2019 College Basketball Preseason Rankings & Ratings

No, Cassius Winston, your team is actually No. 1 in our preseason ratings (Photo by Adam Ruff/Icon Sportswire)

The official TeamRankings 2019 college basketball preseason rankings have arrived.

If you want to read an in depth description of how these rankings are created, check out our blog post on how we make college basketball preseason ratings. Otherwise, read on for a discussion of the ranking highlights, the full rankings and ratings for all 353 teams, and a breakdown of which factors contributed the most to each team’s rating.

Let’s start with what everybody asks first … “who’s your number one?”

Michigan State Is The Clear No. 1

Last season, a case could be made for up to six different teams to be ranked 1st to start the season. This season, there’s really no question — the Spartans easily have the best profile.

Let’s lay out the case:

Finished 5th in our predictive ratings last season, and made the Final Four

Great program history and Hall Of Fame coach, so last year wasn’t fluky

Only team in last year’s top 15 to return over 60% of its production* (average for the rest of the top 15 was 35%, and no other top 5 team returned even 30% of their offensive production)

Cassius Winston is the front runner for national Player Of The Year

Top 25 recruiting class

Josh Langford’s injury is the biggest concern. But he missed time last year as well, and Michigan State fared surprisingly well in his absence. They should be able to survive the regular season without him, and if he is healthy by March he’ll provide a boost come tournament time.

*NOTE: “Production” is measured by calculating each player’s individual offensive and defensive ratings from box score info, then comparing to a baseline in order to find their value over replacement. We then create a minute-weighted average of the individual player value to get the total production last season, and to find the percent of that value that’s returning.

Preseason Top 25 Comparison

Moving on to the rest of the top 25, let’s take a look at all the teams that made it into at least one preseason top 25 from among this group:

The table below lists all such teams, and shows the preseason rank in each system. It also shows the average rank, and a column indicating how far TR is from the consensus. (Positive numbers mean we project a team to rank better than the consensus, and negative is the reverse.) For teams receiving no votes in the polls, we used a rank of 55. Teams are listed in ascending order by average rank.

Team TR KP BT BPI AP Coach AVG TR Diff Michigan St 1 1 2 1 1 1 1.2 0.2 Kentucky 2 2 11 8 2 2 4.5 2.5 Duke 3 4 10 5 4 4 5.0 2.0 Florida 8 12 1 2 6 6 5.8 -2.2 Kansas 4 10 3 14 3 3 6.2 2.2 Louisville 5 3 4 16 5 5 6.3 1.3 Gonzaga 7 9 6 12 8 7 8.2 1.2 N Carolina 6 6 5 13 9 11 8.3 2.3 Virginia 12 5 17 3 11 9 9.5 -2.5 Villanova 13 8 20 4 10 10 10.8 -2.2 Maryland 9 16 8 19 7 8 11.2 2.2 Baylor 10 13 18 10 16 18 14.2 4.2 Purdue 16 7 7 11 23 22 14.3 -1.7 Texas Tech 14 15 24 15 13 12 15.5 1.5 Ohio State 11 11 15 25 18 16 16.0 5.0 Oregon 22 30 22 7 15 14 18.3 -3.7 St Marys 23 26 12 34 20 20 22.5 -0.5 Seton Hall 18 20 29 46 12 13 23.0 5.0 Marquette 19 17 30 18 29 27 23.3 4.3 VCU 21 23 9 43 25 26 24.5 3.5 Arizona 15 24 27 44 21 17 24.7 9.7 Florida St 17 14 34 36 30 29 26.7 9.7 Xavier 27 18 37 49 19 21 28.5 1.5 LSU 25 38 44 31 22 24 30.7 5.7 Auburn 28 22 74 21 24 23 32.0 4.0 Houston 31 29 45 22 36 32 32.5 1.5 Wisconsin 26 45 26 6 55 40 33.0 7.0 Illinois 49 35 14 27 33 47 34.2 -14.8 NC State 24 28 51 17 41 48 34.8 10.8 Michigan 32 21 31 61 45 30 36.7 4.7 Tennessee 35 19 82 32 28 25 36.8 1.8 Oklahoma 20 25 28 53 55 46 37.8 17.8 Notre Dame 37 42 21 37 39 55 38.5 1.5 Providence 52 31 23 45 49 36 39.3 -12.7 Utah State 30 68 46 57 17 19 39.5 9.5 Penn State 44 43 19 24 55 55 40.0 -4.0 Texas 50 32 25 38 55 40 40.0 -10.0 Iowa 36 41 55 20 55 55 43.7 7.7 Miss State 48 53 66 23 35 37 43.7 -4.3 Missouri 55 39 13 76 34 55 45.3 -9.7 Iowa St 45 47 63 9 55 55 45.7 0.7 Memphis 33 50 43 134 14 15 48.2 15.2 Harvard 80 75 16 67 32 45 52.5 -27.5

Preseason Top 25 Comparison Highlights

When comparing how teams are ranked across these systems, a few points stick out.

Torvik Bucking The No. 1 Trend

Five of the six rankings have Michigan State in the top spot, but Torvik’s ratings have them at No. 2, with Florida at No. 1. ESPN’s BPI has the Gators at No. 2, just a hair behind Michigan State.

