Massachusetts
MAC · 2–1
How this rating is built
Power = w × (average margin counted + average opponent rating) + (1 − w) × preseason prior, where w = games ÷ (games + 8). After 3 games, w is 27%, so the preseason prior is 73% of this rating — mostly preseason, for now. Every game played shrinks that share.
| Part | Value | Weight | Adds |
|---|---|---|---|
| Margin counted | +2.8 avg | × 27% | +0.8 |
| Opponents faced | -0.7 avg | × 27% | -0.2 |
| Preseason prior | -4.0 | × 73% | -2.9 |
| Power | -2.3 | ||
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 | Troy | W 71–60 | -2.8 | +13.8 | +2.0 |
| 2 | N | Boston College | L 55–71 | -9.3 | -6.7 | -1.4 |
| 3 | vs | UMass Lowell | W 72–62 | +7.2 | +2.8 | +0.0 |
| Preseason prior (73% of the rating) | -2.9 | |||||
| Power | -2.3 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | vs | Bryant | +14.6 | 91% |
| 4 | vs | Maine | +13.8 | 90% |
| 5 | vs | Loyola Chicago | +5.2 | 68% |
| 6 | at | Eastern Michigan | -2.0 | 43% |
| 6 | N | Wake Forest | -11.7 | 14% |
| 7 | vs | Western Michigan | +0.7 | 52% |
| 7 | at | Kent State | -4.2 | 35% |
| 8 | vs | Stonehill | +16.1 | 93% |
Season by season
Best finish: #49 in 2006–07. 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 | 17–16 | #188 of 365 · -1.83 | – |
| 2024–25 | 12–20 | #201 of 364 · -2.52 | – |
| 2023–24 | 20–11 | #105 of 362 · 5.50 | – |
| 2022–23 | 15–16 | #204 of 363 · -2.14 | – |
| 2021–22 | 15–17 | #203 of 358 · -2.29 | – |
| 2020–21 | 8–7 | #138 of 347 · 2.10 | – |
| 2019–20 | 14–17 | – | #209 of 353 · 14.47 |
| 2018–19 | 11–21 | – | #233 of 353 · 0.98 |
| 2017–18 | 13–20 | – | #255 of 351 · 0.13 |
| 2016–17 | 15–18 | – | #206 of 351 · 26.12 |
| 2015–16 | 14–18 | – | #211 of 351 · 15.97 |
| 2014–15 | 17–15 | – | #161 of 351 · 38.53 |
| 2013–14 | 24–9 | – | #60 of 351 · 94.49 |
| 2012–13 | 21–11 | – | #101 of 347 · 58.94 |
| 2011–12 | 24–12 | – | #79 of 345 · 82.53 |
| 2010–11 | 15–15 | – | #201 of 346 · 23.96 |
| 2009–10 | 12–20 | – | #222 of 335 · 9.97 |
| 2008–09 | 12–18 | – | #219 of 330 · 9.36 |
| 2007–08 | 25–11 | – | #55 of 328 · 99.46 |
| 2006–07 | 24–9 | – | #49 of 326 · 109.06 |
| 2005–06 | 13–15 | – | #130 of 326 · 46.53 |
| 2004–05 | 15–12 | – | #205 of 326 · 17.56 |