SportiveWorldSportiveWorld
Pryce Sandfort

Pryce Sandfort

Nebraska Cornhuskers · NCAA Division I · Small forward · Junior · 2.01 m

SportiveWorld evaluation

SW#46Projection Round 2Modelled
Potential · MediumConfidence · HighMarket #60·SW +141

Main reading

Measured production against measured opponents (35 games, 2025-26); on his signals alone, #13 of 39.

Freshness · CurrentDaily board snapshot: 2026-09-20 (matches the computation value by value: rank, score, consensus, Δ, sample) · 7 day(s) of history · Mocks captured: 2026-09-20 · Box scores up to 2026-04-07 (season 2025-26: 35 of the team's 35 games) · Board computed on 2026-09-20 15:05 UTC · served from cache (4 min ago; recomputed every hour)

Why he is here

#16
NCAA model · of 39
37 %
NBA career prob.
NCAA model · Model weight in his rank: 67 %
HoldsHigh convictionReliability · highProfile · Three-point specialist

The NCAA model places him #16 of 39: measured production against measured opponents, and his individual signals alone leave him #13. The market has him 44 places lower (#60).

Measured over 35 games with a box score · 2025-26 · Nebraska Cornhuskers

  • fact37 % probability of an NBA career (≥ 2,000 min). On the model's scale: context +3.01 · player +1.36. With average opponent and team, the same profile would give 2.8 %; on the environment alone, 13 %.
  • factMeasured environment: Nebraska Cornhuskers, strength +10.8 (+1.6 sd) · average opponent +4.3 (+1.7 sd) — environment #27 of 39 ranked
  • factHis individual signal adding the most: Scoring per 40 21.5 (+1.5 sd · contribution +1.31). On his individual signals alone he would be #13 of 39.
  • factHistorical comparables: 29 of 300 similar university seasons reached the NBA (10 %) — #23 of 36 ranked in that lens. The model gives him 56 % to reach the NBA: the comparables are more conservative than the model for all 36 ranked, which is why this lens compares ranks, not figures.

interpretationThe position holds on what is measured: the rank does not change zone when the environment is removed or the comparables are consulted. SportiveWorld does not yet measure age, physique or projection; those dimensions could explain part of the gap, but the consensus sources do not publish the reason for their rank here.

Production
+0.85
Efficiency
−0.29
Minutes
+0.79
Opponent quality + Team strength
+3.01
2.8 %
On his signals alone
13 %
On his environment alone
#13
Rank on his signals alone

Where the rank comes from: how much his individual signals contribute and how much his environment (model scale). Below, the probability with an average opponent and team, and the probability on the environment alone.

MovementVersus the 2026-09-13 snapshot: #45 → #46 (-1) · NCAA model #15 → #16. · The earlier snapshot carried no board rank (pre-V3.2): recomputed with today's rule on its rows.

Potential

Categorical reading of the ceiling the accredited evidence supports. Not a score: it starts from the NCAA model (if any) or from the market prior and only moves one level with our own evidence, declared piece by piece.

Potential · MediumConfidence · High

factStarts from the NCAA model: 37% probability of an NBA career (#16 of 39 measured).High

  • The market (#60) sees him two bands below the model: down one level.
  • On his individual signals alone he would be #13 of 39: consistent with his model #16.

Evidence moves the reading one level at most, in the direction the sum of the evidence pushes. · Confidence: NCAA season with ≥ 15 games with a box score and ≥ 60% of the team's games.

Production

2025-26 · Nebraska Cornhuskers · 18.1p · 4.9r · 2.0a · 33.6 min · 35 of 35 games with a box score · TS 64.8 %

By opponent level

Per 40 minutes, over the games with a box score. Small samples within one season: read as a hint, not a verdict.

pjW-Lminpts/40reb/40ast/40tov/40TS
2025-263533.621.55.82.40.864.8 %
Opponents +8 or better126-634.618.85.12.21.059.0 %
Other opponents2322-133.123.06.12.50.767.7 %
Postseason42-236.021.75.32.20.674.3 %
Away / neutral118-336.119.74.42.10.862.5 %

Strengths

Signals that add the most

Opponent quality +4.3 (+1.7 SD)
+1.66
Team strength +10.8 (+1.6 SD)
+1.35
Scoring per 40 21.5 (+1.5 SD)
+1.31

What travels: holds up against strong opponents

An individual signal is transferable if it holds against opponents rated +8 or better (≥ 90% of its season value). What evaporates as the level rises is stated.

