Alabama A&M
SWAC · 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 | +8.2 avg | × 33% | +2.7 |
| Opponents faced | -21.4 avg | × 33% | -7.1 |
| Preseason prior | -12.7 | × 67% | -8.5 |
| Power | -12.9 | ||
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 | vs | Oakwood non-D1 | W 90–57 | +23.3 | +9.7 | -0.8 |
| 2 | vs | Mississippi University For Women non-D1 | W 103–47 | +23.3 | +32.7 | +0.2 |
| 3 | at | DePaul | L 47–84 | -24.9 | -12.1 | -2.1 |
| 3 | vs | West Florida | W 85–83 | +5.5 | -3.5 | -1.7 |
| Preseason prior (67% of the rating) | -8.5 | |||||
| Power | -12.9 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | vs | Cleveland State | +3.8 | 64% |
| 4 | vs | Lipscomb | -8.3 | 22% |
| 5 | at | North Alabama | -4.4 | 34% |
| 7 | at | Mississippi State | -30.2 | 0% |
| 7 | at | Georgia | -29.6 | 0% |
Season by season
Best finish: #193 in 2004–05. 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 | 18–15 | #318 of 365 · -12.08 | – |
| 2024–25 | 10–22 | #356 of 364 · -17.30 | – |
| 2023–24 | 12–23 | #335 of 362 · -13.36 | – |
| 2022–23 | 15–18 | #324 of 363 · -10.76 | – |
| 2021–22 | 12–18 | #327 of 358 · -12.32 | – |
| 2020–21 | 6–9 | #327 of 347 · -13.80 | – |
| 2019–20 | 8–22 | – | #340 of 353 · -70.14 |
| 2018–19 | 5–27 | – | #346 of 353 · -89.40 |
| 2017–18 | 3–28 | – | #351 of 351 · -125.82 |
| 2016–17 | 2–27 | – | #351 of 351 · -123.64 |
| 2015–16 | 11–18 | – | #264 of 351 · -11.72 |
| 2014–15 | 9–20 | – | #325 of 351 · -44.22 |
| 2013–14 | 14–16 | – | #274 of 351 · -8.96 |
| 2012–13 | 9–20 | – | #323 of 347 · -58.32 |
| 2011–12 | 7–21 | – | #311 of 345 · -44.25 |
| 2010–11 | 13–15 | – | #257 of 346 · -6.46 |
| 2009–10 | 11–16 | – | #284 of 335 · -20.14 |
| 2008–09 | 8–19 | – | #296 of 330 · -37.54 |
| 2007–08 | 14–15 | – | #238 of 328 · -3.39 |
| 2006–07 | 10–20 | – | #319 of 326 · -57.37 |
| 2005–06 | 13–13 | – | #203 of 326 · 19.43 |
| 2004–05 | 18–14 | – | #193 of 326 · 20.70 |