There’s a lot to like about Florida’s profile. Kerry Blackshear Jr. is expected to be one of the biggest impact transfers in the country. They have a top 10 recruiting class. They return three talented sophomores who had productive freshman seasons (Noah Locke, Andrew Nembhard and Keyontae Johnson), and who should be expected to improve in year two. Michael White is by all indications an excellent coach.

Of course, they are not without flaws. They are starting from a relatively low baseline, as they finished only 26th in our predictive ratings last season. Outside of their sophomore trio, they aren’t returning a whole lot else, and we have them at only 47% returning production. They lost their most efficient scorer and best shot blocker from last season, Kevarrius Hayes.

Humans Love Memphis & Utah State

Both human polls have Memphis and Utah State ranked in the teens, while none of the three computer rankings have them in the top 30. Why?

For Memphis, we suspect people are overrating the importance of their recruiting class. The Tigers have the top freshman class in the country, based on consensus rankings. Recently, we’ve seen the top incoming classes propel their teams to very good seasons, including No. 1 seeds and national titles.

The problem is that those top classes have been going to Duke or Kentucky teams coming off very good seasons. They were reloading, not building.

Our recruiting database covers 19 seasons. Of the top-rated classes from each of those seasons, Memphis’ previous-season predictive rating ranks 16th, meaning they are near the bottom in prior program performance for a top class. The closest comparisons based on those predictive ratings and our rating of their recruiting class are 2012-13 UCLA and 2007-08 USC. Both of those teams earned 6 seeds in the NCAA tournament, and both were upset in the first round. Coincidentally, our projected average seed for Memphis this year is … 6.

As for Utah State, they were a good non-major-conference team last season, and they return over 70% of their production, including star Sam Merrill. Plus Craig Smith is in his second year as coach after leading them to a huge improvement in year one. They’re a great story, which may be inflating their human rankings.

At the same time, the computer rankings may not adequately be accounting for how much an improvement Smith is over the previous coach, Steve Henson. We did adjust their “PROGRAM” component up a little to reflect that what happened 3 and 4 years ago may be less relevant for Utah State than for most schools, but it’s possible that adjustment should be even larger.

Correlations With Consensus

Our rankings have the highest correlation coefficient when comparing each system with the consensus, for the 38 teams listed here. Torvik’s have the lowest.

The rank order is:

TeamRankings (0.893)

Pomeroy (0.863)

Coaches Poll (0.839)

AP Poll (0.793)

ESPN BPI (0.636)

Torvik (0.622)

Last year, Pomeroy was the most correlated, at 0.926. BPI was the least correlated, at 0.725. So Torvik and BPI are a bit further away from the other systems than any one source was last season.

We’re High On …

Among the teams listed in the table above (top 25 in at least one system), we rank 6 teams at least 9 spots better than consensus:

Oklahoma (TR 20, average 37.8)

Memphis* (TR 33, average 48.2)

NC State (TR 24, average 34.8)

Arizona (TR 15, average 24.7)

Florida State (TR 17, average 26.7)

Utah State* (TR 30, average 39.5)

*Memphis and Utah are special cases here. We’re low on them compared to the human polls, but high on them compared to the other computer rankings. BPI has Memphis all the way down at No. 134, skewing the overall average.

We’re Not So Keen About …

We rank 5 teams at least 9 spots worse than consensus (again, only looking at the teams listed in the table above). We’re most pessimistic about:

Harvard (TR 80, average 52.5)

Illinois (TR 49, average 34.2)

Providence (TR 52, average 39.3)

Texas (TR 50, average 40.0)

Missouri ( TR 55, average 45.3)

Last season we listed 12 teams that we were high or low on compared to the consensus. Based on their final rankings for the season, we beat the consensus on 8, and the consensus beat us on the other 4.

Full 2019 College Basketball Preseason Rankings, From #1 To #353

OK, let’s get to what you’re really here for.

The table below shows our 2019 preseason ranking of all 353 college basketball teams, along with each team’s associated preseason predictive rating (e.g. 21.6 for Michigan State).

The team ratings are expressed as points better (positive rating) or worse (negative rating) than a “perfectly average” college basketball team, when playing on a neutral court.

The final eight columns of the table show the relative contribution of specific factors our preseason ratings model considers, as well as a final “market adjustment” we make for each team.

Here’s a quick explanation of those factors. For more detail, read our post on how we make college basketball preseason ratings.

LAST YEAR: How good a team was last season (based on final predictive rating)

How good a team was last season (based on final predictive rating) PROGRAM: Recent historical performance, excluding last season

Recent historical performance, excluding last season RET OFF: Returning offensive production, compared to typical

Returning offensive production, compared to typical RET DEF: Returning defensive production, compared to typical

Returning defensive production, compared to typical RECRUIT: Value of incoming freshman recruiting class

Value of incoming freshman recruiting class TRANSFER: Value of incoming Division I transfers (JUCO transfers ignored)

Value of incoming Division I transfers (JUCO transfers ignored) COACH: Recent coaching changes expected to have positive or negative impact

Recent coaching changes expected to have positive or negative impact MARKET: Adjustment if our ratings-based projection for a team is far off the betting market or our rankings differ greatly from the AP poll

