Chattanooga
SoCon · 1–2
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 | +6.3 avg | × 27% | +1.7 |
| Opponents faced | +1.4 avg | × 27% | +0.4 |
| Preseason prior | -7.5 | × 73% | -5.4 |
| Power | -3.3 | ||
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 | Louisville | L 70–84 | -30.6 | +16.6 | +1.1 |
| 2 | at | Penn State | L 93–97 | -11.1 | +7.1 | +0.6 |
| 3 | vs | Covenant non-D1 | W 97–67 | +32.8 | -2.8 | +0.4 |
| Preseason prior (73% of the rating) | -5.4 | |||||
| Power | -3.3 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | at | Elon | -2.5 | 41% |
| 4 | at | Winthrop | -2.3 | 42% |
| 4 | vs | Radford | +5.2 | 68% |
| 5 | vs | Delaware State | +12.9 | 88% |
| 5 | vs | Troy | +2.1 | 58% |
| 8 | vs | Mercer | +1.0 | 54% |
| 9 | vs | Samford | +0.9 | 53% |
| 10 | at | Western Carolina | -4.2 | 35% |
Season by season
Best finish: #60 in 2015–16. 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 300 — 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 | 13–19 | #237 of 365 · -5.50 | – |
| 2024–25 | 28–10 | #107 of 364 · 4.84 | – |
| 2023–24 | 21–12 | #149 of 362 · 1.52 | – |
| 2022–23 | 18–17 | #135 of 363 · 2.62 | – |
| 2021–22 | 27–8 | #65 of 358 · 9.63 | – |
| 2020–21 | 18–8 | #130 of 347 · 2.63 | – |
| 2019–20 | 18–13 | – | #143 of 353 · 45.20 |
| 2018–19 | 9–19 | – | #297 of 353 · -27.72 |
| 2017–18 | 10–23 | – | #293 of 351 · -20.46 |
| 2016–17 | 19–12 | – | #106 of 351 · 65.11 |
| 2015–16 | 29–6 | – | #60 of 351 · 100.04 |
| 2014–15 | 22–10 | – | #100 of 351 · 69.20 |
| 2013–14 | 18–15 | – | #216 of 351 · 18.53 |
| 2012–13 | 11–19 | – | #279 of 347 · -22.98 |
| 2011–12 | 11–21 | – | #220 of 345 · 13.35 |
| 2010–11 | 16–16 | – | #249 of 346 · -2.22 |
| 2009–10 | 15–18 | – | #253 of 335 · -1.40 |
| 2008–09 | 18–17 | – | #169 of 330 · 32.57 |
| 2007–08 | 18–13 | – | #137 of 328 · 49.97 |
| 2006–07 | 15–18 | – | #173 of 326 · 28.65 |
| 2005–06 | 19–13 | – | #175 of 326 · 29.44 |
| 2004–05 | 20–11 | – | #72 of 326 · 78.90 |