Risks and what would change our mind

Signals that subtract

Shot volume per 40 15.4 (+1.2 SD)
−0.42
Blocks per 40 0.3 (−0.5 SD)
−0.18
  • Comparables: only 29 of 300 historical analogues reached the NBA
  • Junior: the model does not adjust for age or class; the same production from a freshman projects higher
  • Scoring per 40: 18.8 against +8 opponents (12 games) versus 21.5 over the season — drops as the level rises

Would make us move him down

  • Age: we do not adjust for it (Junior); the same production from a freshman projects higher
  • More sources consolidating the consensus #60

Would make us move him up

  • More box-score defence: steals 1.2 and blocks 0.3 per 40 min subtract today
  • Combine measurements (wingspan, reach, athleticism): we do not have them today
  • A second source placing him nearby: today the consensus is a single mock

What to watch until the Draft

  • The 2026-27 season: every new box score is measured and can move the rank
  • The 2027 Combine (May): wingspan, reach and athleticism we do not have today
  • The mocks: captured daily; today the consensus is 1 source(s)
  • His minutes (33.6 per game): a drop would show in the box score before any news

Context

Facts derived from the box score (Basketball-Reference formulas over the games he played) and the standings. No film or tracking data.

Role on his team

  • ·Started 35 of 35 games (100%) · 33.6 min (84% of the available minutes)
  • ·Usage 23.5% of his team's possessions while on the floor · 28% of its points
  • ·Creation: assists 12.0% of his teammates' baskets while on the floor · 2.90 assists per turnover · 4.7% of his possessions end in a turnover
  • ·Team record with him on the floor: 28-7 · estimated pace 66.6 possessions per 40 min

His team and schedule

  • ·Nebraska Cornhuskers · Big Ten Conference · 26-5 in the standings · 15-5 in conference
  • ·Latest poll: Coaches Poll, week 21, #14 (28-7)
  • ·Postseason with a box score: 4 games, 3 in the NCAA Tournament (up to Sweet 16)
  • ·Team strength +10.8 (+1.6 sd in the cohort) · average opponent +4.3 (+1.7 sd): the model's two context signals

Development

2025-26
Nebraska Cornhuskers
18.1p · 4.9r · 2.0a · 33.6 min · TS 64.8 %
35 of 35 games with a box score
37 %
2024-25
Iowa Hawkeyes
11.6p · 2.8r · 0.2a · 22.6 min · TS 69.1 %
5 of 33 games with a box score
2023-24
Iowa Hawkeyes
2.3p · 1.0r · 0.4a · 8.7 min · TS 49.5 %
29 of 34 games with a box score

The previous season (2024-25) has 5 games with a box score: too small a sample to compare.

Comparables and outlook (Scout)

Similarity of one season's statistical profile (12 axes per 40 minutes), not of playing style. 'Looks like X' means 'his season resembles it on these axes', nothing more.

fact29 of the 300 university seasons most like his 2025-26 reached the NBA (10 %) · statistical archetype: Three-point specialist

Ceiling
Tim Hardaway Jr.
24,390 NBA min · pick #24
Expected
Brian Roberts
5,217 NBA min · undrafted
Floor
Andrew Goudelock
478 NBA min · pick #46

NBA twins · what they share

Jordan Schakel d 1.11 · 36 NBA minTrue shooting (TS%) +1.6 · Scoring per 40 +1.4 · Three-point accuracy +1.6 · Share of threes +1.3
Anthony Morrow d 1.15 · 12,285 NBA minThree-point accuracy +1.5 · True shooting (TS%) +1.4 · Scoring per 40 +1.3 · Shot volume per 40 +1.1
Adam Flagler d 1.37 · 217 NBA minScoring per 40 +1.4 · Shot volume per 40 +1.3 · Share of threes +1.2 · Free-throw rate (FTA/FGA) −1.1

Computed on 2025-26 (35 games) · 2026-09-13

Combine

No Combine measurements: he does not appear in the 2024-2026 combines (or does not match uniquely by name). The physique above is what his programme lists, not a measurement.

Market vs SportiveWorld

Outside reference: the rank given by the cited publications. We know the rank; they do not publish the why.

#60
Market
+44
Gap
#16
SW rank · of 39
Tankathon#561 cited publication(s)· #35 by consensus among the 39 SW-ranked

factExternal consensus #60 (Tankathon #56; 1 source(s)). What we know: the rank. What we do NOT know: why they place him there — the sources publish rankings, not reasons.

Does our position hold? · The three lenses

Holds
  • On his individual signals alone he would be #13 of 39: the same zone as SW #16
  • On his environment alone (opponent and team) he would be #27 of 39, with 13 %
  • The comparables lens places him in the same zone of the board: #23 of 36 versus SW #16. A relative rank, not a rate: 10 % of 300 similar seasons reached the NBA; the model gives him 56 % to reach it

Three independent lenses against our own place: his individual signals alone, his environment alone and the historical comparables. A lens disagrees when it lands 8 places away or more. SportiveWorld can be wrong: this is where it shows.

