Lipscomb
ASUN · 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 | -5.0 avg | × 33% | -1.7 |
| Opponents faced | +3.2 avg | × 33% | +1.1 |
| Preseason prior | -1.5 | × 67% | -1.0 |
| Power | -1.6 | ||
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 | Southeast Missouri State | L 79–86 | -0.0 | -7.0 | -0.6 |
| 2 | at | Iowa | L 54–76 | -23.0 | +1.0 | -0.3 |
| 2 | vs | SIU Edwardsville | W 78–77 | +6.1 | -5.1 | -0.9 |
| 3 | vs | Belmont | W 88–75 | -2.2 | +15.2 | +1.2 |
| Preseason prior (67% of the rating) | -1.0 | |||||
| Power | -1.6 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | at | Western Carolina | -2.5 | 41% |
| 4 | at | Purdue | -24.7 | 1% |
| 4 | at | Alabama A&M | +8.3 | 78% |
| 4 | vs | Milligan non-D1 | +34.6 | 100% |
| 5 | at | Auburn | -24.8 | 1% |
| 5 | at | Ohio State | -21.6 | 2% |
| 11 | at | Jacksonville | +1.8 | 57% |
| 11 | at | North Florida | +7.7 | 76% |
Season by season
Best finish: #28 in 2018–19. 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 300 — 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 | 19–13 | #168 of 365 · -0.58 | – |
| 2024–25 | 25–10 | #91 of 364 · 6.40 | – |
| 2023–24 | 20–12 | #154 of 362 · 1.25 | – |
| 2022–23 | 20–13 | #154 of 363 · 0.95 | – |
| 2021–22 | 14–19 | #247 of 358 · -5.75 | – |
| 2020–21 | 15–12 | #191 of 347 · -2.07 | – |
| 2019–20 | 14–16 | – | #223 of 353 · 6.44 |
| 2018–19 | 27–8 | – | #28 of 353 · 125.75 |
| 2017–18 | 23–10 | – | #109 of 351 · 65.25 |
| 2016–17 | 20–13 | – | #138 of 351 · 51.38 |
| 2015–16 | 12–21 | – | #266 of 351 · -12.14 |
| 2014–15 | 14–17 | – | #271 of 351 · -6.77 |
| 2013–14 | 15–15 | – | #242 of 351 · 8.27 |
| 2012–13 | 11–18 | – | #278 of 347 · -22.91 |
| 2011–12 | 11–18 | – | #253 of 345 · -5.38 |
| 2010–11 | 17–13 | – | #153 of 346 · 41.91 |
| 2009–10 | 17–13 | – | #147 of 335 · 47.66 |
| 2008–09 | 17–14 | – | #112 of 330 · 61.19 |
| 2007–08 | 15–16 | – | #166 of 328 · 33.66 |
| 2006–07 | 18–13 | – | #144 of 326 · 42.90 |
| 2005–06 | 21–11 | – | #97 of 326 · 66.04 |
| 2004–05 | 16–12 | – | #216 of 326 · 13.34 |