Tulane

AAC · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 255 · Raw net -5.3 · Tempo 67.9 · 32 Division I games · Through 2026-03-12

Record: 17–15; 17 wins
AdjNet: -4.4β; rank 236 of 365
AdjO: 106.4β; rank 216 of 365
AdjD: 110.8β; rank 239 of 365
AdjT: 67.9β
SOS: 0.0β; rank 163 of 363
NCSOS: -3.5β
WAB: -7.8β; rank 174 of 363
RR: 4.4β
Exp. W: 12.6β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	105.2245	110.5230	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	49.4275	50.7141	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	15.498	17.1140	16.7
Offensive rebound %	22.8352	35.8351	30.6
FTA / FGA %	43.514	38.1263	35.0
Shooting
3P%	32.0279	34.5217	33.9
2P%	50.5234	50.096	51.7
FT%	76.740	71.099	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	45.0	40.5	39.5
Assists / FGM %	54.6	55.9	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	12.9	11.1	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	32.7	32.6	31.4
2-pointers %	42.1	46.3	48.8
Free throws %	25.2	21.1	19.8

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

Rotation Depth

Effective Rotation Size: 7.8
Top Three Share of Minutes: 49%
Bench Share of Minutes: 26%
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	Samford	W 85–72	65.1	Home	1–0
11-08	Texas St.	W 79–71	66.7	Home	2–0
11-11	Louisiana	W 66–62	63.9	Away	3–0
11-14	LSU New Orleans	L 63–85	65.7	Home	3–1
11-21	Utah St.	L 75–96	68.8	Neutral	3–2
11-23	Boston College	W 93–90 1OT	78.6	Neutral	4–2
11-28	Nicholls	W 82–72	69.1	Home	5–2
12-02	Grambling	W 65–63	61.7	Home	6–2
12-06	Akron	L 71–88	70.8	Home	6–3
12-14	UC San Diego	L 67–93	78.0	—	6–4
12-17	Louisiana Tech	W 61–53	58.6	Home	7–4
12-20	Portland St.	W 63–61	65.4	Home	8–4
12-31	East Carolina	W 79–70	65.9	Away	9–4
01-04	Fla. Atlantic	W 69–66	69.6	Home	10–4
01-10	UTSA	W 85–52	68.7	Away	11–4
01-14	UAB	L 69–82	69.8	Home	11–5
01-18	North Texas	L 63–71	67.3	Home	11–6
01-21	Fla. Atlantic	L 74–79	71.3	Away	11–7
01-23	Charlotte	L 70–73	68.0	Away	11–8
01-28	South Fla.	L 83–97	75.5	Home	11–9
02-01	Memphis	W 78–76	69.2	Away	12–9
02-08	Wichita St.	L 61–75	72.7	Home	12–10
02-11	Temple	W 77–66	67.9	Home	13–10
02-15	UAB	W 55–54	62.7	Away	14–10
02-19	North Texas	W 77–71	65.6	Away	15–10
02-22	Rice	W 81–75	68.6	Home	16–10
02-25	Tulsa	L 56–90	66.4	Home	16–11
03-01	South Fla.	L 62–90	72.8	Away	16–12
03-05	Temple	L 60–89	67.3	Away	16–13
03-08	Memphis	L 95–96 1OT	77.3	Home	16–14
03-11	Memphis	W 81–69	70.5	Neutral	17–14
03-12	Charlotte	L 60–74	61.0	Neutral	17–15

