2022 College Basketball Preseason Rankings & Ratings For All 363 Teams

2022 College Basketball Preseason Rankings & Ratings For All 363 Teams

Gonzaga tops our 2022 college basketball preseason rankings, while defending NCAA champion Kansas starts in somewhat unfamiliar territory.

November 3, 2022 – by Jason Lisk

Jalen Wilson’s number matches our preseason ranking for Kansas (Scott Winters/Icon Sportswire)

Our official 2022-23 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 TeamRankings about how we make college basketball preseason ratings.

Also, while you may disagree with some (or many) of our preseason rankings this year, just keep in mind that overall, our preseason college basketball ratings have proven to be some of the most accurate in existence. Jump down to the data if you’d like.

Otherwise, read on for:

A discussion of preseason NCAAB rankings highlightsA full list of rankings and team ratings for all 363 teams in Division I this yearThe underlying factors that contributed the most to each team’s rating

Let’s start with what everybody asks first: “Who’s your No. 1 team?”

Gonzaga, Still the Regular-Season No. 1

For the third year in a row, the Gonzaga Bulldogs start the season as our No. 1 team. They have never finished in that spot by the end of the NCAA tournament, though.

The Bulldogs entered the NCAA tournament as the No. 1 overall seed last year, justifying our preseason ranking, but they lost to Arkansas in the Sweet 16. However, they are in yearly “reload” territory, and potential National Player of the Year Drew Timme is back yet again. They lost freshman Chet Holmgren and senior Andrew Nembhard, but all of the other contributors to last year’s squad are returning, and they have a deep sophomore class.

One key transfer is Malachi Smith, who averaged nearly 20 points per game for Chattanooga (a No. 13 NCAA tournament seed last year) and shot over 40 percent from three-point range. Gonzaga may not have an impact freshman like they had in Holmgren and Jalen Suggs the last two years (two top-five NBA draft picks), but power forward Braden Huff could be the next in a line of quality college big men at Gonzaga.

Gonzaga is No. 1 in large part because its floor is so high. Thirteen different schools have finished with a predictive rating of 20.0 or higher at least once in the past four seasons. Gonzaga is the only team in NCAA Division I that has done it all four seasons. The only other schools to do it twice are Duke, Kansas, Michigan State, and Houston.

With so much talent returning from last year’s excellent team, we think Gonzaga is likely to add a fifth straight season to that streak of elite performance.

Where Is Defending NCAA Champion Kansas?

Fresh off its national title run, Kansas opens the year at No. 10 in our preseason rankings. If that feels low for Kansas, well, it is. It’s the first time in over a decade that Kansas starts the year lower than No. 7 in our preseason rankings (in the 2011-2012 season they were our preseason No. 14).

The Jayhawks will be without five of the top seven players from their title run: Ochai Agbaji, Christian Braun, Mitch Lightfoot, David McCormack, and Remy Martin. Only Dajuan Harris and Jalen Wilson return as starters, so they’ll have some early-season questions to answer.

Still, it’s not like we’re projecting a huge dropoff for Kansas. The Jayhawks should still contend for a top NCAA seed and are among the favorites in the Big 12 this year.

How Good Is Duke’s Incoming Freshman Class?

We use recruiting info going back to the 1998-99 season to help inform our preseason ratings. Duke’s recruiting class this year is the second-best in that span of over 20 years, based on our metric that transforms recruiting rankings into expected team power rating impact.

The top recruiting class also belonged to Duke four years ago. That class featured Zion Williamson, RJ Barrett, and Cam Reddish.

The teams with the previous 10 best recruiting classes have an extremely strong performance record. Those 10 seasons feature two NCAA champions and two runners-up. The rest were all No.1 or No. 2 NCAA seeds.

So why are the Blue Devils only No. 9 in our preseason ratings? It’s because they are returning very little production from last year’s squad.

The knock on that Zion Williamson team from a few years ago was that it was inexperienced, and this year’s Duke squad features even less returning production than Zion’s squad did.

Here are the most similar recent examples of incredible recruiting classes paired with little returning production:

2018-19 Duke (No. 1 seed, lost in Elite Eight)2017-18 Duke (No. 2 seed, lost in Elite Eight)2013-14 Kansas (No. 2 seed, lost in second round)2013-14 Kentucky (No. 8 seed, lost in title game)

Those are good outcomes, but this year’s Duke team features a bit less returning production than those two historical Duke teams, and a lot less returning production than the Kansas and Kentucky teams.

Oh, and you might have heard that Duke made a coaching change this year. While new head coach Jon Scheyer might be end up being fantastic, it’s an uncertainty at this point. In that context, we’re also applying a slight penalty based on Duke moving from a Hall of Fame coach to someone with no previous head coaching experience.

