UAB

AAC · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 93 · Raw net 5.3 · Tempo 70.4 · 31 Division I games · Through 2026-03-13

Record: 19–12; 19 wins
AdjNet: 3.8β; rank 113 of 365
AdjO: 109.1β; rank 155 of 365
AdjD: 105.3β; rank 96 of 365
AdjT: 70.0β
SOS: -1.0β; rank 198 of 363
NCSOS: -4.7β
WAB: -4.9β; rank 104 of 363
RR: 0.4β
Exp. W: 18.6β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	109.7138	104.475	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	48.4305	50.098	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	12.52	16.1215	16.7
Offensive rebound %	32.5104	27.753	30.6
FTA / FGA %	36.4141	28.738	35.0
Shooting
3P%	27.8364	32.696	33.9
2P%	51.3201	50.7126	51.7
FT%	70.6250	72.2167	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	30.5	39.2	39.5
Assists / FGM %	50.3	50.3	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	9.4	9.9	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	20.8	31.8	31.4
2-pointers %	58.2	51.1	48.8
Free throws %	21.0	17.1	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: 45%
Bench Share of Minutes: 33%
Players with Logged Minutes: 12

Bench: players outside the top five in minutes. Definitions

Schedule and Results

Schedule and results
Date	Opponent	Result	Poss.	Site	Record
11-03	Mississippi Val.	W 106–55	84.8	Home	1–0
11-07	NC State	L 70–94	74.6	Away	1–1
11-11	Alabama St.	L 74–77	74.5	Home	1–2
11-14	High Point	W 91–74	78.2	Home	2–2
11-21	South Alabama	W 80–72	63.9	Home	3–2
11-24	Southern Ill.	W 81–73	70.3	Neutral	4–2
11-25	UTEP	W 75–59	63.1	Neutral	5–2
12-01	Middle Tenn.	L 61–76	66.2	Away	5–3
12-05	Drake	W 74–69	68.4	Away	6–3
12-14	Troy	L 85–86	67.9	Home	6–4
12-17	Cleveland St.	W 101–77	74.0	Home	7–4
12-21	UNC Asheville	W 72–47	64.4	Home	8–4
12-31	Wichita St.	L 70–75	65.0	Home	8–5
01-04	South Fla.	W 109–106 2OT	96.8	Away	9–5
01-07	Fla. Atlantic	L 71–76	73.8	Home	9–6
01-11	East Carolina	W 87–85 1OT	83.4	Away	10–6
01-14	Tulane	W 82–69	69.8	Away	11–6
01-18	Tulsa	L 77–99	71.6	Home	11–7
01-22	South Fla.	L 69–82	75.9	Home	11–8
01-28	UTSA	W 83–73	70.6	Away	12–8
01-31	North Texas	W 72–68	66.7	Away	13–8
02-05	Memphis	L 80–90	79.8	Home	13–9
02-08	Rice	W 71–65	66.4	Home	14–9
02-11	Tulsa	W 68–63	66.7	Away	15–9
02-15	Tulane	L 54–55	62.7	Home	15–10
02-18	Temple	W 76–71	66.0	Away	16–10
02-22	Memphis	W 78–67	71.8	Away	17–10
03-01	North Texas	L 58–62	64.1	Home	17–11
03-04	Charlotte	W 80–74	63.8	Away	18–11
03-08	East Carolina	W 90–83	76.2	Home	19–11
03-13	Charlotte	L 78–83	66.6	Neutral	19–12