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
Rowan Brumbaugh	32	36:00	89.3%	610	154	111	49	6	76	74	120–234	51.3%	61–171	35.7%	187–234	79.9%	52.2%	60.0%	57.8%	5	37:12 +1:12	90.7%	23.2 +4.1
Curtis Williams Jr.	32	32:05	79.6%	397	153	38	37	16	47	49	74–151	49.0%	66–195	33.8%	51–61	83.6%	50.0%	53.2%	17.6%	5	37:36 +5:30	91.7%	13.2 +0.8
Asher Woods	32	31:00	76.9%	405	103	65	43	0	57	44	87–181	48.1%	30–110	27.3%	141–166	84.9%	45.4%	55.6%	57.0%	5	33:18 +2:18	81.2%	10.6 −2.1
Scotty Middleton	32	25:27	63.1%	215	121	34	14	25	23	80	27–58	46.6%	48–136	35.3%	17–23	73.9%†	51.0%	52.7%	11.9%	5	27:14 +1:47	66.4%	6.8 +0.1
Tyler Ringgold	31	24:59	60.0%	298	125	42	34	30	45	106	74–144	51.4%	23–76	30.3%	81–128	63.3%	49.3%	53.9%	58.2%	5	21:34 −3:25	52.6%	7.0 −2.6
Percy Daniels	31	16:43	40.2%	73	70	23	12	46	14	94	26–39	66.7%†	0–1	0.0%†	21–29	72.4%	65.0%†	69.2%†	72.5%†	5	21:10 +4:27	51.6%	4.0 +1.6
KJ Greene	31	14:59	36.0%	140	37	51	18	2	30	45	29–65	44.6%	9–38	23.7%†	55–69	79.7%	41.3%	52.5%	67.0%	5	16:42 +1:43	40.7%	4.2 −0.3
Josiah Moore	31	12:01	28.9%	110	57	26	16	10	18	26	38–71	53.5%†	3–17	17.6%†	25–36	69.4%	48.3%†	53.0%†	40.9%†	5	2:09 −9:51	5.3%	1.0 −2.5
Luke Rasmussen	17	14:55	19.7%	44	31	11	15	7	11	36	10–14	71.4%†	7–30	23.3%†	3–11	27.3%†	46.6%†	45.0%†	25.0%†	5	6:56 −7:58	16.9%	1.0 −1.6
Davion BradfordUnder 100 minutes	10	4:19	3.3%	1	4	0	0	2	1	10	0–3	0.0%†	0–2	0.0%†	1–2	50.0%†	0.0%†	8.5%†	40.0%†	—	—	—	—
Robert MooreFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	4	2:03	0.6%	3	0	0	0	0	0	1	0–0	—	1–5	20.0%†	0–0	—	30.0%†	30.0%†	0.0%†	1	1:32 −0:31	0.7%	0.0 −0.8
Jake ShapiroFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	5	0:50	0.3%	9	0	0	0	0	0	0	0–0	—	3–3	100.0%†	0–0	—	150.0%†	150.0%†	0.0%†	1	0:42 −0:08	0.3%	3.0 +1.2
Vasilije KuridzaFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	2	1:15	0.2%	0	1	2	0	0	0	2	0–0	—	0–0	—	0–0	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Joseph TeichFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	3	0:42	0.2%	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0–0	—	0–0	—	0–0	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Luke CroninFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	2	0:50	0.1%	0	1	0	1	0	1	0	0–0	—	0–0	—	0–0	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
Team, games with logs · season totals	32 games			2305	987	402	not published	145	338	not published	485–960	50.5%	251–784	32.0%	582–759	76.7%	49.4%	55.5%	43.5%
Sum of players				2305	857	403	239	144	323	567	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0	+130	−1	not published	+1	+15	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: $940K; 80% Range $425K to $2.15M
Tier: Mid and high major; low to medium evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $795K to $995K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 15; 6 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
Rowan Brumbaugh	89.9%	$185K	$62K to $495K	19.2%	$160K to $200K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Curtis Williams Jr.	81.0%	$80K	$6K to $245K	11.5%	$69K to $86K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Asher Woods	77.9%	$87K	$8K to $260K	12.0%	$74K to $93K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Scotty Middleton	61.7%	$92K	$10K to $260K	11.1%	$79K to $99K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Tyler Ringgold	60.5%	$105K	$22K to $295K	11.8%	$89K to $110K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Percy Daniels	39.2%	$63K	$10K to $190K	7.6%	$54K to $68K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
KJ Greene	36.3%	$79K	$25K to $220K	8.0%	$68K to $84K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Josiah Moore	27.1%	$75K	$26K to $230K	7.1%	$64K to $79K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Luke Rasmussen	21.6%	$35K	$7K to $110K	4.2%	$30K to $37K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Davion Bradford	3.3%	$6K	$2K to $15K	0.7%	$5K to $6K	$6K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Robert Moore	0.6%	$6K	$2K to $15K	0.7%	$5K to $6K	$6K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Jake Shapiro	0.3%	$6K	$2K to $15K	0.7%	$5K to $6K	$6K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Vasilije Kuridza	0.2%	$6K	$2K to $15K	0.7%	$5K to $6K	$6K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Joseph Teich	0.2%	$6K	$2K to $15K	0.7%	$5K to $6K	$6K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Luke Cronin	0.1%	$6K	$2K to $15K	0.7%	$5K to $6K	$6K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$940K	$425K to $2.15M	100%	$795K to $995K	—

