Boston College
ACC · 3–0
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 | +25.4 avg | × 27% | +6.9 |
| Opponents faced | -10.0 avg | × 27% | -2.7 |
| Preseason prior | +3.9 | × 73% | +2.8 |
| Power | +7.0 | ||
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 | Wagner | W 76–50 | +21.4 | +4.6 | +1.3 |
| 2 | N | Massachusetts | W 71–55 | +9.3 | +6.7 | +1.9 |
| 3 | vs | Maryland Eastern Shore | W 82–54 | +26.2 | +1.8 | +1.0 |
| Preseason prior (73% of the rating) | +2.8 | |||||
| Power | +7.0 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | vs | New Hampshire | +19.7 | 96% |
| 4 | at | Harvard | +2.2 | 58% |
| 4 | vs | NJIT | +27.0 | 99% |
| 5 | N | UCF | -3.0 | 39% |
| 5 | N | Cincinnati | -15.5 | 8% |
| 6 | at | Georgia | -9.8 | 19% |
| 6 | vs | UMass Lowell | +16.5 | 93% |
| 7 | vs | Northeastern | +18.2 | 95% |
Season by season
Best finish: #21 in 2005–06. 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 | 11–20 | #159 of 365 · 0.08 | – |
| 2024–25 | 12–19 | #189 of 364 · -1.73 | – |
| 2023–24 | 20–16 | #87 of 362 · 7.23 | – |
| 2022–23 | 16–17 | #169 of 363 · -0.02 | – |
| 2021–22 | 13–20 | #175 of 358 · -0.16 | – |
| 2020–21 | 4–16 | #226 of 347 · -3.82 | – |
| 2019–20 | 13–19 | – | #268 of 353 · -9.19 |
| 2018–19 | 14–17 | – | #182 of 353 · 25.61 |
| 2017–18 | 19–16 | – | #128 of 351 · 58.51 |
| 2016–17 | 9–23 | – | #253 of 351 · 0.57 |
| 2015–16 | 7–25 | – | #310 of 351 · -33.66 |
| 2014–15 | 13–19 | – | #187 of 351 · 28.43 |
| 2013–14 | 8–24 | – | #289 of 351 · -16.42 |
| 2012–13 | 16–17 | – | #148 of 347 · 38.44 |
| 2011–12 | 9–22 | – | #314 of 345 · -46.74 |
| 2010–11 | 21–13 | – | #103 of 346 · 68.73 |
| 2009–10 | 15–16 | – | #113 of 335 · 63.04 |
| 2008–09 | 22–12 | – | #84 of 330 · 77.49 |
| 2007–08 | 14–17 | – | #151 of 328 · 40.16 |
| 2006–07 | 21–12 | – | #62 of 326 · 96.23 |
| 2005–06 | 28–8 | – | #21 of 326 · 121.09 |
| 2004–05 | 24–5 | – | #24 of 326 · 119.60 |