Roster · 12 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
Chance Westry	31	30:57	76.4%	15.3	3.7	5.6	1.3	0.5	1.9	1.8	142–251	56.6%	19–83	22.9%	133–188	70.7%	51.0%	56.9%	56.3%	5	34:21 +3:24	85.9%	18.2 +2.9
Daniel Rivera	31	29:34	73.0%	11.8	6.4	1.1	0.8	1.0	1.3	2.2	146–265	55.1%	2–7	28.6%†	67–114	58.8%	54.8%	56.6%	41.9%	5	30:04 +0:31	75.2%	14.0 +2.2
Evan Chatman	31	29:19	72.4%	8.9	8.8	1.1	0.8	0.8	0.6	2.0	70–133	52.6%	22–79	27.8%	70–102	68.6%	48.6%	53.7%	48.1%	5	31:01 +1:42	77.5%	10.4 +1.5
Jacob Meyer	27	28:38	61.6%	12.4	3.9	1.1	0.9	0.1	1.2	1.7	95–213	44.6%	31–100	31.0%	52–65	80.0%	45.2%	49.0%	20.8%	5	28:02 −0:36	70.1%	7.0 −5.4
Ahmad Robinson	25	24:25	48.7%	9.5	2.4	2.8	1.5	0.0	1.2	2.1	50–121	41.3%	32–100	32.0%	41–58	70.7%	44.3%	48.1%	26.2%	1	5:17 −19:08	2.6%	0.0 −9.5
KyeRon Lindsay-Martin	27	22:25	48.2%	10.8	6.1	0.6	0.5	0.9	0.9	2.7	115–211	54.5%	1–2	50.0%†	58–78	74.4%	54.7%	58.8%	36.6%	4	19:56 −2:29	39.9%	9.5 −1.3
Salim London	31	19:10	47.3%	4.7	2.2	1.5	0.8	0.2	0.6	1.0	31–78	39.7%	16–59	27.1%	36–41	87.8%	40.1%	47.1%	29.9%	5	18:40 −0:30	46.7%	4.4 −0.3
Dayjaun Anderson	29	16:14	37.5%	5.1	1.7	0.6	0.8	0.0	0.5	0.8	23–39	59.0%	31–125	24.8%	9–16	56.3%†	42.4%	43.3%	9.8%	5	25:13 +8:59	63.1%	8.0 +2.9
Quaran McPherson	26	10:20	21.4%	4.4	1.5	0.5	0.4	0.0	0.8	0.7	24–42	57.1%†	12–38	31.6%†	31–40	77.5%	52.5%†	58.9%†	50.0%†	5	14:26 +4:05	36.1%	7.2 +2.8
Ari Gooch	16	7:49	10.0%	2.1	1.3	0.4	0.7	0.1	0.4	0.9	8–17	47.1%†	2–11	18.2%†	11–17	64.7%†	39.3%†	46.5%†	60.7%†	1	3:23 −4:26	1.7%	0.0 −2.1
Joao Das ChagasFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	2	6:53	1.1%	1.0	2.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.5	1–5	20.0%†	0–0	—	0–0	—	20.0%†	20.0%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Lance CarrFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	6	1:47	0.8%	0.2	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.3	0–0	—	0–0	—	1–2	50.0%†	—	56.8%†	—	—	—	—	—
Team, games with logs · per game	31 games			78.2	39.2	14.2	not published	3.5	8.9	not published	705–1375	51.3%	168–604	27.8%	509–721	70.6%	48.4%	52.8%	36.4%
Sum of players				78.2	35.4	14.2	7.5	3.5	8.6	14.4	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0.0	+3.9	0.0	not published	0.0	+0.3	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: $785K; 80% Range $355K to $1.75M
Tier: Mid and high major; low to medium evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $760K to $795K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 12; 2 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
Chance Westry	76.3%	$190K	$77K to $480K	22.6%	$180K to $190K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Daniel Rivera	73.2%	$65K	$11K to $185K	10.0%	$63K to $66K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Evan Chatman	72.3%	$120K	$48K to $290K	15.4%	$115K to $120K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jacob Meyer	62.7%	$23K	$4K to $98K	3.7%	$22K to $23K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ahmad Robinson	49.7%	$74K	$28K to $180K	10.1%	$72K to $76K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
KyeRon Lindsay-Martin	48.8%	$71K	$26K to $175K	9.8%	$69K to $72K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Salim London	46.5%	$74K	$28K to $185K	9.7%	$72K to $76K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Dayjaun Anderson	37.2%	$58K	$19K to $150K	7.8%	$56K to $59K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Quaran McPherson	21.2%	$27K	$7K to $70K	3.9%	$26K to $27K	$6K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ari Gooch	10.1%	$15K	$6K to $37K	2.1%	$15K in all four	$6K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Joao Das Chagas	1.3%	$6K	$3K to $15K	0.8%	$6K in all four	$6K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Lance Carr	0.8%	$6K	$3K to $15K	0.8%	$6K in all four	$6K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$785K	$355K to $1.75M	100%	$760K to $795K	—

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, University of Alabama at Birmingham (NCAA Division I-FBS)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$5,349,479
Men's basketball expenses	$5,003,621
Athletics department expenses	$40,789,883
Athletics department revenue	$43,889,337

Team Totalsβ

Season per game, 31 games, 2,208 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	78.2	74.4
Field goals made	28.2	26.9
Field goals attempted	63.8	61.6
3-pointers made	5.4	7.9
3-pointers attempted	19.5	24.1
Free throws made	16.4	12.7
Free throws attempted	23.3	17.6
Offensive rebounds	12.6	10.2
Defensive rebounds	26.6	26.2
Total rebounds	39.2	36.4
Assists	14.2	13.5
Blocks	3.5	4.4
Turnovers	8.9	11.5
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 234.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 447.
Minutes (derived)	202.4	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	2,423	2,423	0	±12.1	0
Field goals made	Reconciled	873	873	0	±4.4	0
Field goals attempted	Reconciled	1,979	1,979	0	±9.9	0
3-pointers made	Reconciled	168	168	0	±2.0	0
3-pointers attempted	Reconciled	604	604	0	±3.0	0
Free throws made	Reconciled	509	509	0	±2.5	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	1,216	1,096	+120	±97.3	0
Assists	Reconciled	439	439	0	±2.2	0
Blocks	Reconciled	109	109	0	±2.0	0
Turnovers	Residual shown	277	268	+9	±8.3	0
Steals	No team figure	not published	234	not published	not published	not published
Personal fouls	No team figure	not published	447	not published	not published	not published
Minutes (derived)	Reconciled	6,275	6,257	+17.9	±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
Chance Westry	76.3%	+3.3range +1.9 to +4.6Sufficient evidence
Daniel Rivera	73.2%	+0.2range -0.9 to +1.4Sufficient evidence
Evan Chatman	72.3%	+2.0range +0.9 to +3.2Sufficient evidence
Jacob Meyer	62.7%	-2.0range -3.4 to -0.2Sufficient evidence
Ahmad Robinson	49.7%	+1.6range +0.3 to +2.7Sufficient evidence
KyeRon Lindsay-Martin	48.8%	+1.4range +0.4 to +2.5Sufficient evidence
Salim London	46.5%	+1.6range +0.6 to +3.1Sufficient evidence
Dayjaun Anderson	37.2%	+1.6range +0.1 to +3.1Sufficient evidence
Quaran McPherson	21.2%	+0.6range -0.8 to +2.0Sufficient evidence
Ari Gooch	10.1%	+0.4range -0.3 to +1.1Limited evidence
Joao Das Chagas	1.3%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Lance Carr	0.8%	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 +9.8 to +11.5Sufficient evidence

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

10 valued players hold 99.6% of on-court time. 2 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 0.4%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 2.0%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value

UAB