Western Kentucky
CUSA · 3–1
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 | +21.7 avg | × 33% | +7.2 |
| Opponents faced | -17.8 avg | × 33% | -5.9 |
| Preseason prior | +1.2 | × 67% | +0.8 |
| Power | +2.1 | ||
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 | Morehead State | W 83–58 | +17.5 | +7.5 | +1.0 |
| 2 | vs | Kentucky Wesleyan non-D1 | W 82–48 | +38.2 | -4.2 | +0.6 |
| 2 | at | Tennessee Tech | L 94–97 | +6.0 | -9.0 | -0.3 |
| 3 | vs | Campbellsville non-D1 | W 78–51 | +38.2 | -11.2 | +0.0 |
| Preseason prior (67% of the rating) | +0.8 | |||||
| Power | +2.1 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | at | Tulsa | -9.6 | 19% |
| 4 | N | Richmond | -2.8 | 40% |
| 4 | N | George Washington | -7.2 | 26% |
| 5 | at | Illinois | -29.9 | 0% |
| 10 | at | Kennesaw State | -3.0 | 39% |
| 10 | at | Jacksonville State | +3.0 | 61% |
| 11 | vs | New Mexico State | +8.2 | 77% |
| 11 | vs | Sam Houston | +5.6 | 70% |
Season by season
Best finish: #23 in 2007–08. 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 250 — 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 | 18–14 | #153 of 365 · 0.38 | – |
| 2024–25 | 17–15 | #158 of 364 · 0.04 | – |
| 2023–24 | 22–12 | #132 of 362 · 2.77 | – |
| 2022–23 | 17–16 | #159 of 363 · 0.58 | – |
| 2021–22 | 19–13 | #109 of 358 · 4.82 | – |
| 2020–21 | 21–8 | #87 of 347 · 7.14 | – |
| 2019–20 | 19–10 | – | #113 of 353 · 57.75 |
| 2018–19 | 20–14 | – | #115 of 353 · 58.42 |
| 2017–18 | 27–11 | – | #30 of 351 · 126.99 |
| 2016–17 | 15–17 | – | #241 of 351 · 5.99 |
| 2015–16 | 18–16 | – | #166 of 351 · 42.09 |
| 2014–15 | 20–12 | – | #122 of 351 · 56.61 |
| 2013–14 | 20–12 | – | #139 of 351 · 47.36 |
| 2012–13 | 19–15 | – | #143 of 347 · 40.68 |
| 2011–12 | 16–19 | – | #221 of 345 · 13.33 |
| 2010–11 | 16–16 | – | #206 of 346 · 22.33 |
| 2009–10 | 21–13 | – | #93 of 335 · 72.65 |
| 2008–09 | 25–9 | – | #58 of 330 · 95.91 |
| 2007–08 | 29–7 | – | #23 of 328 · 138.42 |
| 2006–07 | 22–11 | – | #67 of 326 · 92.47 |
| 2005–06 | 23–8 | – | #45 of 326 · 101.22 |
| 2004–05 | 22–9 | – | #62 of 326 · 85.81 |