Furman
SoCon · 4–0
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 | +24.4 avg | × 33% | +8.1 |
| Opponents faced | -13.8 avg | × 33% | -4.6 |
| Preseason prior | +0.6 | × 67% | +0.4 |
| Power | +3.9 | ||
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 | N | Bethune-Cookman | W 79–70 | +7.2 | +1.8 | +0.9 |
| 2 | vs | Bob Jones non-D1 | W 121–52 | +40.1 | +28.9 | +0.1 |
| 2 | vs | Northern Iowa | W 98–83 | +1.6 | +13.4 | +1.6 |
| 3 | at | Holy Cross | W 80–67 | +17.4 | -4.4 | +0.9 |
| Preseason prior (67% of the rating) | +0.4 | |||||
| Power | +3.9 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | at | Belmont | -2.6 | 41% |
| 4 | at | Radford | +6.6 | 72% |
| 4 | vs | Clinton College non-D1 | +40.1 | 100% |
| 5 | vs | Elon | +10.7 | 84% |
| 5 | vs | Austin Peay | +6.4 | 72% |
| 6 | at | UNC Greensboro | +9.8 | 81% |
| 8 | vs | Western Carolina | +8.9 | 79% |
| 9 | at | East Tennessee State | -2.1 | 42% |
Season by season
Best finish: #37 in 2020–21. 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 | 22–13 | #147 of 365 · 0.76 | – |
| 2024–25 | 25–10 | #125 of 364 · 2.62 | – |
| 2023–24 | 17–16 | #153 of 362 · 1.29 | – |
| 2022–23 | 28–8 | #74 of 363 · 8.74 | – |
| 2021–22 | 22–12 | #58 of 358 · 10.18 | – |
| 2020–21 | 16–9 | #37 of 347 · 11.30 | – |
| 2019–20 | 22–7 | – | #68 of 353 · 83.55 |
| 2018–19 | 22–8 | – | #60 of 353 · 89.22 |
| 2017–18 | 23–9 | – | #49 of 351 · 106.62 |
| 2016–17 | 23–12 | – | #85 of 351 · 80.47 |
| 2015–16 | 19–16 | – | #142 of 351 · 52.91 |
| 2014–15 | 11–22 | – | #318 of 351 · -33.66 |
| 2013–14 | 9–21 | – | #337 of 351 · -64.90 |
| 2012–13 | 5–24 | – | #344 of 347 · -99.92 |
| 2011–12 | 15–16 | – | #215 of 345 · 14.64 |
| 2010–11 | 22–11 | – | #114 of 346 · 61.38 |
| 2009–10 | 13–17 | – | #238 of 335 · 5.00 |
| 2008–09 | 6–24 | – | #313 of 330 · -58.75 |
| 2007–08 | 7–23 | – | #311 of 328 · -51.58 |
| 2006–07 | 15–16 | – | #194 of 326 · 20.62 |
| 2005–06 | 15–13 | – | #188 of 326 · 24.67 |
| 2004–05 | 16–13 | – | #166 of 326 · 31.06 |