Ark.

ASUN · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 99 · Raw net 4.7 · Tempo 68.9 · 32 Division I games · Through 2026-03-08

Record: 20–12; 20 wins
AdjNet: 1.8β; rank 144 of 365
AdjO: 109.1β; rank 156 of 365
AdjD: 107.3β; rank 152 of 365
AdjT: 68.7β
SOS: -3.0β; rank 266 of 363
NCSOS: 5.4β
WAB: -5.5β; rank 118 of 363
RR: -0.0β
Exp. W: 20.0β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	112.984	108.2171	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	54.068	54.9329	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	15.494	19.047	16.7
Offensive rebound %	28.8240	27.449	30.6
FTA / FGA %	31.2278	30.162	35.0
Shooting
3P%	35.588	35.2261	33.9
2P%	54.763	57.3348	51.7
FT%	70.7245	73.3237	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	48.7	52.3	39.5
Assists / FGM %	57.9	62.4	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	6.8	10.7	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	39.9	41.8	31.4
2-pointers %	43.2	41.5	48.8
Free throws %	16.9	16.7	19.8

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

Rotation Depth

Effective Rotation Size: 8.9
Top Three Share of Minutes: 44%
Bench Share of Minutes: 35%
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	North Carolina	L 54–94	75.4	Away	0–1
11-11	Arkansas	L 56–93	74.2	Away	0–2
11-16	Samford	L 77–84 1OT	75.2	Home	0–3
11-20	North Texas	L 56–74	68.7	Away	0–4
11-23	Eastern Wash.	W 92–65	71.9	Home	1–4
11-25	Eastern Ill.	W 81–60	63.4	Home	2–4
11-29	ETSU	L 57–80	71.7	Away	2–5
12-03	Little Rock	W 85–47	71.5	Home	3–5
12-07	East Texas A&M	L 68–75	74.5	Away	3–6
12-13	Vanderbilt	L 72–83	75.1	Away	3–7
12-21	SMU	L 82–99	70.4	Away	3–8
01-01	FGCU	W 85–83	64.1	Home	4–8
01-03	Stetson	W 93–73	67.9	Home	5–8
01-08	Bellarmine	L 78–84 1OT	74.1	Away	5–9
01-10	Eastern Ky.	L 75–79 1OT	70.7	Away	5–10
01-15	Jacksonville	W 62–60	59.0	Home	6–10
01-17	North Florida	W 98–69	70.5	Home	7–10
01-22	West Ga.	W 86–65	67.4	Away	8–10
01-28	Queens (NC)	W 100–90	74.1	Away	9–10
01-31	Eastern Ky.	W 90–81	75.8	Home	10–10
02-04	North Ala.	W 81–60	66.4	Home	11–10
02-07	Lipscomb	W 86–78	72.7	Away	12–10
02-09	North Ala.	W 72–65	67.4	Away	13–10
02-11	Bellarmine	W 84–76	65.6	Home	14–10
02-14	West Ga.	W 79–62	68.9	Home	15–10
02-19	Stetson	W 88–76	66.2	Away	16–10
02-21	FGCU	L 71–75 1OT	71.9	Away	16–11
02-25	Austin Peay	W 93–88	67.8	Away	17–11
02-28	Queens (NC)	W 84–79	70.9	Home	18–11
03-06	Bellarmine	W 86–73	63.1	Neutral	19–11
03-07	FGCU	W 73–63	70.0	Neutral	20–11
03-08	Queens (NC)	L 93–98 1OT	80.2	Neutral	20–12

