Elon
CAA · 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 | +4.8 avg | × 27% | +1.3 |
| Opponents faced | -0.8 avg | × 27% | -0.2 |
| Preseason prior | -6.8 | × 73% | -4.9 |
| Power | -3.8 | ||
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 | Columbia | W 84–71 | -4.0 | +17.0 | +2.2 |
| 2 | vs | UNC Greensboro | W 74–65 | +7.9 | +1.1 | -0.3 |
| 3 | at | George Washington | L 50–69 | -16.0 | -3.0 | -0.8 |
| Preseason prior (73% of the rating) | -4.9 | |||||
| Power | -3.8 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | vs | Chattanooga | +2.5 | 59% |
| 4 | at | South Carolina | -14.9 | 9% |
| 4 | vs | Morehead State | +11.6 | 85% |
| 5 | at | Furman | -10.7 | 16% |
| 5 | at | NC State | -26.3 | 1% |
| 7 | at | Richmond | -11.6 | 15% |
| 10 | vs | North Carolina A&T | +10.6 | 83% |
| 10 | at | William & Mary | -5.0 | 32% |
Season by season
Best finish: #146 in 2016–17. 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 | 14–18 | #229 of 365 · -5.02 | – |
| 2024–25 | 17–16 | #210 of 364 · -3.23 | – |
| 2023–24 | 13–19 | #318 of 362 · -10.99 | – |
| 2022–23 | 8–24 | #332 of 363 · -12.36 | – |
| 2021–22 | 10–22 | #251 of 358 · -5.95 | – |
| 2020–21 | 10–9 | #195 of 347 · -2.29 | – |
| 2019–20 | 10–21 | – | #294 of 353 · -25.87 |
| 2018–19 | 9–21 | – | #317 of 353 · -41.58 |
| 2017–18 | 14–18 | – | #263 of 351 · -4.17 |
| 2016–17 | 18–14 | – | #146 of 351 · 46.69 |
| 2015–16 | 16–16 | – | #198 of 351 · 22.62 |
| 2014–15 | 15–18 | – | #257 of 351 · 0.97 |
| 2013–14 | 18–14 | – | #181 of 351 · 33.11 |
| 2012–13 | 19–11 | – | #163 of 347 · 34.83 |
| 2011–12 | 15–16 | – | #245 of 345 · 0.06 |
| 2010–11 | 14–17 | – | #247 of 346 · -2.08 |
| 2009–10 | 9–23 | – | #299 of 335 · -34.07 |
| 2008–09 | 11–20 | – | #291 of 330 · -27.84 |
| 2007–08 | 14–19 | – | #230 of 328 · 1.60 |
| 2006–07 | 7–23 | – | #289 of 326 · -30.38 |
| 2005–06 | 15–14 | – | #211 of 326 · 15.27 |
| 2004–05 | 8–22 | – | #294 of 326 · -28.98 |