TR Rank Team 2019-20 Rating LAST YEAR PROGRAM RET OFF RET DEF RECRUIT TRANSFER COACH MARKET 1 Michigan St 21.6 15.0 3.9 0.2 1.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 -0.5 2 Kentucky 19.5 12.6 4.1 -2.9 -1.6 4.6 0.7 0.0 2.0 3 Duke 19.3 16.2 4.2 -4.2 -2.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 Kansas 18.9 10.5 4.2 1.5 1.3 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 5 Louisville 18.7 9.8 3.8 1.3 3.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 -0.5 6 N Carolina 18.0 14.4 4.2 -2.5 -3.2 4.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 7 Gonzaga 16.8 17.3 4.2 -4.4 -5.1 1.9 2.0 0.0 1.0 8 Florida 16.7 8.5 3.6 -0.3 -1.4 2.6 3.7 0.0 0.0 9 Maryland 16.4 9.0 2.8 0.0 3.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 Baylor 15.4 7.2 3.3 0.0 2.1 0.1 1.7 0.0 1.0 11 Ohio State 15.2 7.4 2.3 0.6 2.2 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.5 12 Virginia 15.1 15.4 4.2 -3.6 -1.5 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 Villanova 14.8 7.8 4.2 -1.4 1.4 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 Texas Tech 14.8 13.5 3.0 -1.2 -5.8 0.9 4.4 0.0 0.0 15 Arizona 14.4 3.9 3.4 0.8 -0.1 3.3 4.0 0.0 -1.0 16 Purdue 14.1 12.7 4.2 -3.0 1.7 0.0 1.1 0.0 -2.5 17 Florida St 13.7 10.3 3.1 -1.6 -0.8 0.9 0.9 0.0 1.0 18 Seton Hall 13.1 5.1 2.7 0.5 4.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 19 Marquette 12.9 8.0 2.2 0.4 0.9 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 20 Oklahoma 12.8 8.4 2.9 1.0 -0.6 0.4 1.7 0.0 -1.0 21 VCU 12.6 6.6 1.8 2.1 3.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 -1.5 22 Oregon 12.5 7.8 3.2 -0.7 -2.7 2.1 1.8 0.0 1.0 23 St Marys 12.5 7.0 2.9 0.7 2.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 -3.5 24 NC State 12.4 8.2 1.7 0.2 1.7 0.6 1.5 0.0 -1.5 25 LSU 12.2 9.3 1.2 -0.9 1.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 Wisconsin 12.1 10.3 2.7 -1.4 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 -0.5 27 Xavier 11.9 4.5 3.4 -0.1 2.2 0.3 2.1 0.0 -0.5 28 Auburn 11.9 12.0 1.5 -2.0 -0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 Creighton 11.8 6.2 3.1 -0.1 1.5 0.0 2.6 0.0 -1.5 30 Utah State 11.8 6.9 2.0 0.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31 Houston 11.8 11.0 2.6 -2.2 -1.2 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 32 Michigan 11.7 12.8 3.4 -0.7 0.2 1.0 0.1 -5.0 0.0 33 Memphis 11.6 5.5 1.0 -1.5 -3.2 6.6 0.2 0.0 3.0 34 Colorado 11.6 5.0 1.6 0.9 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 35 Tennessee 11.6 12.6 2.4 -3.0 -1.1 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 36 Iowa 11.5 7.6 2.2 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.0 -0.5 37 Notre Dame 11.5 3.3 3.0 0.9 3.8 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 38 Indiana 11.4 7.3 2.8 -1.5 0.2 1.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 39 Cincinnati 11.4 8.0 3.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.6 -3.0 0.0 40 Alabama 11.4 4.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.7 3.0 0.0 41 BYU 11.3 2.9 1.9 1.1 1.7 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 42 Washington 11.2 6.4 1.6 -1.0 -3.8 4.6 0.3 0.0 3.0 43 Butler 11.2 4.4 3.3 -0.2 2.6 0.0 3.6 0.0 -2.5 44 Penn State 11.1 6.7 1.6 1.0 2.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 -1.0 45 Iowa State 11.1 10.4 2.9 -1.2 -1.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 -1.0 46 Oklahoma St 10.9 3.6 2.5 1.8 3.4 0.3 1.4 0.0 -2.0 47 Dayton 10.8 5.0 1.6 0.6 1.9 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 48 Miss State 10.6 9.0 1.7 -1.7 1.2 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 49 Illinois 10.5 4.0 1.3 1.1 3.4 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 50 Texas 10.4 8.7 2.5 -1.9 -0.5 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 51 USC 10.4 3.8 2.4 0.2 -1.0 2.2 2.8 0.0 0.0 52 Providence 10.3 3.7 2.1 0.8 2.2 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 53 Texas A&M 10.1 2.9 2.8 1.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 54 Georgetown 10.1 2.8 1.7 -0.6 1.1 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 55 Missouri 10.0 3.9 1.1 0.0 1.5 0.3 2.8 0.0 0.5 56 W Kentucky 10.0 1.3 0.4 1.5 1.3 0.5 5.0 0.0 0.0 57 Rutgers 9.8 4.2 -0.2 0.3 2.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 58 Davidson 9.7 2.7 1.6 1.3 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59 E Tenn St 9.5 3.6 1.1 1.4 2.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 60 Arkansas 9.5 6.1 2.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.2 0.5 -3.0 61 N Mex State 9.5 5.7 1.3 -0.2 2.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 62 Kansas St 9.4 8.7 2.6 -0.8 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63 TX Christian 9.3 7.2 2.3 -0.3 -1.0 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 64 Syracuse 9.3 7.2 2.6 -0.2 -0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 65 UCLA 9.1 3.0 2.7 -1.3 0.8 0.9 0.0 3.0 0.0 66 Georgia 9.1 1.7 1.9 1.1 -1.1 3.3 2.1 0.0 0.0 67 Wichita St 9.1 3.9 3.8 -0.1 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 68 Mississippi 8.6 6.6 1.5 -0.2 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 69 Clemson 8.6 7.4 2.7 -1.6 -2.7 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 70 Nebraska 8.5 8.1 1.6 -1.2 -5.9 0.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 71 Miami (FL) 8.3 4.6 3.0 0.3 -0.9 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 72 Belmont 8.2 5.9 1.1 -1.9 1.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 73 Pittsburgh 8.1 3.5 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 74 Minnesota 8.0 6.5 1.2 -0.4 -1.2 0.1 1.7 0.0 0.0 75 Oregon St 7.9 3.7 0.7 0.3 2.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 76 GA Tech 7.8 2.9 1.5 0.6 1.4 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 77 Arizona St 7.5 5.3 1.5 -0.1 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 78 W Virginia 7.1 2.8 4.2 -0.5 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 -1.0 79 Temple 7.0 4.0 1.2 -1.1 2.