Austin Peay
UAC · 2–1
How this rating is built
Power = w × (average margin counted + average opponent rating) + (1 − w) × preseason prior, where w = games ÷ (games + 8). After 3 games, w is 27%, so the preseason prior is 73% of this rating — mostly preseason, for now. Every game played shrinks that share.
| Part | Value | Weight | Adds |
|---|---|---|---|
| Margin counted | +21.0 avg | × 27% | +5.7 |
| Opponents faced | -16.2 avg | × 27% | -4.4 |
| Preseason prior | -1.1 | × 73% | -0.8 |
| Power | +0.5 | ||
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 | Lane College non-D1 | W 109–65 | +36.7 | +7.3 | +0.9 |
| 2 | at | Kennesaw State | L 69–71 | -4.5 | +2.5 | +0.7 |
| 3 | vs | Livingstone non-D1 | W 82–61 | +36.7 | -15.7 | -0.3 |
| Preseason prior (73% of the rating) | -0.8 | |||||
| Power | +0.5 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | at | Wichita State | -14.2 | 10% |
| 4 | vs | Life University non-D1 | +36.7 | 100% |
| 4 | vs | UT Rio Grande Valley | +9.9 | 82% |
| 5 | at | Furman | -6.4 | 28% |
| 7 | vs | Air Force | +14.2 | 90% |
| 11 | vs | Eastern Kentucky | +11.3 | 85% |
| 11 | at | North Alabama | +9.0 | 79% |
| 12 | at | UT Arlington | +1.8 | 57% |
Season by season
Best finish: #78 in 2018–19. 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 | 22–9 | #166 of 365 · -0.49 | – |
| 2024–25 | 14–19 | #278 of 364 · -7.98 | – |
| 2023–24 | 19–16 | #224 of 362 · -4.16 | – |
| 2022–23 | 9–22 | #317 of 363 · -10.18 | – |
| 2021–22 | 12–17 | #283 of 358 · -8.12 | – |
| 2020–21 | 14–13 | #174 of 347 · -0.62 | – |
| 2019–20 | 19–12 | – | #126 of 353 · 51.29 |
| 2018–19 | 20–11 | – | #78 of 353 · 73.68 |
| 2017–18 | 19–15 | – | #135 of 351 · 53.42 |
| 2016–17 | 11–19 | – | #310 of 351 · -30.92 |
| 2015–16 | 18–18 | – | #199 of 351 · 22.26 |
| 2014–15 | 8–22 | – | #297 of 351 · -24.48 |
| 2013–14 | 12–18 | – | #288 of 351 · -15.84 |
| 2012–13 | 6–23 | – | #321 of 347 · -57.14 |
| 2011–12 | 12–20 | – | #223 of 345 · 12.75 |
| 2010–11 | 20–13 | – | #94 of 346 · 72.04 |
| 2009–10 | 17–15 | – | #197 of 335 · 19.64 |
| 2008–09 | 19–14 | – | #181 of 330 · 29.29 |
| 2007–08 | 24–11 | – | #100 of 328 · 69.44 |
| 2006–07 | 21–12 | – | #124 of 326 · 53.03 |
| 2005–06 | 17–14 | – | #165 of 326 · 32.88 |
| 2004–05 | 13–19 | – | #196 of 326 · 19.72 |