Chicago State
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 | -2.0 avg | × 33% | -0.7 |
| Opponents faced | -3.9 avg | × 33% | -1.3 |
| Preseason prior | -18.9 | × 67% | -12.6 |
| Power | -14.6 | ||
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 | Texas | L 59–109 | -38.8 | -11.2 | -1.5 |
| 2 | at | Incarnate Word | W 66–54 | -2.7 | +14.8 | +0.9 |
| 3 | vs | South Carolina State | L 67–82 | +0.1 | -15.1 | -3.5 |
| 3 | at | California Baptist | W 81–62 | -7.2 | +26.2 | +2.1 |
| Preseason prior (67% of the rating) | -12.6 | |||||
| Power | -14.6 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | at | San Diego | -12.2 | 13% |
| 3 | at | Loyola Marymount | -15.0 | 9% |
| 4 | at | UIC | -24.2 | 1% |
| 4 | at | Marquette | -35.6 | 0% |
| 5 | at | Bradley | -13.9 | 10% |
| 6 | at | Evansville | -6.5 | 28% |
Season by season
Best finish: #159 in 2008–09. 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 | 7–25 | #351 of 365 · -17.25 | – |
| 2024–25 | 4–28 | #361 of 364 · -18.89 | – |
| 2023–24 | 13–19 | #288 of 362 · -7.83 | – |
| 2022–23 | 11–20 | #302 of 363 · -8.98 | – |
| 2021–22 | 7–25 | #352 of 358 · -17.68 | – |
| 2020–21 | 0–9 | #346 of 347 · -25.45 | – |
| 2019–20 | 1–25 | – | #352 of 353 · -154.14 |
| 2018–19 | 1–29 | – | #353 of 353 · -160.28 |
| 2017–18 | 3–29 | – | #350 of 351 · -110.10 |
| 2016–17 | 6–26 | – | #344 of 351 · -78.70 |
| 2015–16 | 4–28 | – | #344 of 351 · -75.72 |
| 2014–15 | 8–24 | – | #335 of 351 · -55.18 |
| 2013–14 | 13–19 | – | #306 of 351 · -30.81 |
| 2012–13 | 7–21 | – | #285 of 347 · -25.22 |
| 2011–12 | 4–26 | – | #337 of 345 · -78.97 |
| 2010–11 | 6–26 | – | #345 of 346 · -120.22 |
| 2009–10 | 9–23 | – | #322 of 335 · -67.05 |
| 2008–09 | 19–13 | – | #159 of 330 · 37.72 |
| 2007–08 | 11–17 | – | #288 of 328 · -25.62 |
| 2006–07 | 9–20 | – | #278 of 326 · -22.29 |
| 2005–06 | 11–19 | – | #264 of 326 · -11.44 |
| 2004–05 | 9–19 | – | #272 of 326 · -14.22 |