A dollar range on every recruit. A risk read right beside it.
Every prospect gets an estimated value, a suggested allocation scaled to what is actually left in your budget, and a signing-risk read at the price you plan to offer — each with its confidence shown.
No signup for the demo · fictional sample program
- Suggested allocation
- $6.5K
- Below the estimate on purpose: $93K of a $1.9M pool is uncommitted, with four other catchers still in play.
- Planned offer
- $15.5K
- −$0.5K vs. estimate — $13K scholarship + $2.5K institutional NIL.
- Price vs. what's leftThe offer as a share of remaining budget
- Your talent gradeCoach-entered grades and Looks, never a model's
- What's on fileStats, measurables, video, injuries, transcripts
- Academics + eligibilityCore GPA against the NCAA line, eligibility clock
The score and each factor's direction are on his demo profile, computed live. Also on the board: Silas Rutherford, C, a year further out — projected $9.5K–$28K at signing, no offer yet.
What it does, in order.
- 01
A range, not a number
Estimated value is a low, mid and high, priced against your program's own budget benchmarks and the level you compete at. A thin file — one season, a couple of measurables — gets a wide range on purpose. A deep, corroborated one gets a tight range. A narrow range on a thin profile would be false confidence, not a better estimate.
- 02
Four numbers, four questions
Estimated value is what the file is worth. Suggested allocation is one actionable figure: that estimate scaled by your interest level, what is uncommitted, and how many recruits compete for the same spot — so it sits below the estimate when a budget is nearly spent. Planned offer is what your staff actually entered; the engine only shows the gap. Signing risk is a 0–100 read on how exposed the program is at that price, given what is on file.
- 03
What goes in
Performance stats weighted by sample size, measurables, level of competition, position, class year and age, and your roster and budget context. Two programs with different budgets see different dollar figures for the same player — intentionally, because value is priced against your market, not a universal one.
- 04
Institutional and commercial NIL stay separate
Estimated value covers one year of scholarship plus your program's own institutional NIL or revenue-share allocation. Commercial NIL — a brand deal, a collective's own arrangement with the player — is tracked as a separate figure and never folded in.
- 05
Where the engine says it doesn't know
Every figure carries a confidence label. Where a level has no sourced pricing data, the range widens and the label says so. Where a research figure exists but is too thin to fit against, it is cited as a reference, not built into a coefficient.
The rest of the workspace it touches.
Real screens from the same product, not illustrations. Each one is here because it proves something this page claims.
Two recruits at the same position, priced by the same engine — the comparison a valuation exists to serve.
Tap a name to focus their column
The measured 2026 population a player's level is scored against. Not an assumption — a transcribed, test-locked table.
The spread of team batting average across every college level, 2026. Lower divisions hit for a higher average than Division I — which is why scoring a team against a national average, instead of against its own level, flatters some programs and punishes others.
Questions coaches ask about this.
Every dollar tied to a roster spot.
Set the pool, allocate scholarship and institutional NIL by prospect, and see committed, pending and remaining at a glance — with the same figures feeding cash flow, scenarios, and the pay-versus-output read on your current roster.