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 80 Harvard 6.9 1.3 0.4 1.0 4.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 81 Rhode Island 6.9 0.6 2.1 1.4 2.1 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 82 S Carolina 6.7 3.9 2.5 -0.6 -0.4 0.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 83 VA Tech 6.6 11.4 2.4 -3.2 -3.3 0.4 0.5 -2.0 0.5 84 Connecticut 6.6 2.8 1.5 0.1 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 85 Richmond 6.5 -2.4 0.7 1.6 2.5 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.0 86 St Johns 6.3 3.7 0.7 -0.1 -1.4 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 87 S Florida 6.1 2.6 -1.5 1.1 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 88 Boise State 6.0 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 89 Vermont 5.9 2.9 1.1 0.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 90 San Diego St 5.6 2.2 2.0 -0.7 -0.4 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 91 S Methodist 5.6 2.2 3.0 -1.3 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 92 Wake Forest 5.3 -0.9 1.7 0.8 2.0 0.5 1.4 0.0 0.0 93 Toledo 5.0 4.5 0.6 -1.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94 Tulsa 4.8 1.6 1.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 95 Wash State 4.8 -2.7 -0.3 -0.8 0.7 0.0 2.9 5.0 0.0 96 New Mexico 4.7 -1.8 0.9 0.7 1.1 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 97 Northwestern 4.5 4.6 2.1 -1.1 -1.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 98 Furman 4.5 4.6 0.7 -2.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99 Liberty 4.5 3.3 -1.1 0.2 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 Fresno St 4.4 4.4 1.3 -1.8 -0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 101 Vanderbilt 4.4 0.6 2.5 1.0 -0.3 0.9 0.7 -1.0 0.0 102 Boston Col 4.2 2.0 0.4 -0.3 1.3 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 103 Nevada 4.2 9.3 2.0 -2.0 -5.7 0.2 1.0 -1.0 0.5 104 Central FL 4.1 7.3 0.8 -2.0 -4.2 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 105 Wright State 3.9 1.4 0.3 1.3 -0.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 106 GA Southern 3.8 3.1 -0.2 -1.3 2.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 107 NC-Grnsboro 3.8 3.0 0.3 -1.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 108 Utah 3.7 2.5 2.5 -0.9 -0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 109 LA Tech 3.6 0.2 0.6 0.5 1.4 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 110 Duquesne 3.5 -1.2 -0.4 0.6 1.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 111 Stanford 3.3 2.6 1.3 -0.8 -0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 112 Ball State 3.2 1.6 -0.1 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 113 St Bonavent 3.1 1.1 1.4 1.0 -1.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 114 UNLV 3.0 -0.5 0.5 -0.2 -1.1 0.1 4.2 0.0 0.0 115 N Iowa 2.9 -1.5 0.9 0.9 2.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 116 S Alabama 2.9 -3.2 -1.0 1.1 1.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 117 Loyola-Chi 2.9 1.6 1.0 0.3 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 118 Missouri St 2.9 -1.6 0.1 0.6 -1.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 119 Samford 2.8 0.0 -1.0 0.4 1.6 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 120 DePaul 2.8 2.1 0.4 -1.9 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 121 Akron 2.7 2.2 0.3 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 122 U Penn 2.7 0.9 -0.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 123 Buffalo 2.6 9.7 0.9 -3.1 -2.3 0.0 2.5 -5.0 0.0 124 San Fransco 2.6 4.6 0.1 -0.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 -2.0 0.0 125 Murray St 2.6 5.6 0.5 -2.4 -1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 126 Wofford 2.5 8.9 0.0 -3.3 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -3.0 0.0 127 Bowling Grn 2.5 2.0 -1.1 0.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 128 Yale 2.5 3.5 0.7 -1.2 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 129 Northeastrn 2.4 2.1 0.7 -0.6 -0.2 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 130 Colgate 2.4 0.8 -1.1 0.8 1.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 131 Pepperdine 2.4 -0.4 -1.0 0.8 2.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 132 Col Charlestn 2.4 1.0 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 133 California 2.3 -3.9 1.2 0.1 0.5 0.1 3.3 1.0 0.0 134 TX-Arlington 2.2 -0.5 1.3 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 135 N Illinois 2.0 0.9 -0.7 -0.1 1.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 136 Iona 1.6 -3.2 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.0 137 Middle Tenn 1.6 -4.8 1.7 2.1 -0.1 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 138 Drake 1.6 1.1 -0.7 -1.8 0.9 0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0 139 Hofstra 1.6 2.8 0.4 -2.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 140 TX-San Ant 1.5 -0.6 -1.6 2.3 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 141 Kent State 1.4 0.1 -0.2 -1.4 1.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 142 Grand Canyon 1.3 2.0 0.4 0.3 -2.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 143 Geo Mason 1.0 -0.7 -0.3 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 144 UAB 1.0 -0.5 0.6 -0.3 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 145 UC Irvine 0.9 3.1 0.7 -0.8 -2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 146 Indiana St 0.8 -2.8 0.0 2.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 147 Radford 0.6 0.5 -0.9 -0.4 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 148 Bucknell 0.5 0.1 0.9 -1.7 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 149 Central Mich 0.5 0.9 -0.3 -1.