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, Tulane University of Louisiana (NCAA Division I-FBS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$3,874,944
Men's basketball expenses	$5,621,840
Athletics department expenses	$66,211,945
Athletics department revenue	$66,211,945

Team Totalsβ

Season totals, 32 games, 2,191 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	2,305	2,421
Field goals made	736	824
Field goals attempted	1,744	1,885
3-pointers made	251	263
3-pointers attempted	784	763
Free throws made	582	510
Free throws attempted	759	718
Offensive rebounds	251	411
Defensive rebounds	736	852
Total rebounds	987	1,263
Assists	402	461
Blocks	145	107
Turnovers	338	375
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 239.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 567.
Minutes (derived)	6,450	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	2,305	2,305	0	±11.5	0
Field goals made	Reconciled	736	736	0	±3.7	0
Field goals attempted	Reconciled	1,744	1,744	0	±8.7	0
3-pointers made	Reconciled	251	251	0	±2.0	0
3-pointers attempted	Reconciled	784	784	0	±3.9	0
Free throws made	Reconciled	582	582	0	±2.9	0
Free throws attempted	Reconciled	759	759	0	±3.8	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	987	857	+130	±79.0	0
Assists	Reconciled	402	403	−1	±2.0	0
Blocks	Reconciled	145	144	+1	±2.0	0
Turnovers	Residual shown	338	323	+15	±10.1	0
Steals	No team figure	not published	239	not published	not published	not published
Personal fouls	No team figure	not published	567	not published	not published	not published
Minutes (derived)	Reconciled	6,450	6,430	+20.0	±129.0	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
Rowan Brumbaugh	89.9%	+0.7range -0.4 to +1.9Sufficient evidence
Curtis Williams Jr.	81.0%	-0.7range -1.7 to +0.4Sufficient evidence
Asher Woods	77.9%	-0.5range -1.6 to +0.5Sufficient evidence
Scotty Middleton	61.7%	+0.1range -1.3 to +1.4Sufficient evidence
Tyler Ringgold	60.5%	+0.2range -1.0 to +1.7Sufficient evidence
Percy Daniels	39.2%	+0.1range -1.2 to +1.1Sufficient evidence
KJ Greene	36.3%	+0.7range -0.2 to +1.7Sufficient evidence
Josiah Moore	27.1%	+1.2range +0.1 to +2.2Sufficient evidence
Luke Rasmussen	21.6%	-0.1range -1.6 to +1.5Sufficient evidence
Davion Bradford	3.3%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Robert Moore	0.6%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Jake Shapiro	0.3%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Vasilije Kuridza	0.2%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Joseph Teich	0.2%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Luke Cronin	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: +9.5range +8.6 to +10.4Sufficient evidence

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

9 valued players hold 99.0% of on-court time. 6 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 1.0%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 0.0%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value