Pittsburgh
ACC · 3–0
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 | +20.6 avg | × 27% | +5.6 |
| Opponents faced | -7.2 avg | × 27% | -1.9 |
| Preseason prior | +8.4 | × 73% | +6.1 |
| Power | +9.8 | ||
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 | Rider | W 95–57 | +32.8 | +5.2 | +1.3 |
| 2 | vs | Buffalo | W 80–61 | +19.1 | -0.1 | +1.1 |
| 3 | N | Penn State | W 82–76 | +4.9 | +1.1 | +1.3 |
| Preseason prior (73% of the rating) | +6.1 | |||||
| Power | +9.8 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | at | Butler | -1.9 | 43% |
| 4 | vs | Villanova | -3.8 | 36% |
| 4 | vs | Central Michigan | +18.5 | 95% |
| 5 | N | Oklahoma | -1.2 | 46% |
| 5 | N | DePaul | +0.6 | 52% |
| 6 | at | Missouri | -12.4 | 13% |
| 6 | vs | Tarleton State | +17.3 | 94% |
| 7 | N | West Virginia | -6.9 | 27% |
Season by season
Best finish: #3 in 2008–09. 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 | 13–20 | #96 of 365 · 6.63 | – |
| 2024–25 | 17–15 | #54 of 364 · 12.35 | – |
| 2023–24 | 22–11 | #39 of 362 · 13.32 | – |
| 2022–23 | 24–12 | #71 of 363 · 9.11 | – |
| 2021–22 | 11–21 | #212 of 358 · -2.81 | – |
| 2020–21 | 10–12 | #115 of 347 · 4.42 | – |
| 2019–20 | 16–17 | – | #155 of 353 · 40.37 |
| 2018–19 | 14–19 | – | #131 of 353 · 47.99 |
| 2017–18 | 8–23 | – | #317 of 351 · -37.82 |
| 2016–17 | 16–17 | – | #143 of 351 · 47.84 |
| 2015–16 | 21–12 | – | #41 of 351 · 112.60 |
| 2014–15 | 19–15 | – | #103 of 351 · 68.65 |
| 2013–14 | 26–10 | – | #13 of 351 · 165.83 |
| 2012–13 | 24–8 | – | #7 of 347 · 168.40 |
| 2011–12 | 17–16 | – | #84 of 345 · 80.37 |
| 2010–11 | 28–6 | – | #8 of 346 · 177.40 |
| 2009–10 | 25–9 | – | #28 of 335 · 132.31 |
| 2008–09 | 31–5 | – | #3 of 330 · 211.12 |
| 2007–08 | 27–10 | – | #21 of 328 · 139.14 |
| 2006–07 | 29–8 | – | #10 of 326 · 168.40 |
| 2005–06 | 25–8 | – | #13 of 326 · 147.51 |
| 2004–05 | 20–9 | – | #26 of 326 · 118.27 |