Central Connecticut
NEC · 2–2
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 | -4.0 avg | × 33% | -1.3 |
| Opponents faced | -1.1 avg | × 33% | -0.4 |
| Preseason prior | -10.5 | × 67% | -7.0 |
| Power | -8.7 | ||
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 | Temple | L 56–68 | -7.9 | -4.1 | -1.1 |
| 2 | at | Syracuse | L 49–102 | -25.9 | -27.1 | -2.2 |
| 2 | at | Dartmouth | W 78–71 | -6.6 | +13.6 | +1.2 |
| 3 | at | Sacred Heart | W 79–75 | -1.8 | +5.8 | +0.4 |
| Preseason prior (67% of the rating) | -7.0 | |||||
| Power | -8.7 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | vs | Quinnipiac | -0.8 | 47% |
| 4 | vs | Vermont State - Lyndon non-D1 | +27.5 | 99% |
| 5 | N | Navy | -4.1 | 36% |
| 5 | at | Fairfield | -3.6 | 37% |
| 6 | N | Brown | +0.4 | 51% |
| 8 | at | Fordham | -13.6 | 11% |
Season by season
Best finish: #104 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 | 18–12 | #278 of 365 · -8.44 | – |
| 2024–25 | 25–7 | #173 of 364 · -0.74 | – |
| 2023–24 | 20–11 | #263 of 362 · -5.97 | – |
| 2022–23 | 10–22 | #338 of 363 · -12.86 | – |
| 2021–22 | 8–24 | #351 of 358 · -16.53 | – |
| 2020–21 | 5–16 | #336 of 347 · -15.73 | – |
| 2019–20 | 3–27 | – | #349 of 353 · -118.44 |
| 2018–19 | 9–20 | – | #303 of 353 · -32.52 |
| 2017–18 | 14–18 | – | #290 of 351 · -18.84 |
| 2016–17 | 6–23 | – | #341 of 351 · -71.53 |
| 2015–16 | 4–25 | – | #351 of 351 · -97.44 |
| 2014–15 | 5–26 | – | #344 of 351 · -79.53 |
| 2013–14 | 11–19 | – | #324 of 351 · -45.35 |
| 2012–13 | 13–17 | – | #248 of 347 · -7.17 |
| 2011–12 | 13–17 | – | #211 of 345 · 16.57 |
| 2010–11 | 19–12 | – | #111 of 346 · 64.22 |
| 2009–10 | 12–18 | – | #287 of 335 · -22.35 |
| 2008–09 | 13–17 | – | #251 of 330 · -3.59 |
| 2007–08 | 14–16 | – | #160 of 328 · 36.03 |
| 2006–07 | 22–12 | – | #118 of 326 · 54.30 |
| 2005–06 | 18–11 | – | #104 of 326 · 60.17 |
| 2004–05 | 12–16 | – | #186 of 326 · 23.74 |