Minnesota
Big Ten · 4–0
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 | +21.3 avg | × 33% | +7.1 |
| Opponents faced | +1.2 avg | × 33% | +0.4 |
| Preseason prior | +9.1 | × 67% | +6.1 |
| Power | +13.6 | ||
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 | North Dakota | W 85–50 | +25.5 | +9.5 | +2.0 |
| 2 | vs | St. Thomas-Minnesota | W 76–62 | +15.9 | -1.9 | +1.1 |
| 3 | at | Cincinnati | W 63–61 | -11.8 | +13.8 | +2.8 |
| 3 | vs | Southern | W 91–61 | +26.0 | +4.0 | +1.6 |
| Preseason prior (67% of the rating) | +6.1 | |||||
| Power | +13.6 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | vs | Western Illinois | +38.5 | 100% |
| 4 | N | Oklahoma State | -2.7 | 40% |
| 4 | N | Utah | +10.3 | 83% |
| 5 | N | California | +7.6 | 76% |
| 7 | N | SMU | -0.8 | 47% |
| 8 | vs | Texas Southern | +31.1 | 100% |
| 8 | vs | Alcorn State | +37.6 | 100% |
| 10 | vs | UTSA | +26.1 | 99% |
Season by season
Best finish: #24 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.
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 | 15–18 | #85 of 365 · 8.40 | – |
| 2024–25 | 15–17 | #92 of 364 · 6.34 | – |
| 2023–24 | 19–15 | #90 of 362 · 6.97 | – |
| 2022–23 | 9–22 | #215 of 363 · -2.98 | – |
| 2021–22 | 13–17 | #122 of 358 · 3.65 | – |
| 2020–21 | 14–15 | #92 of 347 · 6.60 | – |
| 2019–20 | 15–16 | – | #77 of 353 · 79.55 |
| 2018–19 | 22–14 | – | #77 of 353 · 74.09 |
| 2017–18 | 14–17 | – | #175 of 351 · 38.15 |
| 2016–17 | 24–10 | – | #38 of 351 · 114.74 |
| 2015–16 | 8–23 | – | #283 of 351 · -17.71 |
| 2014–15 | 18–15 | – | #65 of 351 · 87.38 |
| 2013–14 | 25–13 | – | #49 of 351 · 103.94 |
| 2012–13 | 20–12 | – | #24 of 347 · 132.53 |
| 2011–12 | 23–15 | – | #85 of 345 · 80.07 |
| 2010–11 | 17–14 | – | #100 of 346 · 69.33 |
| 2009–10 | 21–14 | – | #32 of 335 · 129.55 |
| 2008–09 | 22–11 | – | #53 of 330 · 100.92 |
| 2007–08 | 20–14 | – | #77 of 328 · 80.14 |
| 2006–07 | 9–22 | – | #251 of 326 · -7.51 |
| 2005–06 | 16–15 | – | #79 of 326 · 79.14 |
| 2004–05 | 21–10 | – | #37 of 326 · 106.06 |