NCAAB Preseason Top 25 Comparison

Moving on to the rest of our 2022-23 college basketball Top 25, let’s take a look at all of the teams that made it into at least one preseason Top 25 from the following group of college basketball prognosticators:

TeamRankings preseason ratings (TR)Ken Pomeroy’s preseason ratings (KP)Bart Torvik’s preseason ratings (BT)AP Poll (AP)Coaches Poll (Coach)

The table below lists all such teams, along with their preseason ranking in each system. It also shows the average rank for each team, and concludes with a column indicating how far TR is from the consensus.

(In that last column, a positive number means we ranked a team better than the consensus rankings, while a negative number means we ranked a team worse than consensus.)

For teams receiving no votes in the polls, we used a rank of 55. Teams are listed in ascending order by average rank, and all rankings were recorded as of Nov. 1.

Teams With At Least One Top 25 Preseason Ranking

Team	TR	KP	BT	AP	CP	AVG	TR DIFF
Gonzaga	1	3	1	2	2	1.8	0.8
N Carolina	3	9	4	1	1	3.6	0.6
Kentucky	2	1	8	4	4	3.8	1.8
Baylor	5	6	2	5	6	4.8	-0.2
Houston	6	7	6	3	3	5.0	-1.0
Tennessee	4	4	3	11	11	6.6	2.6
Kansas	10	8	10	5	5	7.6	-2.4
Texas	7	2	7	12	12	8.0	1.0
Duke	9	15	5	7	8	8.8	-0.2
UCLA	14	11	9	8	7	9.8	-4.2
Indiana	8	12	11	13	14	11.6	3.6
Arkansas	15	14	16	10	10	13.0	-2.0
Arizona	12	10	14	17	13	13.2	1.2
Virginia	16	5	18	18	18	15.0	-1.0
Auburn	11	13	22	15	15	15.2	4.2
TX Christian	18	16	12	14	16	15.2	-2.8
Villanova	13	20	17	16	17	16.6	3.6
Creighton	23	22	23	9	9	17.2	-5.8
San Diego St	20	19	13	19	20	18.2	-1.8
Texas Tech	19	17	27	25	24	22.4	3.4
Alabama	21	18	40	20	19	23.6	2.6
Illinois	37	33	15	23	23	26.2	-10.8
Dayton	22	24	36	24	25	26.2	4.2
Purdue	27	25	31	29	26	27.6	0.6
Michigan St	25	31	24	31	30	28.2	3.2
Oregon	34	29	38	21	21	28.6	-5.4
Michigan	35	26	39	22	22	28.8	-6.2
Iowa	26	23	30	36	31	29.2	3.2
Miami (FL)	28	42	21	28	28	29.4	1.4
VA Tech	30	21	25	40	35	30.2	0.2
Xavier	17	38	20	33	44	30.4	13.4
Texas A&M	39	45	19	26	27	31.2	-7.8
Florida	24	35	26	38	41	32.8	8.8

Preseason Top 25 Comparison Highlights

When comparing how teams are ranked across the various systems in the table above, a few highlights stick out.

Teams The Human Polls Love (Relatively)

Even though rankings systems will always have their differences, the human polls are clearly more optimistic about some teams than data-driven systems are.

Below are the teams that are ranked higher in both the preseason AP and Coaches Polls than in any of three leading data-driven rankings systems (TeamRankings, Pomeroy, Torvik).

We list each team below, along with the difference between (a) its WORST human poll ranking and (b) its BEST ranking out of those three data-driven systems.

Creighton +13 (No. 9 in both polls, No. 22 in KP)Oregon +8 (No. 21 in both polls, No. 29 in KP)Arkansas +4 (No. 10 in both polls, No. 14 in KP)Michigan +4 (No. 22 in both polls, No. 26 in KP)Houston+3 (No. 3 in both polls, No. 6 in TR and BT)Kansas +3 (No. 5 in both polls, No. 8 in KP)North Carolina +2 (No. 1 in both polls, No. 3 in TR)UCLA +1 (No. 8 in AP, No. 9 in KP)

Why are the pollsters higher on those teams? We can’t say for sure, but it’s a mix of big-name programs and schools with some recent history of tournament success. 

Teams The Human Polls Dislike (Relatively)

The teams below are ranked lower in the preseason AP and Coaches Polls than in any of the data-driven rankings systems.

Here we list the difference between (a) its BEST human poll ranking and (b) its WORST ranking out of the three data-driven systems.

