Wofford
SoCon · 2–2
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 | +0.9 avg | × 33% | +0.3 |
| Opponents faced | -2.8 avg | × 33% | -0.9 |
| Preseason prior | -6.2 | × 67% | -4.1 |
| Power | -4.7 | ||
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 | Tennessee | L 59–90 | -36.2 | +5.2 | -0.1 |
| 2 | at | North Carolina | L 70–109 | -26.6 | -12.4 | -1.3 |
| 2 | vs | Allen University non-D1 | W 100–67 | +31.4 | +1.6 | +0.5 |
| 3 | vs | Voorhees non-D1 | W 91–47 | +31.4 | +12.6 | +0.3 |
| Preseason prior (67% of the rating) | -4.1 | |||||
| Power | -4.7 | |||||
Remaining schedule
| Wk | Opponent | Projected | Win prob | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | at | Queens University | -6.0 | 29% |
| 4 | at | Charleston Southern | +1.3 | 55% |
| 4 | vs | Winthrop | +2.2 | 58% |
| 5 | vs | Queens University | -0.1 | 50% |
| 5 | at | Purdue Fort Wayne | +0.4 | 51% |
| 6 | at | Mercer | -6.3 | 28% |
| 8 | at | Samford | -6.5 | 28% |
| 9 | vs | Western Carolina | +0.3 | 51% |
Season by season
Best finish: #17 in 2018–19. 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 | 19–13 | #210 of 365 · -3.74 | – |
| 2024–25 | 19–16 | #122 of 364 · 2.95 | – |
| 2023–24 | 17–15 | #201 of 362 · -3.07 | – |
| 2022–23 | 17–16 | #195 of 363 · -1.56 | – |
| 2021–22 | 19–13 | #100 of 358 · 5.21 | – |
| 2020–21 | 15–9 | #108 of 347 · 4.98 | – |
| 2019–20 | 17–16 | – | #171 of 353 · 34.46 |
| 2018–19 | 27–5 | – | #17 of 353 · 150.40 |
| 2017–18 | 21–13 | – | #148 of 351 · 49.31 |
| 2016–17 | 16–17 | – | #177 of 351 · 36.97 |
| 2015–16 | 15–17 | – | #189 of 351 · 26.95 |
| 2014–15 | 28–7 | – | #54 of 351 · 95.92 |
| 2013–14 | 20–13 | – | #125 of 351 · 55.17 |
| 2012–13 | 12–19 | – | #241 of 347 · -2.21 |
| 2011–12 | 19–13 | – | #147 of 345 · 47.23 |
| 2010–11 | 21–13 | – | #76 of 346 · 81.42 |
| 2009–10 | 26–9 | – | #61 of 335 · 100.31 |
| 2008–09 | 16–14 | – | #179 of 330 · 29.96 |
| 2007–08 | 16–16 | – | #206 of 328 · 15.05 |
| 2006–07 | 10–20 | – | #288 of 326 · -30.11 |
| 2005–06 | 11–18 | – | #231 of 326 · 2.10 |
| 2004–05 | 14–14 | – | #198 of 326 · 19.47 |