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150 Texas State 0.3 1.2 -0.6 0.9 -1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 151 UCSB 0.3 -1.3 -0.3 -0.2 0.7 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 152 Santa Clara 0.3 -2.6 -0.8 1.9 1.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 153 IL-Chicago 0.3 -2.7 -1.4 1.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 154 Miami (OH) 0.2 -0.5 -1.1 1.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 155 Colorado St 0.1 -1.5 0.2 -0.4 1.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 156 Seattle 0.1 -1.8 -1.3 0.5 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 157 San Diego 0.1 3.1 -0.9 -1.0 -2.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 158 Northern Kentucky -0.2 2.4 0.2 -0.8 1.0 0.0 0.0 -3.0 0.0 159 Towson -0.2 -6.1 0.4 1.6 2.1 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 160 Old Dominion -0.2 1.5 1.2 -1.8 -1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 161 Mercer -0.2 -2.1 -0.1 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 162 Princeton -0.2 -2.4 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 163 North Dakota State -0.3 -3.0 0.1 0.5 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 164 Bradley -0.3 -1.0 -0.9 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 165 N Florida -0.4 -2.3 -1.2 0.6 1.7 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 166 Evansville -0.5 -3.3 0.6 -0.1 0.6 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 167 South Dakota -0.6 -4.1 0.3 1.3 1.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 168 Saint Louis -0.7 1.9 -0.7 -0.6 -1.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 169 Columbia -0.8 -3.4 -0.3 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 170 App State -0.8 -2.0 -1.0 -1.0 1.7 0.0 0.6 1.0 0.0 171 Valparaiso -0.9 -3.1 1.2 0.5 -1.8 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 172 TX El Paso -0.9 -6.1 -0.8 1.3 -0.3 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 173 Oakland -1.0 -2.1 0.8 -0.2 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 174 North Texas -1.0 -0.3 -1.3 0.2 -1.1 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 175 Albany -1.0 -6.2 0.4 1.9 1.1 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 176 LA Lafayette -1.0 -1.3 1.1 -1.6 -1.6 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 177 Illinois St -1.0 -2.5 1.0 -0.2 -2.5 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 178 Stony Brook -1.1 -1.3 -0.1 0.0 -0.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 179 WI-Grn Bay -1.2 -1.8 -0.4 -0.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 180 Nebraska Omaha -1.2 -1.5 -0.6 -0.8 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 181 Coastal Car -1.3 -0.2 -0.5 -0.5 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 182 Rider -1.3 -3.2 -0.3 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 183 Brown -1.4 -0.2 -1.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 184 Weber State -1.4 -2.9 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 185 Geo Wshgtn -1.4 -5.8 0.7 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 186 Marshall -1.5 -1.3 0.5 -1.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 187 Montana -1.5 1.1 0.4 -1.2 -1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 188 Tulane -1.6 -5.8 -0.4 1.2 -2.5 0.0 5.0 1.0 0.0 189 Dartmouth -1.6 -3.8 -1.6 1.6 1.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 190 Hawaii -1.7 -2.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 191 Wm & Mary -1.7 -3.6 0.7 1.0 -0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 192 Loyola Mymt -1.8 0.6 -0.7 -0.2 -1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 193 Gard-Webb -1.9 -1.0 -1.0 -1.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 194 Austin Peay -2.1 0.5 -1.1 -0.6 -2.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 195 Georgia St -2.1 1.5 0.3 -0.7 -1.3 0.0 1.1 -3.0 0.0 196 Air Force -2.1 -4.5 -0.9 1.1 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 197 California Baptist -2.2 -3.5 -2.7 0.6 1.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 198 LA Monroe -2.2 0.6 -0.6 -2.0 -0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 199 Lipscomb -2.3 6.0 -0.4 -2.4 -2.5 0.0 0.0 -3.0 0.0 200 Detroit -2.3 -4.6 -1.6 2.0 -2.6 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 201 Fla Atlantic -2.3 -1.5 -1.5 -0.2 -0.7 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 202 S Illinois -2.4 0.1 0.3 -0.1 -2.5 0.0 0.7 -1.0 0.0 203 St Josephs -2.5 -1.7 1.0 -0.8 -1.5 0.0 2.4 -2.0 0.0 204 Oral Roberts -2.5 -6.4 -0.7 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 205 Lehigh -2.6 -1.5 -0.2 -0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 206 CS Fullerton -2.8 -2.9 -0.9 -0.7 -0.6 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 207 Florida Intl -2.8 -3.6 -1.2 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 208 Boston U -2.8 -4.2 -0.8 0.7 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 209 E Michigan -2.9 -1.1 0.2 -0.6 -1.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 210 Sam Hous St -2.9 -1.7 -0.8 -0.1 -0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 211 AR Lit Rock -3.0 -3.1 -0.3 -0.7 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 212 La Salle -3.0 -3.9 -0.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 213 New Jersey Tech -3.1 -2.3 -1.2 0.9 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 214 Cal St Nrdge -3.1 -4.9 -1.8 1.5 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 215 S Dakota St -3.2 3.4 1.0 -3.4 -2.4 0.0 0.3 -2.0 0.0 216 American -3.2 -3.0 -2.3 1.1 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 217 N Colorado -3.2 -1.9 -1.0 -2.4 1.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 218 E Carolina -3.3 -5.0 -0.9 3.7 -1.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 219 Ohio -3.4 -2.3 0.3 0.9 -2.