Tennessee -7 (No. 11 in both polls, No. 4 in TR and KP) Texas -5 (No. 12 in both polls, No. 7 in TR and BT)Virginia Tech -5 (No. 35 in Coaches Poll, No. 30 in TR)Florida -3 (No. 38 in AP Poll, No. 35 in KP)Indiana -1 (No. 13 in AP Poll, No. 12 in KP)Iowa -1 (No. 31 in Coaches Poll, No. 30 in BT)

These are all Power Five programs, and they tended to be some of the teams that were power-rated higher than their record or seeding a year ago. Tennessee is a notable case, as a team that was ranked in the Top 10 a year ago but disappointed in the NCAA tournament. Still, the Volunteers return plenty of talent from last year and should be one of the favorites in the SEC.

Texas is moving into Year 2 with Chris Beard at head coach, but the human polls are a little lower on the Longhorns.

Virginia Tech was a divisive team a year ago, as the metrics had the Hokies as a top-40 team, while the “resumé” folks had them well outside the tournament field. Then they went on a run to the ACC tournament title to support the view that they were a tournament-caliber team that just happened to lose too many close games.

Florida was a disappointment a year ago, and just missed out on the NCAA tournament. The Gators hired Todd Golden, who received accolades last year for getting San Francisco to the NCAA tournament for the first time this century, as their new head coach.

Correlations With Consensus

For the 33 teams listed in the table above, the AP Poll has the highest correlation coefficient when comparing each ranking system with the consensus. Torvik’s rankings have the lowest overall correlation with consensus.

The rank order of correlation to consensus is:

AP Poll (0.930)Coaches Poll (0.922)TeamRankings (0.901)Pomeroy (0.890)Torvik (0.821)

This is actually the first year when our rankings haven’t had a higher correlation to the consensus than the human polls, but the order is otherwise the same as last year.

Still, compared to the other power rankings systems, our rankings do again seem to have fewer or smaller outliers. That makes sense, because we use market and poll data to adjust for cases where our model rating alone seems to be a big outlier.

Teams Our Rankings Like (Relatively)

There are several teams where we are the most optimistic entering the year.

Auburn was one of the teams we were the most above consensus on last year. That worked out, as the Tigers surged to a No. 2 seed, so we hope to duplicate that success.Indiana has a strong young core and returns most of its key players from a year ago.Villanova will be in its first year without head coach Jay Wright. But several of its players have been in the program for a long time, which should help ease the transition.Dayton has a lot of young talent and just missed out on the NCAA tournament a year ago.Xavier surged to the NIT title after hiring former Arizona head coach Sean Miller right after the regular season ended, and it has a veteran core.

Teams Our Rankings Dislike (Relatively)

Kansas we already discussed, but to recap, the Jayhawks have a lot of roster turnover for a top program this year.UCLA made a Final Four run two seasons ago, and public perception seemed a little higher than justified by its performance all of last season as a result.TCU does have most of its production returning from a NCAA tournament team, like some of the teams we are higher on. However, the polls favor TCU even more strongly, for whatever reason.Illinois is a completely different team this year with five new starters, including transfers Matthew Meyer (Baylor) and Terrence Shannon, Jr. (Texas Tech).

Full 2022-23 College Basketball Preseason Rankings, From #1 To #363

The table below shows our 2022-23 preseason ranking of all 363 college basketball teams, along with each team’s associated preseason predictive rating.

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 some teams.