Conviction

High convictionHow much the data backs what we say — it is not the rank. A #1 can carry low conviction and a #30, high. 4 of 5 factors in favour.
  • Sample: 35 of 35 games with a box score (100%)
  • Standardised by the Scout census (own season profile)
  • The consensus is a SINGLE source (1): it is not a market
  • His individual signals alone leave him in the same zone (#13 versus SW #16)
  • Historical comparables agree on the zone (#23 of 36 versus SW #16)
Why this gap exists

On our side the gap decomposes exactly: which dimensions push the rank up and which hold it back. On the consensus side we only see the rank: its sources publish rankings, not reasons, so why they place him there is UNKNOWN. All we can say is what our model does NOT measure.

factSportiveWorld #16 · consensus #60: 44 places higher. Pushing up: Opponent quality · Team strength · Production · Minutes. Holding back: Efficiency · Box-score defence. Consensus sources: 1.

unknownWe know the consensus rank (#60: Tankathon #56). We do not know why they place him there: the sources publish rankings, not reasons.

Pushes the rank up

Opponent quality +1.66
Opponent quality +4.3 (z +1.7)
Team strength +1.35
Team strength +10.8 (z +1.6)
Production +1.22
Scoring per 40 21.5 (z +1.5) · Rebounding per 40 5.8 (z −0.2) · Offensive rebounding per 40 0.7 (z −0.8)
Minutes +0.79
Minutes per game 33.6 min (z +1.4)

Holds the rank back

Efficiency −0.36
True shooting (TS%) 64.8 % (z +1.5) · Shot volume per 40 15.4 (z +1.2) · Free-throw rate (FTA/FGA) 18.3 % (z −1.1)
Box-score defence −0.22
Steals per 40 1.2 (z −0.2) · Blocks per 40 0.3 (z −0.5)

What our model does NOT measure (it could explain part of the gap; the consensus does not publish its reasons)

  • Age and class (Junior): the model does not adjust for them and favours the productive veteran
  • Physique and athleticism: no Combine measurements; only the listed height
  • Projection, film and future role: not in the box score

No appreciable weight · Creation −0.14 · Outside shooting +0.07

Rank history
#13#38#6209-1309-1409-1509-1609-1709-1809-20
SWConsensus

7 captures, from 2026-09-13 to 2026-09-20

  • ·2026-09-15: SW #15 → #16 · consensus #60 → #60 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)

Movement in the mocks

Tankathon: 09-13 #56 → 09-14 #56 → 09-15 #56 → 09-16 #56 → 09-17 #56 → 09-18 #56 → 09-20 #56

Data and evidence

Everything behind the reading, on demand: season signal by signal, trajectory, games with a box score, comparables, consensus and the provenance of every figure.

All the model's signals

Opponent quality
+4.3
+1.66
Team strength
+10.8
+1.35
Scoring per 40
21.5
+1.31
Minutes per game
33.6 min
+0.79
Free-throw rate (FTA/FGA)
18.3 %
+0.17
Share of threes
68.4 %
+0.05
Three-point accuracy
41.6 %
+0.02
Offensive rebounding per 40
0.7
−0.03
Steals per 40
1.2
−0.04
Rebounding per 40
5.8
−0.06
Assists per 40
2.4
−0.06
Turnovers per 40
0.8
−0.08
True shooting (TS%)
64.8 %
−0.11
Blocks per 40
0.3
−0.18
Shot volume per 40
15.4
−0.42

Calibrated probability of an NBA career of ≥ 2,000 minutes, given this season = 36.7 % · P(playing in the NBA) = 55.6 %

35 of 35 games with a box score · 22 conference · Average opponent +4.3 (+1.7 sd vs the cohort) · team +10.8 (+1.6 sd) · standardization from the Scout census

Who he is

Identity
Accredited by NCAA box score (ESPN id 4858604, corroborated by season and school)
Position
Small forward
Team / school
Nebraska Cornhuskers · Junior
Country
USA
Born
no data
Height
201 cm · official NCAA roster 2025-26 (ESPN)
Weight
98 kg