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 220 CS Bakersfld -3.4 -3.6 0.2 -0.6 -0.8 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 221 W Carolina -3.5 -6.2 -1.9 1.1 1.8 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 222 Rice -3.6 -4.8 -1.1 1.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 223 Hampton -3.6 -2.3 -1.7 0.6 -1.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 224 UMKC -3.7 -4.8 -1.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 225 E Washingtn -3.7 -4.4 -0.2 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 226 IUPUI -3.8 -2.2 -1.0 -0.5 -1.5 0.0 3.4 -2.0 0.0 227 IPFW -3.8 -1.9 0.3 -2.7 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 228 S Mississippi -3.9 0.8 -1.9 -0.3 -2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 229 Loyola-MD -4.0 -5.8 -1.7 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 230 Delaware -4.1 -5.2 -1.5 -0.9 -0.8 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 231 Pacific -4.1 -2.9 -0.5 -0.1 -1.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 232 U Mass -4.2 -3.4 -0.1 -0.4 -1.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.0 233 Winthrop -4.3 -2.4 0.2 -1.7 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 234 Youngs St -4.4 -5.5 -2.1 1.0 1.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 235 James Mad -4.4 -5.9 -0.1 0.3 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 236 Jksnville St -4.4 0.9 -0.5 -1.2 -3.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 237 TX-Pan Am -4.4 -2.4 -2.3 1.4 -1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 238 Charl South -4.5 -2.0 -1.9 -0.9 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 239 Army -4.6 -4.9 -1.1 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 240 Siena -4.6 -5.3 -0.4 0.6 -0.7 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 241 Massachusetts Lowell -4.6 -5.1 -2.0 1.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 242 Chattanooga -4.6 -5.4 -0.1 0.2 -0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 243 Fla Gulf Cst -4.7 -3.7 0.5 -0.3 -1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 244 Utah Val St -4.8 1.5 -0.1 -2.1 -2.9 0.0 1.8 -3.0 0.0 245 WI-Milwkee -4.8 -6.5 -0.4 0.5 0.7 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 246 Portland St -5.0 -6.0 -0.8 -0.4 -0.9 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 247 Monmouth -5.1 -7.1 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 248 Fordham -5.2 -4.7 -0.7 -0.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 249 W Michigan -5.2 -4.8 -0.4 -0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 250 LIU-Brooklyn -5.3 -5.7 -1.6 1.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 251 McNeese St -5.3 -9.0 -2.5 1.8 0.5 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 252 Sacred Hrt -5.4 -4.8 -2.1 -0.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 253 UC Davis -5.5 -4.5 -0.4 0.9 -1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 254 St Fran (PA) -5.5 -5.6 -1.5 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 255 Maryland BC -5.6 -4.5 -1.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 256 Morehead St -5.6 -5.4 -0.6 -0.2 -0.6 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 257 Troy -5.7 -4.2 -0.5 -0.9 -1.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 258 TN Martin -5.7 -7.6 -1.1 1.3 0.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 259 North Dakota -5.7 -5.6 -0.6 -0.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 260 Drexel -5.7 -5.2 -1.1 -1.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 261 F Dickinson -5.8 -3.9 -1.7 -0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 262 TX Southern -5.8 -3.1 -0.7 -0.9 -2.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 263 N Arizona -5.8 -6.8 -3.0 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 264 Fairfield -5.9 -6.7 -0.7 0.5 -0.8 0.0 0.7 1.0 0.0 265 Portland -5.9 -8.1 -1.1 1.2 -0.1 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 266 Houston Bap -6.1 -6.2 -2.0 1.8 -0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 267 Ste F Austin -6.1 -6.9 0.7 1.1 -1.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 268 UC Riverside -6.2 -7.2 -1.6 0.8 0.4 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 269 S Utah -6.2 -5.6 -2.5 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 270 SE Missouri -6.2 -7.6 -1.8 1.3 -0.6 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 271 Lg Beach St -6.3 -3.3 -0.2 -0.6 -2.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 272 NC-Wilmgton -6.4 -5.8 0.8 -0.1 -2.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 273 Arkansas St -6.5 -4.7 -0.7 -2.0 -0.5 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 274 TN State -6.5 -7.4 -0.3 1.0 -2.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 275 E Kentucky -6.6 -4.6 -1.3 -1.4 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 276 Charlotte -6.6 -6.5 -1.3 -0.5 -0.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 277 Navy -6.6 -6.6 -0.7 1.5 -0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 278 Sac State -6.7 -5.4 -1.8 -0.6 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 279 New Orleans -6.9 -5.7 -1.4 -0.3 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 280 Prairie View -6.9 -4.0 -2.4 0.7 -1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 281 Lafayette -7.0 -7.3 -2.4 1.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 282 Montana St -7.0 -5.1 -1.2 0.5 -0.2 0.0 0.0 -1.0 0.0 283 Canisius -7.1 -6.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 284 Mt St Marys -7.1 -9.1 -1.2 1.5 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 285 Cornell -7.2 -4.1 -1.5 -0.1 -1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 286 Cleveland St -7.3 -6.0 -1.6 -0.9 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 287 W Illinois -7.3 -6.6 -1.7 1.5 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 288 Central Ark -7.4 -7.2 -1.9 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 289 Quinnipiac -7.4 -4.5 -1.8 -1.2 -0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 290 Nicholls St -7.5 -7.5 -1.9 -0.9 0.2 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 291 E Illinois -7.5 -7.8 -1.2 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 292 Longwood -7.5 -5.5 -3.2 1.3 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 293 Manhattan -7.6 -8.5 -1.3 1.