The MRI
2026–27 · Week 3

Miami

ACC · 2–1

Power+20.4#26 of 365
Résumé+0.25#135 · wins above average
Movement+2up from #28 last week
Best winWagner (83–57)
Worst lossFlorida (67–77)
Schedule faced+1.7 avg opponent
Schedule ahead+2.3 avg opponent
Returning production44% of last season's win shares · #55 of 364
Incoming production21.5 win shares from other schools' players
Recruiting class#44 in the country

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.

PartValueWeightAdds
Margin counted+14.9 avg× 27%+4.1
Opponents faced+1.7 avg× 27%+0.4
Preseason prior+21.8× 73%+15.9
Power+20.4

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 N Florida L 67–77 -8.4 -1.6 +1.2
2 vs Wagner W 83–57 +34.8 -8.8 +1.3
3 vs North Florida W 89–51 +35.6 +2.4 +2.0
Preseason prior (73% of the rating)+15.9
Power+20.4

Remaining schedule

WkOpponent ProjectedWin prob
3 vs North Alabama +34.8 100%
4 vs Rider +43.4 100%
4 vs Manhattan +37.4 100%
5 N TCU +7.1 74%
6 vs Alabama -1.3 45%
7 N Texas -0.8 47%

Season by season

Best finish: #10 in 2012–13. 22 seasons rated. The two columns' numbers are not comparable; the rank within each is. Season links open that year's game log.

25 1 200 2004–05 (MRI Classic): #78 of 326 (16-13)2005–06 (MRI Classic): #72 of 326 (18-16)2006–07 (MRI Classic): #143 of 326 (12-20)2007–08 (MRI Classic): #52 of 328 (23-11)2008–09 (MRI Classic): #63 of 330 (19-13)2009–10 (MRI Classic): #75 of 335 (20-13)2010–11 (MRI Classic): #73 of 346 (21-15)2011–12 (MRI Classic): #70 of 345 (20-13)2012–13 (MRI Classic): #10 of 347 (27-6)2013–14 (MRI Classic): #105 of 351 (17-16)2014–15 (MRI Classic): #55 of 351 (25-13)2015–16 (MRI Classic): #23 of 351 (27-8)2016–17 (MRI Classic): #55 of 351 (21-12)2017–18 (MRI Classic): #67 of 351 (22-10)2018–19 (MRI Classic): #130 of 353 (14-18)2019–20 (MRI Classic): #187 of 353 (15-16)2020–21 (MRI 2.0): #179 of 347 (10-17)2021–22 (MRI 2.0): #63 of 358 (26-11)2022–23 (MRI 2.0): #22 of 363 (29-8)2023–24 (MRI 2.0): #83 of 362 (15-17)2024–25 (MRI 2.0): #156 of 364 (7-24)2025–26 (MRI 2.0): #40 of 365 (26-9) MRI 2.0Classic 2004–05 2025–26

Finishing rank, best at the top, on an axis running to 200 — 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 26–9 #40 of 365 · 15.73 –
2024–25 7–24 #156 of 364 · 0.34 –
2023–24 15–17 #83 of 362 · 7.73 –
2022–23 29–8 #22 of 363 · 14.94 –
2021–22 26–11 #63 of 358 · 9.69 –
2020–21 10–17 #179 of 347 · -0.96 –
2019–20 15–16 – #187 of 353 · 27.57
2018–19 14–18 – #130 of 353 · 48.73
2017–18 22–10 – #67 of 351 · 92.90
2016–17 21–12 – #55 of 351 · 97.98
2015–16 27–8 – #23 of 351 · 141.40
2014–15 25–13 – #55 of 351 · 95.08
2013–14 17–16 – #105 of 351 · 65.38
2012–13 27–6 – #10 of 347 · 161.84
2011–12 20–13 – #70 of 345 · 89.33
2010–11 21–15 – #73 of 346 · 84.22
2009–10 20–13 – #75 of 335 · 85.55
2008–09 19–13 – #63 of 330 · 93.74
2007–08 23–11 – #52 of 328 · 100.94
2006–07 12–20 – #143 of 326 · 43.47
2005–06 18–16 – #72 of 326 · 85.17
2004–05 16–13 – #78 of 326 · 74.35