The games with a box score in the measured season

2025-26Opponentopp. ratingminptsrebast
2026-03-26Iowa Hawkeyes L 71-77 · NCAA Tournament+8.3342552box score
2026-03-22Vanderbilt Commodores W 74-72 · NCAA Tournament+10.8371552box score
2026-03-19Troy Trojans W 76-47 · NCAA Tournament+6.1382352box score
2026-03-13Purdue Boilermakers L 58-74 · Conference Tournament+11.1351542box score
2026-03-08Iowa Hawkeyes W 84-75+8.3381575box score
2026-03-04@ UCLA Bruins L 52-72+6.037952box score
2026-02-28@ USC Trojans W 82-67+0.7383262box score
2026-02-26Maryland Terrapins W 74-61−6.9361684box score
2026-02-21Penn State Nittany Lions W 87-64−5.7353392box score
2026-02-18@ Iowa Hawkeyes L 52-57+8.3371300box score
2026-02-14Northwestern Wildcats W 68-49+1.2362960box score
2026-02-11Purdue Boilermakers L 77-80+11.1391551box score
2026-02-07@ Rutgers Scarlet Knights W 80-68−4.8361541box score
2026-02-01Illinois Fighting Illini L 69-78+14.5381450box score
2026-01-28@ Michigan Wolverines L 72-75+17.8392043box score
2026-01-24@ Minnesota Golden Gophers W 76-57+0.93422103box score
2026-01-22Washington Huskies W 76-66+3.5362321box score
2026-01-17@ Northwestern Wildcats W 77-58+1.2362220box score
2026-01-14Oregon Ducks W 90-55−3.1312842box score
2026-01-10@ Indiana Hoosiers W 83-77+6.0371232box score
2026-01-05@ Ohio State Buckeyes W 72-69+6.7361132box score
2026-01-03Michigan State Spartans W 58-56+10.5211330box score
2025-12-31New Hampshire Wildcats W 86-55−5.4281971box score
2025-12-22North Dakota Fighting Hawks W 78-55−0.730731box score
2025-12-13@ Illinois Fighting Illini W 83-80+14.5343213box score
2025-12-11Wisconsin Badgers W 90-60+6.9301443box score
2025-12-07Creighton Bluejays W 71-500.0341371box score
2025-11-29South Carolina Upstate Spartans W 72-63+0.6322094box score
2025-11-26Winthrop Eagles W 80-73+8.2301082box score
2025-11-22Kansas State Wildcats W 86-85−2.3332131box score
2025-11-21@ New Mexico Lobos W 84-72+10.333863box score
2025-11-16Oklahoma Sooners W 105-99+5.5362857box score
2025-11-12Maryland Eastern Shore Hawks W 69-50−6.4311952box score
2025-11-08Florida International Panthers W 96-66+2.8212032box score
2025-11-04West Georgia Wolves W 86-53−3.021342box score

Evidence and provenance

Every figure in this file comes from one of these sources, with its scope and its sample. What is not here has not been measured.

OwnerScopeSample
Outside consensusdraft_board_mock · lib/bigboard.ts1 mocksTankathon #56
Identitydraft_board_prospect.espn_athlete_id · scripts/cross_bigboard_stats.mjsNCAA Division I4858604
Seasonncaa_player_box + ncaa_game · lib/scout/ejes.mjsNCAA 2025-26 · Nebraska Cornhuskers35 of 35 games with a box score
Opponent qualitylib/draft/sql_rival.mjs (ncaa_game, ≥10 pj)NCAA 2025-2635 / 35
zncaa_season_profile (scripts/scout_perfil_ncaa.mjs)NCAA 2025-26standardization from the Scout census
SW ranklib/draft/modelo.ts · lib/draft/calibracion.json2005-2021n=26,550 · AUC 0.897
The player within his teamncaa_player_box (rolDe · fórmulas B-R)NCAA 2025-2635 pj
The teamncaa_standings · ncaa_ranking · ncaa_gameNCAA 2025-26Big Ten Conference
Comparables and outlook (Scout)scout_nba_outlook (scripts/scout_outlook.mjs)NCAA 2025-2635 pj · 2026-09-13
Physicalncaa_player (ESPN, 2026)NCAA 2025-26201 cm · 98 kg
Rank historydraft_sw_board_snapshot · draft_board_mock_snapshot (mig 0329)20277
Measured season 2025-26: our base has a box score for 6,297 of 6,300 games (100%). By month: 11/25 100 % · 12/25 100 % · 01/26 100 % · 02/26 100 % · 03/26 100 % · 04/26 100 %.

Declared limits

  • · No adjustment for age or class (the historical census lacks them): bias in favour of the productive veteran.
  • · Physical measurements and the combine are not in the model: they are shown as context.
  • · Calibrated on the NCAA only: ACB, EuroLeague and FIBA are not scored.
  • · The mocks' history starts on 2026-09-13: before that date there is none (the ingester overwrote them daily).