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 294 TN Tech -7.6 -9.5 -0.8 2.8 -1.3 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.0 295 Holy Cross -7.7 -4.3 -1.4 -0.5 -1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 296 Jacksonville -7.7 -5.0 -1.8 0.0 -1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 297 Lamar -7.7 -2.5 -1.4 -1.3 -2.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 298 Abilene Christian -7.8 -1.7 -2.0 -1.8 -2.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 299 Denver -7.8 -7.7 -0.6 0.9 -0.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 300 TX A&M-CC -8.0 -6.0 -0.9 0.4 -1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 301 Campbell -8.1 -2.4 -1.5 -3.9 -0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 302 Rob Morris -8.1 -5.7 -1.6 0.0 -0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 303 Wyoming -8.2 -7.8 0.3 -0.4 -0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 304 Morgan St -8.3 -10.3 -2.6 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.8 2.0 0.0 305 VA Military -8.7 -7.0 -2.6 -1.7 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 306 Cal Poly -8.7 -9.3 -1.5 -0.3 -0.3 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 307 North Alabama -8.8 -6.9 -2.7 0.9 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 308 Kennesaw St -8.8 -10.6 -1.6 2.8 -0.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 309 St Fran (NY) -8.8 -6.4 -2.6 0.1 -0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 310 Hartford -8.9 -2.7 -2.2 -2.0 -4.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 311 Merrimack -8.9 -7.0 -1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 312 High Point -9.1 -3.8 -0.8 -2.4 -2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 313 Idaho -9.2 -12.2 -0.4 1.0 0.3 0.0 1.1 1.0 0.0 314 Elon -9.2 -8.0 -0.2 -1.4 -0.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 315 SE Louisiana -9.4 -4.7 -1.4 -1.3 -2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 316 S Car State -9.4 -10.3 -2.9 1.8 0.1 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 317 St Peters -9.5 -8.0 -0.3 -0.4 -1.9 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 318 Idaho State -9.8 -8.3 -1.9 -0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 319 Grambling St -9.8 -6.2 -2.8 1.2 -2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 320 Niagara -9.9 -7.7 -1.4 0.4 -1.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 321 Marist -10.0 -5.9 -2.3 -1.1 -2.2 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 322 Jackson St -10.2 -9.2 -2.4 2.1 -1.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 323 Beth-Cook -10.2 -7.6 -2.7 1.6 -1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 324 Citadel -10.3 -4.7 -2.5 -1.8 -2.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 325 Maine -10.4 -9.6 -3.0 1.8 -0.7 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 326 Bryant -10.5 -9.7 -2.9 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 327 NC-Asheville -10.6 -12.7 0.3 1.3 -2.2 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 328 Norfolk St -10.7 -5.1 -1.7 -0.3 -3.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 329 NC Central -10.8 -6.5 -1.6 -0.7 -2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 330 SIU Edward -10.8 -9.5 -2.2 0.9 -0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 331 Stetson -11.1 -9.8 -2.3 0.9 -1.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.0 332 Alabama St -11.2 -9.5 -3.0 1.3 -0.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 333 Binghamton -11.2 -9.1 -2.2 1.7 -2.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 334 Howard -11.3 -7.6 -3.0 -0.9 -0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 335 Presbyterian -11.5 -2.3 -3.3 -2.5 -0.4 0.0 0.0 -3.0 0.0 336 Wagner -11.6 -7.9 -0.7 -0.6 -2.9 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 337 N Hampshire -11.6 -12.0 -1.0 1.8 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 338 NC A&T -11.9 -7.4 -3.3 0.6 -2.5 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 339 San Jose St -12.0 -11.9 -1.2 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 340 South Carolina Upstate -13.1 -10.0 -2.4 0.1 -0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 341 Alcorn State -13.1 -12.6 -2.7 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 342 Ark Pine Bl -13.1 -8.8 -3.4 -0.8 -0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 343 Southern -13.2 -10.3 -2.1 0.9 -2.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 344 Central Conn -13.4 -8.7 -3.3 -0.3 -1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 345 Florida A&M -13.8 -8.2 -3.4 -1.1 -1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 346 Coppin State -14.0 -11.7 -3.4 2.3 -2.5 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 347 Incarnate Word -14.2 -11.8 -2.4 -0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 348 NW State -15.2 -10.9 -3.1 0.8 -2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 349 Alab A&M -15.8 -11.9 -3.4 0.6 -1.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 350 Miss Val St -16.5 -13.8 -3.4 1.8 -2.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 351 Chicago St -17.6 -16.2 -3.4 1.5 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 352 Maryland ES -17.9 -15.2 -3.2 1.2 -0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 353 Delaware St -20.0 -16.8 -3.4 1.3 -1.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0

