Green Bay
Horizon · 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 | +7.9 avg | × 33% | +2.6 |
| Opponents faced | +0.3 avg | × 33% | +0.1 |
| Preseason prior | -5.9 | × 67% | -3.9 |
| Power | -1.2 | ||
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 | vs | Lawrence University non-D1 | W 94–51 | +35.0 | +8.0 | +0.8 |
| 2 | at | Cincinnati | L 64–81 | -26.6 | +9.6 | +0.5 |
| 2 | at | St. Thomas-Minnesota | W 76–67 | -4.8 | +13.8 | +1.9 |
| 3 | at | Northern Iowa | L 76–89 | -9.4 | -3.6 | -0.5 |
| Preseason prior (67% of the rating) | -3.9 | |||||
| Power | -1.2 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | vs | Viterbo non-D1 | +35.0 | 100% |
| 4 | at | West Florida | +11.3 | 85% |
| 4 | at | Florida State | -18.5 | 5% |
| 5 | at | Kansas City | +9.1 | 80% |
| 5 | vs | North Dakota | +10.7 | 83% |
Season by season
Best finish: #49 in 2014–15. 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 | 18–15 | #238 of 365 · -5.54 | – |
| 2024–25 | 4–28 | #342 of 364 · -14.93 | – |
| 2023–24 | 18–14 | #291 of 362 · -7.85 | – |
| 2022–23 | 3–29 | #363 of 363 · -21.25 | – |
| 2021–22 | 5–25 | #337 of 358 · -13.09 | – |
| 2020–21 | 8–17 | #278 of 347 · -8.22 | – |
| 2019–20 | 15–16 | – | #225 of 353 · 6.39 |
| 2018–19 | 19–17 | – | #214 of 353 · 10.47 |
| 2017–18 | 13–20 | – | #285 of 351 · -16.46 |
| 2016–17 | 18–14 | – | #147 of 351 · 46.28 |
| 2015–16 | 23–13 | – | #133 of 351 · 56.83 |
| 2014–15 | 24–9 | – | #49 of 351 · 102.56 |
| 2013–14 | 24–7 | – | #53 of 351 · 100.20 |
| 2012–13 | 17–15 | – | #123 of 347 · 50.46 |
| 2011–12 | 15–15 | – | #198 of 345 · 20.87 |
| 2010–11 | 14–18 | – | #197 of 346 · 25.01 |
| 2009–10 | 22–13 | – | #144 of 335 · 48.48 |
| 2008–09 | 22–11 | – | #70 of 330 · 88.37 |
| 2007–08 | 15–15 | – | #177 of 328 · 28.19 |
| 2006–07 | 18–15 | – | #142 of 326 · 43.48 |
| 2005–06 | 15–16 | – | #219 of 326 · 11.84 |
| 2004–05 | 17–11 | – | #192 of 326 · 21.36 |