Tomislav Ivisic
Illinois Fighting Illini · NCAA Division I · Center · Senior · 2.16 m
SportiveWorld evaluation
Main reading
His model rank rests on the environment (Illinois Fighting Illini); on his signals alone, #30 of 39.
Data and sources
Player evaluation
Why he is here
The NCAA model places him #19 of 39: the bet is the environment (Illinois Fighting Illini, opponent +5.0), not individual dominance — on his signals alone he would be #30. The market has him 44 places lower (#63).
The position is a bet on having performed in one of the country's best environments: the model rewards surviving and producing against that schedule. What we do not know is how much of it travels with him to another team and another role.
- 32 % probability of an NBA career (≥ 2,000 min). On the model's scale: context +3.82 · player +0.33. With average opponent and team, the same profile would give 1.0 %; on the environment alone, 25 %.
- Measured environment: Illinois Fighting Illini, strength +14.5 (+2.2 sd) · average opponent +5.0 (+2.1 sd) — environment #13 of 39 ranked
- His individual signal adding the most: Rebounding per 40 8.9 (+1.0 sd · contribution +0.26). On his individual signals alone he would be #30 of 39.
How this evaluation is produced
The NCAA model places him #19 of 39: the bet is the environment (Illinois Fighting Illini, opponent +5.0), not individual dominance — on his signals alone he would be #30. The market has him 44 places lower (#63).
Measured over 34 games with a box score · 2025-26 · Illinois Fighting Illini
- fact32 % probability of an NBA career (≥ 2,000 min). On the model's scale: context +3.82 · player +0.33. With average opponent and team, the same profile would give 1.0 %; on the environment alone, 25 %.
- factMeasured environment: Illinois Fighting Illini, strength +14.5 (+2.2 sd) · average opponent +5.0 (+2.1 sd) — environment #13 of 39 ranked
- factHis individual signal adding the most: Rebounding per 40 8.9 (+1.0 sd · contribution +0.26). On his individual signals alone he would be #30 of 39.
interpretationThe position is a bet on having performed in one of the country's best environments: the model rewards surviving and producing against that schedule. What we do not know is how much of it travels with him to another team and another role.
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.
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.
factStarts from the NCAA model: 32% probability of an NBA career (#19 of 39 measured). → Medium
- ◎The market (#63) does not disagree with the model enough to move the reading.
- ◎On his individual signals alone he would be #30 of 39 (≥ 8 places worse than his model #19): his rank rests on the environment. Down one level.
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 · Illinois Fighting Illini · 10.4p · 5.6r · 1.6a · 25.4 min · 34 of 37 games with a box score · TS 60.0 %
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.
| pj | W-L | min | pts/40 | reb/40 | ast/40 | tov/40 | TS | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-26 | 34 | — | 25.4 | 16.4 | 8.9 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 60.0 % |
| Opponents +8 or better | 13 | 7-6 | 26.4 | 15.2 | 8.4 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 62.5 % |
| Other opponents | 21 | 18-3 | 24.8 | 17.2 | 9.2 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 58.7 % |
| Postseason | 6 | 4-2 | 26.0 | 18.7 | 8.7 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 63.2 % |
| Away / neutral | 14 | 10-4 | 26.1 | 16.2 | 7.7 | 2.3 | 1.4 | 62.5 % |
Measured strengths and risks
Strengths
Signals that add the most
What travels: holds up against strong opponents
- ▲Rebounding per 40: 8.4 against +8 opponents (13 games) versus 8.9 over the season — it holds
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
- ▼Senior: the model does not adjust for age or class; the same production from a freshman projects higher
Would make us move him down
- ▼The performance not travelling: without the Illinois Fighting Illini environment his signals leave him #30 of 39
- ▼The shot not holding up: 31.3 % from three with 59 % of his attempts from outside
- ▼Age: we do not adjust for it (Senior); the same production from a freshman projects higher
- ▼More sources consolidating the consensus #63
Would make us move him up
- ▲More scoring per 40 min: today 16.4 (+0.3 sd)
- ▲More box-score defence: steals 0.5 and blocks 0.9 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
- ▲The same performance in another context (another role, a team other than Illinois Fighting Illini): it would separate the player from his environment
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 (25.4 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 33 of 34 games (97%) · 25.4 min (63% of the available minutes)
- ·Usage 20.4% of his team's possessions while on the floor · 20% of its points
- ·Creation: assists 11.3% of his teammates' baskets while on the floor · 1.20 assists per turnover · 13.5% of his possessions end in a turnover
- ·Team record with him on the floor: 25-9 · estimated pace 65.6 possessions per 40 min
His team and schedule
- ·Illinois Fighting Illini · Big Ten Conference · 24-7 in the standings · 15-5 in conference
- ·Latest poll: Coaches Poll, week 21, #5 (28-9)
- ·Postseason with a box score: 6 games, 5 in the NCAA Tournament (up to Final Four)
- ·Team strength +14.5 (+2.2 sd in the cohort) · average opponent +5.0 (+2.1 sd): the model's two context signals
Development
The previous season (2024-25) has 4 games with a box score: too small a sample to compare.