What Do We Use These For?

These preseason ratings drive our preseason projections, and they serve as the Bayesian priors for our predictive ratings as the season progresses. (Translation: our preseason ratings still impact our team ratings even months into the season, because that has shown to be more predictive than not.)

Using these ratings, we’ve run full season projections, which are live on the site now. Go check’em out! Pages include:

College Basketball Projected Conference Standings. Projected conference records and full regular season records, plus win odds for both the conference regular season title and the postseason tournament.

Bracketology Projections. Odds to make the NCAA tournament, plus projected seeding, and lots more details. (One of our faves is the Bracketology By Conference page.)

NCAA Tournament Bracket Predictions. Round by round advancement odds, including probability of a team making the Sweet 16, making the Final Four, and winning the championship.

This is all data-driven, and automated, so it will update every morning throughout the season.

Ratings Accuracy

It’s worth noting that Ken Pomeroy, Dan Hanner and Bart Torvik have compared our preseason ratings and/or projections with other stat-based prognosticators in past years. Our finish has been consistently good, though also consistently a bit behind Dan Hanner’s bottom-up, player-based projections (which he unfortunately stopped producing after the 2017-18 season).

2018-19: 4th of 18 (behind Torvik, Gasaway, Pomeroy*)

2017-18: 2nd of 7 (behind Hanner)

2016-17: 4th of 7 (behind Torvik, Hanner, Gasaway)

2015-16: 2nd of 7 (behind Hanner)

2014-15: 2nd of 4 (behind Hanner)

2013-14: 2nd of 4 (behind Hanner)

2012-13: 1st of 3

*worth noting that this analysis used the final Pomeroy ratings as the “true” result, so Pomeroy may have a bit of an advantage here

(Links go to the comparison blog posts or Google Doc data files from Ken/Dan/Bart.)

Taking several years of data into account, and placing some emphasis on consistency, we feel we probably have the second best preseason computer ratings out of those tested, behind Dan Hanner’s (now defunct) player lineup based projections, but ahead of Ken Pomeroy, and ESPN’s BPI.

In terms of human ratings, John Gasaway leads the pack, and has performed only slightly worse than our computer ratings.

We say this not to brag, but to try to preemptively defend ourselves against the inevitable “Team X is WAY too high/low! You don’t know what you’re doing!” comments. While these are by no means perfect rankings, the projections they drive have held their own in comparisons with other top projection systems. We expect them to do so again this season. We’re going to get plenty of individual teams wrong, but that’s inevitable when the challenge is to project 353 teams.

Some Final Advice On Interpreting Preseason College Basketball Rankings

Some people get quite worked up about preseason college basketball rankings — especially when our approach seems to think their favorite team is going to be worse than the prevailing consensus.

That’s to be expected. No one else ranks teams exactly like we do, and our approach often discounts the impact of things that many media analysts and basketball “experts” believe to be important.

We also have a very specific goal for our preseason college basketball team ratings, which relates to predicting the margins of victory of future college basketball games. That goal doesn’t line up exactly with the motivations of many other rankings makers.

Just keep in mind that predicting how 353 different college basketball teams are each going to do this season, before any of them have played a regular season game, is no easy task. No system is perfect, including ours. It has strengths and weaknesses. We expect to get some teams slightly wrong, and some other teams very wrong, for a variety of reasons.

But in the longer term, our approach has done very well when measured by the yardstick that means the most to us: the overall accuracy, across the entire universe of 353 college basketball teams, of projecting team performance levels at the end of the upcoming season.

Look at Ratings, Not Just Rankings

Finally, please remember to look at team ratings and not just rankings, because ratings tell a much more precise story.

For example, in 2019, 1.2 ratings points separate No. 6 North Carolina from No. 7 Gonzaga. Meanwhile, in the other direction, No. 2 Kentucky is only 1.3 points higher than No. 6 North Carolina.

In other words, North Carolina is roughly as close to being No. 2 (4 spots higher) as they are to being No. 7 (only one spot lower).

So don’t overreact to a team’s ranking number. Look at the rating as well, and you’ll be able to tell which generally expected performance tier a team is in.

Before You Go …

As a final reminder, be sure to check out the season projections we create using these 2019 college basketball preseason rankings. There’s a ton to see: