Algosys College Basketball

Search teams and players

Type a team or player name. Results are alphabetical; players show their 2026 team. Up and Down move, Enter opens the highlighted result or the first one, Esc closes.

Loyola Chicago

A-10 · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 335 · Raw net -13.6 · Tempo 65.9 · 33 Division I games · Through 2026-03-12

All seasons
Record
9–24
9 wins
AdjNet
-10.0β
rank 305 of 365
AdjO
103.1β
rank 287 of 365
AdjD
113.1β
rank 295 of 365
AdjT
66.8β
SOS
2.0β
rank 107 of 363
NCSOS
-4.4β
WAB
-14.7β
rank 312 of 363
RR
0.7β
Exp. W
8.3β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
CategoryOffenseDefenseD-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.101.0314114.6317108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%49.824552.021451.4
TO / 100 poss.19.834312.935616.7
Offensive rebound %30.517929.714630.6
FTA / FGA %34.818833.614335.0
Shooting
3P%31.729636.834133.9
2P%51.917449.57751.7
FT%67.334076.535472.5
Style
3PA / FGA %47.744.339.5
Assists / FGM %60.661.452.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %11.713.99.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %36.937.731.4
2-pointers %44.142.548.8
Free throws %19.019.819.8

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

Rotation Depth

Effective Rotation Size
10.8
Top Three Share of Minutes
37%
Bench Share of Minutes
43%
Players with Logged Minutes
16

Bench: players outside the top five in minutes. Definitions

Schedule and Results

Schedule and results
DateOpponentResultPoss.SiteRecord
11-03Cleveland St.W 91–8871.9Home1–0
11-06MercyhurstL 65–7367.4Home1–1
11-09North TexasL 62–6465.8Neutral1–2
11-13Wichita St.L 74–9565.3Away1–3
11-16Colorado St.L 67–8060.2Home1–4
11-21NIUL 59–7661.5Home1–5
11-25UNIL 51–7261.6Neutral1–6
11-26San Jose St.L 51–6358.4Neutral1–7
12-02Central Mich.W 83–7266.4Home2–7
12-06PrincetonW 73–6864.0Home3–7
12-14Chicago St.L 75–8472.1Home3–8
12-17San FranciscoL 71–8560.5Neutral3–9
12-20Santa ClaraW 80–7867.7Neutral4–9
12-31Rhode IslandW 61–5765.4Away5–9
01-03DaytonL 68–7067.1Home5–10
01-07DavidsonL 64–7966.5Home5–11
01-10George WashingtonL 66–10176.4Away5–12
01-13George MasonL 74–8263.5Home5–13
01-16DaytonL 51–7868.4Away5–14
01-20St. BonaventureL 70–8468.8Away5–15
01-24DuquesneL 59–7167.7Home5–16
01-27Saint Joseph'sL 64–8566.0Home5–17
01-30VCUL 75–8968.2Away5–18
02-03La SalleW 71–6168.0Home6–18
02-06DavidsonL 64–8462.9Away6–19
02-13Saint LouisL 59–8672.7Home6–20
02-18FordhamL 59–6267.1Away6–21
02-21Saint Joseph'sL 61–7565.9Away6–22
02-28RichmondW 69–6672.0Home7–22
03-04Saint LouisL 65–7959.4Away7–23
03-07George WashingtonW 68–6263.7Home8–23
03-11RichmondW 75–6762.5Neutral9–23
03-12DavidsonL 59–64 1OT66.3Neutral9–24

Roster · 16 players

Player logs in 33 of 33 team games

Team roster, per 40 minutes
Column groupsMinutesPer 40 MinutesShootingLast Five Team Games
PlayerGMPGTeam Min%PtsRebAstStlBlkTOPF2P2P%3P3P%FTFT%eFG%TS%FTA/FGAGMPGMin%Pts/G
Miles Rubin3329:3973.9%15.29.53.10.93.12.72.7161–27458.8%0–10.0%†50–9254.3%58.5%59.0%33.5%532:05 +2:2678.3%13.8 +2.5
Deywilk Tavarez3322:4556.7%15.74.13.21.00.12.63.229–6743.3%66–21031.4%39–4488.6%46.2%49.8%15.9%528:15 +5:3068.9%7.4 −1.5
Kayde Dotson2826:3356.1%15.94.23.00.80.12.43.431–7143.7%62–16338.0%47–6177.0%53.0%56.5%26.1%533:52 +7:1982.6%14.0 +3.5
Justin Moore2229:1348.5%14.93.05.20.90.14.02.854–11646.6%25–8429.8%57–7774.0%45.8%51.3%38.5%————
Joshua Ola-Joseph2921:5047.8%13.96.91.30.50.21.63.242–7853.8%27–9528.4%55–7375.3%47.7%53.6%42.2%518:52 −2:5846.0%7.4 −0.2
Kymany Houinsou2025:2338.3%9.56.64.70.90.53.43.834–6354.0%†5–1241.7%†37–5764.9%55.3%†60.0%†76.0%†————
Xavier Amos1926:1737.7%16.86.61.10.60.61.93.337–7450.0%27–8930.3%55–7573.3%47.5%53.6%46.0%530:38 +4:2274.7%11.8 +0.7
Nicolus Anderson2717:2535.5%11.75.61.21.10.71.82.429–6842.6%18–6527.7%26–4557.8%42.1%45.2%33.8%518:17 +0:5244.6%4.2 −0.9
Alexander Richardson3012:5029.1%10.411.72.20.61.72.25.341–7058.6%†0–10.0%†18–3847.4%57.7%†57.0%†53.5%†520:54 +8:0451.0%5.2 +1.9
Daniil Glazkov2612:5025.2%8.56.01.70.60.01.63.48–1844.4%†15–4037.5%†10–2050.0%†52.6%†53.1%†34.5%†517:04 +4:1541.6%2.8 +0.1
Chuck Love III1324:3724.1%11.84.31.60.40.31.13.011–1764.7%†19–5832.8%15–1978.9%†52.7%†56.4%†25.3%†————
Caleb Reese2011:2517.2%5.34.44.61.40.03.55.46–1540.0%†3–1915.8%†9–1752.9%†30.9%†36.2%†50.0%†211:31 +0:0611.2%1.5 0.0
Brayden YoungUnder 100 minutes124:203.9%3.18.50.80.80.83.110.82–366.7%†0–0—0–30.0%†66.7%†46.3%†100.0%†10:00 −4:200.0%0.0 −0.3
Dominick HarrisFew gamesUnder 100 minutes76:103.3%9.33.71.90.00.01.94.60–20.0%†3–1421.4%†1–250.0%†28.1%†29.6%†12.5%†————
Zachary RoysterFew gamesUnder 100 minutes82:221.4%10.54.20.00.00.02.10.01–1100.0%†1–425.0%†0–0—50.0%†50.0%†0.0%†10:00 −2:220.0%0.0 −0.6
Samuel YurasekFew gamesUnder 100 minutes40:230.1%0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00–0—0–0—0–0————10:00 −0:230.0%0.0 0.0
Team, games with logs · per 40 team minutes33 games66.534.013.9not published3.813.0not published486–93751.9%271–85531.7%419–62367.3%49.8%53.3%34.8%
Sum of players66.530.713.94.03.812.316.8Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players0.0+3.3−0.0not published+0.0+0.7not 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
$665K
80% Range $290K to $1.55M
Tier
Mid and high major
low to medium evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4
$595K to $905K
Scenario medians
Players with Figures
16
4 floor only

The widest scenario range, $400K to $2.00M, is wider than the 80% Range above (soft check S5). Methodology

Players in possession-share order
PlayerPoss. ShareSpeculative Best Guess80% RangeRange GraphicMedian % of Team PoolScenarios Z1 to Z4Floor PartEvidence and Flags
Miles Rubin74.4%$105K$24K to $295K16.0%$92K to $140K$4KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Deywilk Tavarez56.3%$82K$15K to $265K12.6%$73K to $110K$4KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Kayde Dotson56.0%$33K$3K to $125K6.9%$30K to $46K$4KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Joshua Ola-Joseph50.6%$18K$2K to $91K3.7%$15K to $23K$4KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Justin Moore45.9%$24K$3K to $93K5.3%$22K to $33K$4KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Xavier Amos39.2%$99K$33K to $330K13.0%$88K to $135K$4KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Nicolus Anderson38.1%$18K$2K to $79K4.1%$16K to $24K$4KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Kymany Houinsou35.9%$27K$3K to $95K5.3%$24K to $36K$4KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Alexander Richardson30.0%$41K$7K to $130K6.6%$36K to $55K$4KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Daniil Glazkov26.7%$48K$14K to $145K6.8%$42K to $65K$4KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Chuck Love III19.9%$29K$7K to $86K4.6%$26K to $40K$4KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Caleb Reese19.2%$9K$2K to $37K1.5%$8K to $13K$4KSufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Dominick Harris3.5%$4K$2K to $10K0.6%$4K to $5K$4KFloor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Brayden Young3.4%$4K$2K to $10K0.6%$4K to $5K$4KFloor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Zachary Royster0.9%$4K$2K to $10K0.6%$4K to $5K$4KFloor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Samuel Yurasek0.1%$4K$2K to $10K0.6%$4K to $5K$4KFloor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool—$665K$290K to $1.55M100%$595K to $905K—

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, Loyola University Chicago (NCAA Division I without football)
MeasureSchool-Reported AmountNote
Men's basketball revenue$7,021,288Equals expenses (budget identity)
Men's basketball expenses$7,021,288
Athletics department expenses$25,459,871
Athletics department revenue$25,459,871

Team Totalsβ

Season per 40 minutes, 33 games, 2,181 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Per 40 uses 1325 game minutes, 5 per overtime period. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
StatisticTeamOpponents
Points66.575.5
Field goals made22.925.5
Field goals attempted54.158.1
3-pointers made8.29.5
3-pointers attempted25.825.8
Free throws made12.615.0
Free throws attempted18.819.6
Offensive rebounds10.310.0
Defensive rebounds23.723.4
Total rebounds34.033.4
Assists13.915.7
Blocks3.83.9
Turnovers13.08.5
StealsNo team figure. Players sum to 134.
Personal foulsNo team figure. Players sum to 557.
Minutes (derived)200.0not published

33 of 33 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
StatisticStatusTeam Total, Logged GamesSum of PlayersResidualToleranceTeam Total, Games Without Logs
PointsReconciled2,2042,2040±11.00
Field goals madeReconciled7577570±3.80
Field goals attemptedReconciled1,7921,7920±9.00
3-pointers madeReconciled2712710±2.00
3-pointers attemptedReconciled8558550±4.30
Free throws madeReconciled4194190±2.10
Free throws attemptedReconciled6236230±3.10
Offensive reboundsNo player splitnot publishednot publishednot publishednot publishednot published
Defensive reboundsNo player splitnot publishednot publishednot publishednot publishednot published
Total reboundsResidual shown1,1261,017+109±90.10
AssistsReconciled459460−1±2.30
BlocksReconciled126125+1±2.00
TurnoversResidual shown431408+23±12.90
StealsNo team figurenot published134not publishednot publishednot published
Personal foulsNo team figurenot published557not publishednot publishednot published
Minutes (derived)Reconciled6,6256,609+16.3±132.50

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.
PlayerPoss. ShareNet and RangeβRange Graphic
Miles Rubin74.4%+0.1range -0.9 to +1.1Sufficient evidence
Deywilk Tavarez56.3%+0.3range -1.1 to +1.7Sufficient evidence
Kayde Dotson56.0%-1.3range -3.0 to +0.1Sufficient evidence
Joshua Ola-Joseph50.6%-2.1range -3.6 to -0.9Sufficient evidence
Justin Moore45.9%-1.6range -2.9 to -0.2Sufficient evidence
Xavier Amos39.2%+1.3range +0.1 to +2.5Sufficient evidence
Nicolus Anderson38.1%-1.9range -2.9 to -0.5Sufficient evidence
Kymany Houinsou35.9%-1.1range -2.5 to +0.5Sufficient evidence
Alexander Richardson30.0%+0.0range -1.3 to +1.2Sufficient evidence
Daniil Glazkov26.7%+0.6range -0.7 to +1.8Sufficient evidence
Chuck Love III19.9%+0.1range -0.9 to +1.2Sufficient evidence
Caleb Reese19.2%-2.3range -3.2 to -1.3Sufficient evidence
Dominick Harris3.5%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Brayden Young3.4%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Zachary Royster0.9%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence
Samuel Yurasek0.1%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
+8.7range +7.9 to +9.6Sufficient evidence

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

12 valued players hold 98.4% of on-court time. 4 without a value (under 300 possessions) hold 1.6%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 0.0%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value