Roster · 15 players

Player logs in 32 of 32 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
Camren Hunter	32	31:39	77.6%	682	138	88	43	8	59	49	172–292	58.9%	73–193	37.8%	119–150	79.3%	58.0%	61.9%	30.9%	5	33:12 +1:33	81.0%	30.6 +9.3
Luke Moore	32	29:58	73.5%	308	91	112	48	3	47	30	67–149	45.0%	41–124	33.1%	51–88	58.0%	47.1%	49.4%	32.2%	5	27:33 −2:24	67.2%	5.6 −4.0
Ty Robinson	32	28:04	68.8%	454	178	64	60	8	36	79	89–150	59.3%	70–188	37.2%	66–86	76.7%	57.4%	60.4%	25.4%	5	29:26 +1:22	71.8%	15.2 +1.0
Javion Guy-King	30	23:17	53.5%	299	129	52	34	4	39	80	58–111	52.3%	44–128	34.4%	51–74	68.9%	51.9%	55.1%	31.0%	5	28:34 +5:17	69.7%	14.8 +4.8
Cole McCormick	30	22:28	51.7%	272	103	38	30	7	30	85	62–99	62.6%	30–93	32.3%	58–78	74.4%	55.7%	60.1%	40.6%	3	23:48 +1:20	34.8%	8.0 −1.1
Malchiah Marable	31	20:58	49.8%	115	137	45	25	24	41	87	43–82	52.4%†	0–1	0.0%†	29–58	50.0%	51.8%†	53.0%†	69.9%†	5	21:30 +0:32	52.5%	3.0 −0.7
Truman Byrne	32	16:15	39.8%	120	86	60	4	3	34	47	13–23	56.5%	26–77	33.8%	16–18	88.9%†	52.0%	55.6%	18.0%	5	15:04 −1:11	36.7%	2.2 −1.5
Harrison Beauchamp	32	15:20	37.6%	138	42	32	7	1	23	27	15–31	48.4%	32–74	43.2%	12–14	85.7%†	60.0%	62.1%	13.3%	5	19:52 +4:32	48.4%	6.8 +2.5
Tyler Lee	32	8:52	21.7%	73	37	14	11	2	11	18	11–25	44.0%†	13–31	41.9%†	12–19	63.2%†	54.5%†	56.7%†	33.9%†	5	10:23 +1:31	25.3%	2.0 −0.3
Parker Applegate	27	6:14	12.9%	51	31	3	6	0	11	25	13–22	59.1%†	5–22	22.7%†	10–13	76.9%†	46.6%†	51.3%†	29.5%†	3	7:41 +1:27	11.2%	1.3 −0.6
Rashad BoldenFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	2	25:47	4.0%	15	8	1	3	0	0	3	3–11	27.3%†	2–11	18.2%†	3–5	60.0%†	27.3%†	31.0%†	22.7%†	—	—	—	—
Chris MasonFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	3	8:18	1.9%	4	3	1	0	0	2	1	2–5	40.0%†	0–3	0.0%†	0–0	—	25.0%†	25.0%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Ethan ThomasFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	7	3:17	1.8%	3	1	2	1	0	1	2	0–1	0.0%†	0–0	—	3–5	60.0%†	0.0%†	46.9%†	500.0%†	—	—	—	—
Owen DerhmannFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	9	2:32	1.8%	3	2	1	0	0	0	2	0–0	—	1–2	50.0%†	0–0	—	75.0%†	75.0%†	0.0%†	1	0:39 −1:53	0.3%	0.0 −0.3
John ShulmanUnder 100 minutes	10	1:58	1.5%	0	4	0	0	0	0	1	0–0	—	0–3	0.0%†	0–0	—	0.0%†	0.0%†	0.0%†	1	0:39 −1:19	0.3%	0.0 0.0
Team, games with logs · season totals	32 games			2537	1108	512	not published	60	346	not published	548–1001	54.7%	337–950	35.5%	430–608	70.7%	54.0%	57.2%	31.2%
Sum of players				2537	990	513	272	60	334	536	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0	+118	−1	not published	0	+12	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: $0 (assumed opted out); 80% Range $0 to $0 (assumed)
Tier: Low and other; low evidence

Assumed from one unverified press article that names schools that did not opt in. Methodology

No player figures. The Team Pool is $0.

What-If Calculator · Speculativeβ

Re-runs the 4,000 joint draws with your inputs. The address saves your inputs.

No modelled Team Pool (opted out). Enter a pool of your own.

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 Central Arkansas (NCAA Division I-FCS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$1,580,339	Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses	$1,580,339
Athletics department expenses	$17,748,955
Athletics department revenue	$17,748,955

Team Totalsβ

Season totals, 32 games, 2,247 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	2,537	2,431
Field goals made	885	843
Field goals attempted	1,951	1,843
3-pointers made	337	339
3-pointers attempted	950	963
Free throws made	430	406
Free throws attempted	608	554
Offensive rebounds	333	293
Defensive rebounds	775	825
Total rebounds	1,108	1,118
Assists	512	526
Blocks	60	107
Turnovers	346	428
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 272.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 536.
Minutes (derived)	6,525	not published

32 of 32 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	2,537	2,537	0	±12.7	0
Field goals made	Reconciled	885	885	0	±4.4	0
Field goals attempted	Reconciled	1,951	1,951	0	±9.8	0
3-pointers made	Reconciled	337	337	0	±2.0	0
3-pointers attempted	Reconciled	950	950	0	±4.8	0
Free throws made	Reconciled	430	430	0	±2.1	0
Free throws attempted	Reconciled	608	608	0	±3.0	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	1,108	990	+118	±88.6	0
Assists	Reconciled	512	513	−1	±2.6	0
Blocks	Reconciled	60	60	0	±2.0	0
Turnovers	Residual shown	346	334	+12	±10.4	0
Steals	No team figure	not published	272	not published	not published	not published
Personal fouls	No team figure	not published	536	not published	not published	not published
Minutes (derived)	Reconciled	6,525	6,497	+28.1	±130.5	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
Camren Hunter	77.7%	+1.7range +0.6 to +2.8Sufficient evidence
Luke Moore	74.3%	+2.6range +1.4 to +3.9Sufficient evidence
Ty Robinson	69.4%	+2.8range +1.6 to +4.3Sufficient evidence
Cole McCormick	52.0%	+0.3range -0.9 to +1.7Sufficient evidence
Javion Guy-King	51.5%	+1.6range +0.7 to +2.6Sufficient evidence
Malchiah Marable	50.1%	+0.4range -0.7 to +1.7Sufficient evidence
Truman Byrne	39.2%	+1.2range +0.4 to +2.0Sufficient evidence
Harrison Beauchamp	36.1%	-0.2range -2.0 to +1.4Sufficient evidence
Tyler Lee	22.5%	+0.5range -0.8 to +1.6Sufficient evidence
Parker Applegate	13.5%	-0.4range -1.3 to +0.4Limited evidence
Rashad Bolden	5.2%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Chris Mason	2.4%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Ethan Thomas	2.2%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Owen Derhmann	2.1%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
John Shulman	1.9%	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: +10.6range +9.6 to +11.5Sufficient evidence

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

10 valued players hold 97.3% of on-court time. 5 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 2.7%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 2.7%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value