Loyola Marymount
WCC · 1–3
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 | +4.9 avg | × 33% | +1.6 |
| Opponents faced | -11.6 avg | × 33% | -3.9 |
| Preseason prior | -0.5 | × 67% | -0.3 |
| Power | -2.6 | ||
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 | vs | Queens University | L 95–96 | +2.0 | -3.0 | -1.0 |
| 2 | vs | Lincoln University (CA) non-D1 | W 102–50 | +33.6 | +18.4 | +0.2 |
| 3 | at | Troy | L 69–74 | -3.0 | -2.0 | -0.2 |
| 3 | N | South Alabama | L 72–79 | +2.0 | -9.0 | -1.3 |
| Preseason prior (67% of the rating) | -0.3 | |||||
| Power | -2.6 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | vs | Chicago State | +15.0 | 91% |
| 4 | N | California Baptist | +7.8 | 76% |
| 4 | N | UC Irvine | -5.4 | 31% |
| 5 | vs | Eastern Washington | +5.8 | 70% |
| 5 | at | UC San Diego | -9.9 | 18% |
| 7 | at | Nevada | -16.2 | 7% |
Season by season
Best finish: #108 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 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 | 15–17 | #180 of 365 · -1.38 | – |
| 2024–25 | 17–15 | #186 of 364 · -1.62 | – |
| 2023–24 | 12–19 | #175 of 362 · -0.73 | – |
| 2022–23 | 19–12 | #133 of 363 · 2.66 | – |
| 2021–22 | 11–18 | #199 of 358 · -2.14 | – |
| 2020–21 | 13–9 | #134 of 347 · 2.60 | – |
| 2019–20 | 10–21 | – | #232 of 353 · 4.91 |
| 2018–19 | 20–12 | – | #108 of 353 · 60.21 |
| 2017–18 | 11–20 | – | #239 of 351 · 7.42 |
| 2016–17 | 15–15 | – | #152 of 351 · 43.16 |
| 2015–16 | 14–17 | – | #229 of 351 · 8.19 |
| 2014–15 | 8–23 | – | #313 of 351 · -29.25 |
| 2013–14 | 13–19 | – | #234 of 351 · 10.31 |
| 2012–13 | 10–22 | – | #222 of 347 · 7.25 |
| 2011–12 | 19–12 | – | #137 of 345 · 49.57 |
| 2010–11 | 11–21 | – | #221 of 346 · 13.56 |
| 2009–10 | 18–16 | – | #174 of 335 · 33.92 |
| 2008–09 | 3–28 | – | #325 of 330 · -86.27 |
| 2007–08 | 5–26 | – | #328 of 328 · -112.05 |
| 2006–07 | 13–18 | – | #258 of 326 · -11.84 |
| 2005–06 | 12–18 | – | #162 of 326 · 34.36 |
| 2004–05 | 11–17 | – | #188 of 326 · 22.95 |