Combine
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
Market vs SportiveWorld
Outside reference: the rank given by the cited publications. We know the rank; they do not publish the why.
factExternal consensus #63 (Tankathon #59; 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
- ◎On his individual signals alone (average opponent and team) he would be #30 of 39: +11 places versus SW #19, with a 1.0 % probability
- ◎On his environment alone (opponent and team) he would be #13 of 39, with 25 %
- ◎No Scout historical comparables for this season: that lens does not apply
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
- ✓Sample: 34 of 37 games with a box score (92%)
- ✓Standardised by the Scout census (own season profile)
- ✗The consensus is a SINGLE source (1): it is not a market
- ✗His individual signals alone place him far from the SW rank (#30 versus #19)
- ✗No historical comparables for this season
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 #19 · consensus #63: 44 places higher. Pushing up: Opponent quality · Team strength · Production. Holding back: Box-score defence. Consensus sources: 1.
unknownWe know the consensus rank (#63: Tankathon #59). We do not know why they place him there: the sources publish rankings, not reasons.
Pushes the rank up
Holds the rank back
What our model does NOT measure (it could explain part of the gap; the consensus does not publish its reasons)
- ◇Age and class (Senior): 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 −0.05 · Efficiency +0.01 · Outside shooting +0.02 · Minutes −0.01
Rank history ▾
7 captures, from 2026-10-24 to 2026-11-04
- ·2026-10-26: SW #18 → #19 · consensus #62 → #63 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
- ·2026-10-27: SW #19 → #19 · consensus #63 → #64 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
- ·2026-10-28: SW #19 → #18 · consensus #64 → #56 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
- ·2026-10-29: SW #18 → #18 · consensus #56 → #64 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
- ·2026-10-30: SW #18 → #18 · consensus #64 → #54 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
- ·2026-11-04: SW #18 → #19 · consensus #54 → #63 · no accredited cause in his own data (movement of the mocks or the rest of the board)
Movement in the mocks
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.
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
Calibrated probability of an NBA career of ≥ 2,000 minutes, given this season = 31.8 % · P(playing in the NBA) = 57.7 %
34 of 37 games with a box score · 22 conference · Average opponent +5.0 (+2.1 sd vs the cohort) · team +14.5 (+2.2 sd) · standardization from the Scout census
Who he is
The games with a box score in the measured season
| 2025-26 | Opponent | opp. rating | min | pts | reb | ast | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-04 | @ UConn Huskies L 62-71 · Final Four | +11.4 | 33 | 16 | 7 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-03-28 | Iowa Hawkeyes W 71-59 · NCAA Tournament | +8.3 | 27 | 13 | 4 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-03-27 | @ Houston Cougars W 65-55 · NCAA Tournament | +14.5 | 29 | 9 | 3 | 3 | box score |
| 2026-03-22 | VCU Rams W 76-55 · NCAA Tournament | +9.1 | 22 | 14 | 11 | 2 | box score |
| 2026-03-20 | Pennsylvania Quakers W 105-70 · NCAA Tournament | +1.5 | 21 | 12 | 7 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-03-13 | Wisconsin Badgers L 88-91 · Conference Tournament | +6.9 | 24 | 9 | 2 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-03-08 | @ Maryland Terrapins W 78-72 | −6.9 | 19 | 4 | 4 | 3 | box score |
| 2026-03-04 | Oregon Ducks W 80-54 | −3.1 | 24 | 2 | 8 | 2 | box score |
| 2026-02-28 | Michigan Wolverines L 70-84 | +17.8 | 27 | 7 | 4 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-02-22 | @ UCLA Bruins L 94-95 | +6.0 | 33 | 16 | 6 | 2 | box score |
| 2026-02-19 | @ USC Trojans W 101-65 | +0.7 | 21 | 10 | 4 | 2 | box score |
| 2026-02-15 | Indiana Hoosiers W 71-51 | +6.0 | 27 | 14 | 6 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-02-11 | Wisconsin Badgers L 90-92 | +6.9 | 37 | 19 | 11 | 3 | box score |
| 2026-02-08 | @ Michigan State Spartans L 82-85 | +10.5 | 29 | 12 | 2 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-02-05 | Northwestern Wildcats W 84-44 | +1.2 | 24 | 5 | 12 | 5 | box score |
| 2026-02-01 | @ Nebraska Cornhuskers W 78-69 | +10.8 | 32 | 12 | 8 | 3 | box score |
| 2026-01-30 | Washington Huskies W 75-66 | +3.5 | 29 | 7 | 6 | 3 | box score |
| 2026-01-24 | @ Purdue Boilermakers W 88-82 | +11.1 | 24 | 7 | 8 | 0 | box score |
| 2026-01-22 | Maryland Terrapins W 89-70 | −6.9 | 30 | 9 | 7 | 3 | box score |
| 2026-01-17 | Minnesota Golden Gophers W 77-67 | +0.9 | 26 | 10 | 7 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-01-15 | @ Northwestern Wildcats W 79-68 | +1.2 | 26 | 21 | 7 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-01-11 | @ Iowa Hawkeyes W 75-69 | +8.3 | 20 | 7 | 2 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-01-09 | Rutgers Scarlet Knights W 81-55 | −4.8 | 26 | 14 | 4 | 1 | box score |
| 2026-01-04 | @ Penn State Nittany Lions W 73-65 | −5.7 | 17 | 0 | 2 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-12-29 | Southern Jaguars W 90-55 | +1.7 | 23 | 11 | 7 | 1 | box score |
| 2025-12-23 | Missouri Tigers W 91-48 | +3.8 | 21 | 14 | 5 | 1 | box score |
| 2025-12-13 | Nebraska Cornhuskers L 80-83 | +10.8 | 29 | 3 | 5 | 2 | box score |
| 2025-12-10 | @ Ohio State Buckeyes W 88-80 | +6.7 | 27 | 7 | 2 | 2 | box score |
| 2025-12-07 | @ Tennessee Volunteers W 75-62 | +9.3 | 31 | 16 | 5 | 3 | box score |
| 2025-11-28 | @ UConn Huskies L 61-74 | +11.4 | 25 | 11 | 10 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-11-25 | UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros W 87-73 | +6.4 | 22 | 10 | 5 | 2 | box score |
| 2025-11-22 | Long Island University Sharks W 98-58 | +1.9 | 21 | 9 | 4 | 2 | box score |
| 2025-11-20 | Alabama Crimson Tide L 86-90 | +8.5 | 15 | 3 | 3 | 0 | box score |
| 2025-11-04 | Jackson State Tigers W 113-55 | −13.5 | 23 | 21 | 4 | 0 | box 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.
| Source | Scope | Sample | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outside consensus | The public mock drafts we track | 1 mocks | Tankathon #59 |
| Identity | His ESPN NCAA box scores, matched with the board | NCAA Division I | 5214642 |
| Season | ESPN's NCAA box scores, game by game | NCAA 2025-26 · Illinois Fighting Illini | 34 of 37 games with a box score |
| Opponent quality | NCAA games with the opponent's strength measured (at least 10) | NCAA 2025-26 | 34 / 34 |
| Standard score (z) against the NCAA | Scout's census of NCAA players for that season | NCAA 2025-26 | standardization from the Scout census |
| SW rank | SportiveWorld's draft model, calibrated on past drafts | 2005-2021 | n=26,550 · AUC 0.897 |
| The player within his team | His NCAA box scores, with Basketball-Reference formulas | NCAA 2025-26 | 34 pj |
| The team | NCAA standings, the AP ranking and games | NCAA 2025-26 | Big Ten Conference |
| Physical | His NCAA profile on ESPN | NCAA 2025-26 | 216 cm · 122 kg |
| Rank history | Daily snapshots of the board and the mock drafts | 2027 | 7 |
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).