The MRI
2026–27 · Week 3

Iona

Metro · 2–2

Power-5.0#224 of 365
Résumé+0.01#184 · wins above average
Movement+1up from #225 last week
Best winVermont (56–55)
Worst lossFordham (72–78)
Schedule faced+1.3 avg opponent
Schedule ahead-8.9 avg opponent
Returning production24% of last season's win shares · #173 of 364 · counted against its preseason rating
Incoming production6.7 win shares from other schools' players

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.

PartValueWeightAdds
Margin counted-4.9 avg× 33%-1.6
Opponents faced+1.3 avg× 33%+0.4
Preseason prior-5.7× 67%-3.8
Power-5.0

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.

WkOpponentResult ExpectedPerfAdds
2 vs Vermont W 56–55 +0.8 +0.2 -0.8
2 vs NJIT W 72–49 +15.0 +8.0 +0.5
2 at St. John's L 65–104 -31.1 -7.9 -1.0
3 at Fordham L 72–78 -9.9 +3.9 +0.1
Preseason prior (67% of the rating)-3.8
Power-5.0

Remaining schedule

WkOpponent ProjectedWin prob
3 at Hofstra -9.1 20%
4 at UMBC -2.2 42%
4 vs Kansas City +11.1 84%
5 vs Fairleigh Dickinson +10.7 84%
5 at Bryant +6.0 71%

Season by season

Best finish: #34 in 2010–11. 22 seasons rated. The two columns' numbers are not comparable; the rank within each is. Season links open that year's game log.

25 1 400 2004–05 (MRI Classic): #172 of 326 (15-15)2005–06 (MRI Classic): #49 of 326 (23-8)2006–07 (MRI Classic): #323 of 326 (2-28)2007–08 (MRI Classic): #217 of 328 (12-20)2008–09 (MRI Classic): #205 of 330 (12-19)2009–10 (MRI Classic): #98 of 335 (21-10)2010–11 (MRI Classic): #34 of 346 (25-12)2011–12 (MRI Classic): #35 of 345 (25-8)2012–13 (MRI Classic): #73 of 347 (20-13)2013–14 (MRI Classic): #93 of 351 (22-11)2014–15 (MRI Classic): #96 of 351 (26-9)2015–16 (MRI Classic): #96 of 351 (22-11)2016–17 (MRI Classic): #117 of 351 (22-13)2017–18 (MRI Classic): #139 of 351 (20-14)2018–19 (MRI Classic): #177 of 353 (17-16)2019–20 (MRI Classic): #230 of 353 (12-17)2020–21 (MRI 2.0): #165 of 347 (12-6)2021–22 (MRI 2.0): #93 of 358 (25-8)2022–23 (MRI 2.0): #66 of 363 (27-8)2023–24 (MRI 2.0): #192 of 362 (16-17)2024–25 (MRI 2.0): #253 of 364 (17-17)2025–26 (MRI 2.0): #235 of 365 (18-14) MRI 2.0Classic 2004–05 2025–26

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.

SeasonRec MRI 2.0MRI Classic
2025–26 18–14 #235 of 365 · -5.38 –
2024–25 17–17 #253 of 364 · -6.46 –
2023–24 16–17 #192 of 362 · -2.31 –
2022–23 27–8 #66 of 363 · 9.80 –
2021–22 25–8 #93 of 358 · 6.40 –
2020–21 12–6 #165 of 347 · -0.13 –
2019–20 12–17 – #230 of 353 · 4.97
2018–19 17–16 – #177 of 353 · 27.71
2017–18 20–14 – #139 of 351 · 51.75
2016–17 22–13 – #117 of 351 · 60.21
2015–16 22–11 – #96 of 351 · 75.43
2014–15 26–9 – #96 of 351 · 71.77
2013–14 22–11 – #93 of 351 · 72.83
2012–13 20–13 – #73 of 347 · 77.43
2011–12 25–8 – #35 of 345 · 116.15
2010–11 25–12 – #34 of 346 · 118.88
2009–10 21–10 – #98 of 335 · 68.35
2008–09 12–19 – #205 of 330 · 19.73
2007–08 12–20 – #217 of 328 · 7.98
2006–07 2–28 – #323 of 326 · -67.91
2005–06 23–8 – #49 of 326 · 99.00
2004–05 15–15 – #172 of 326 · 28.03