Air Force
Mountain West · 3–1
How this rating is built
Power = w × (average margin counted + average opponent rating) + (1 − w) × preseason prior, where w = games ÷ (games + 8). After 4 games, w is 33%, so the preseason prior is 67% of this rating — mostly preseason, for now. Every game played shrinks that share.
| Part | Value | Weight | Adds |
|---|---|---|---|
| Margin counted | +5.9 avg | × 33% | +2.0 |
| Opponents faced | -12.5 avg | × 33% | -4.2 |
| Preseason prior | -12.8 | × 67% | -8.6 |
| Power | -10.8 | ||
This explains how the model reached the number. The opponent ratings come out of the same fitted model, so it is not independent proof that the rating is right.
Results
Expected is the margin the model's ratings imply for that matchup and site. Perf is how far the actual margin beat it — the result against expectation. Adds is a different question: how many points of Power the game contributes, counting its margin and the strength of the opponent together. A game can beat expectation and still add little, or the reverse. Adds, plus the preseason prior, sum to Power (figures are rounded so the column adds up). Hover an Adds figure for its arithmetic.
| Wk | Opponent | Result | Expected | Perf | Adds | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | at | Wright State | L 71–102 | -20.0 | -11.0 | -2.0 |
| 2 | vs | Calumet College non-D1 | W 107–58 | +25.4 | +23.6 | +0.1 |
| 2 | vs | Idaho State | W 89–82 | +5.8 | +1.2 | -0.9 |
| 3 | vs | Loyola Chicago | W 107–93 | -3.2 | +17.2 | +0.6 |
| Preseason prior (67% of the rating) | -8.6 | |||||
| Power | -10.8 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | at | Pacific | -13.4 | 11% |
| 4 | at | UTSA | -4.2 | 35% |
| 5 | N | Army | -0.4 | 48% |
| 5 | vs | Brown | +1.3 | 55% |
| 6 | vs | Denver | -3.5 | 38% |
| 6 | vs | Navy | -3.2 | 39% |
| 7 | at | Austin Peay | -14.2 | 10% |
| 8 | vs | Alabama State | +8.4 | 78% |
Season by season
Best finish: #12 in 2006–07. 22 seasons rated. The two columns' numbers are not comparable; the rank within each is. Season links open that year's game log.
Finishing rank, best at the top, on an axis running to 400 — this team's own range, not the size of the field. Two lines where both ratings cover a season - MRI 2.0 in red, Classic in grey. Hover a point for the season.
| Season | Rec | MRI 2.0 | MRI Classic |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025–26 | 3–29 | #358 of 365 · -18.58 | – |
| 2024–25 | 4–28 | #323 of 364 · -11.55 | – |
| 2023–24 | 9–22 | #270 of 362 · -6.40 | – |
| 2022–23 | 14–18 | #198 of 363 · -1.80 | – |
| 2021–22 | 11–18 | #290 of 358 · -8.55 | – |
| 2020–21 | 5–20 | #326 of 347 · -13.69 | – |
| 2019–20 | 11–20 | – | #245 of 353 · 0.43 |
| 2018–19 | 13–18 | – | #262 of 353 · -8.05 |
| 2017–18 | 12–19 | – | #275 of 351 · -11.07 |
| 2016–17 | 12–21 | – | #233 of 351 · 10.69 |
| 2015–16 | 14–18 | – | #261 of 351 · -10.43 |
| 2014–15 | 14–17 | – | #214 of 351 · 18.78 |
| 2013–14 | 12–18 | – | #273 of 351 · -8.95 |
| 2012–13 | 15–13 | – | #150 of 347 · 37.72 |
| 2011–12 | 12–16 | – | #217 of 345 · 14.23 |
| 2010–11 | 16–16 | – | #176 of 346 · 33.26 |
| 2009–10 | 10–21 | – | #270 of 335 · -12.41 |
| 2008–09 | 10–21 | – | #263 of 330 · -10.06 |
| 2007–08 | 16–14 | – | #175 of 328 · 28.89 |
| 2006–07 | 26–9 | – | #12 of 326 · 148.48 |
| 2005–06 | 24–7 | – | #66 of 326 · 88.35 |
| 2004–05 | 18–11 | – | #75 of 326 · 75.19 |