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)PROGRAM: Recent historical performance, excluding last seasonRET OFF: Returning offensive production, compared to typicalRET DEF: Returning defensive production, compared to typicalRECRUIT: Value of incoming freshman recruiting classTRANSFER: Value of incoming Division I transfers (JUCO transfers ignored)COACH: Recent coaching changes expected to have positive or negative impactMARKET: 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	22-23 Rating	LAST YR	PROGRAM	RET OFF	RET DEF	RECRUIT	TRANSFER	COACH	MARKET
1	Gonzaga	22.0	10.7	4.9	2.1	1.5	1.8	1.1	0.0	0.0
2	Kentucky	18.2	8.3	3.9	0.5	0.3	4.7	0.5	0.0	0.0
3	N Carolina	18.0	5.6	3.9	2.4	2.1	3.5	0.5	0.0	0.0
4	Tennessee	17.8	8.1	4.0	1.5	1.3	3.9	0.0	0.0	-1.0
5	Baylor	17.4	8.7	4.4	0.5	-0.4	3.9	0.4	0.0	0.0
6	Houston	15.9	8.9	4.4	0.2	-0.3	2.5	0.3	0.0	0.0
7	Texas	15.8	6.1	3.3	1.4	0.7	4.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
8	Indiana	15.6	4.1	2.8	3.0	2.3	3.5	0.0	0.0	0.0
9	Duke	15.5	7.6	4.4	-3.0	-3.9	9.3	1.2	-1.0	1.0
10	Kansas	15.5	8.8	4.4	-1.1	-1.6	4.0	0.9	0.0	0.0
11	Auburn	15.1	7.4	3.2	0.7	0.7	3.2	0.9	0.0	-1.0
12	Arizona	15.0	9.1	3.5	-0.1	-0.9	2.6	0.9	0.0	0.0
13	Villanova	15.0	7.6	4.0	1.4	1.4	2.6	0.0	-2.0	0.0
14	UCLA	14.7	7.4	2.7	0.9	-0.2	4.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
15	Arkansas	14.7	5.8	3.5	-2.0	-2.9	5.0	4.4	1.0	0.0
16	Virginia	14.6	2.2	4.3	3.0	2.4	1.9	0.8	0.0	0.0
17	Xavier	14.5	4.1	2.6	2.0	1.5	2.0	1.3	1.0	0.0
18	TX Christian	14.5	4.5	2.0	3.6	2.8	0.0	0.6	0.0	1.0
19	Texas Tech	14.5	7.8	4.4	-1.2	-2.4	2.2	3.7	0.0	0.0
20	San Diego St	14.5	4.3	3.1	2.4	1.7	0.0	2.9	0.0	0.0
21	Alabama	14.3	4.9	3.3	-0.2	-0.8	4.3	2.8	0.0	0.0
22	Dayton	14.2	3.5	2.9	3.3	2.5	1.9	0.0	0.0	0.0
23	Creighton	13.9	3.3	3.7	1.2	0.7	1.3	3.7	0.0	0.0
24	Florida	13.8	3.6	3.5	0.7	0.1	2.5	3.3	0.0	0.0
25	Michigan St	13.5	4.3	4.4	1.0	0.4	3.3	0.0	0.0	0.0
26	Iowa	13.3	7.3	4.2	0.7	1.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
27	Purdue	13.0	7.4	4.3	0.0	-0.5	1.4	0.4	0.0	0.0
28	Miami (FL)	12.6	3.4	1.5	0.2	0.2	2.7	4.6	0.0	0.0
29	Oklahoma St	12.5	4.3	2.7	1.5	0.3	1.0	2.5	0.0	0.0
30	VA Tech	12.4	5.1	3.2	0.7	0.6	0.5	2.3	0.0	0.0
31	Oklahoma	12.3	4.6	3.4	0.6	0.1	2.0	1.6	0.0	0.0
32	Memphis	12.3	5.1	3.0	-1.2	-1.4	2.1	4.6	0.0	0.0
33	Connecticut	12.2	6.0	2.7	-0.7	-0.9	3.0	2.1	0.0	0.0
34	Oregon	12.1	2.6	3.9	1.0	0.3	3.5	0.8	0.0	0.0
35	Michigan	12.0	4.8	4.4	-0.4	-1.8	4.2	1.0	0.0	0.0
36	Maryland	11.8	2.2	3.8	0.3	0.3	0.6	3.6	1.0	0.0
37	Illinois	11.7	6.1	3.8	-1.6	-2.5	3.4	2.5	0.0	0.0
38	LSU	11.4	6.3	3.8	-2.4	-3.0	3.3	4.3	-1.0	0.0
39	Texas A&M	11.2	3.9	1.0	1.5	1.3	1.3	2.1	0.0	0.0
40	Cincinnati	11.0	1.3	2.5	2.2	1.1	1.8	2.0	0.0	0.0
41	BYU	11.0	2.9	3.3	0.1	0.2	1.4	3.1	0.0	0.0
42	Mississippi	11.0	1.0	2.5	0.4	-0.1	2.6	4.6	0.0	0.0
43	Ohio State	11.0	4.8	4.1	-2.2	-3.1	2.6	4.6	0.0	0.0
44	Utah State	10.9	3.2	3.1	0.5	0.8	0.0	3.3	0.0	0.0
45	Seton Hall	10.9	4.2	3.1	0.8	0.7	0.5	1.6	0.0	0.0
46	Iowa State	10.8	3.7	2.1	-0.5	-0.3	1.2	4.6	0.0	0.0
47	Rutgers	10.8	2.2	3.1	0.7	1.3	0.6	2.9	0.0	0.0
48	USC	10.7	3.9	3.3	0.4	-0.2	3.3	0.0	0.0	0.0
49	Stanford	10.7	0.7	2.4	2.5	1.6	1.8	1.7	0.0	0.0
50	Florida St	10.7	1.1	4.2	0.2	-0.3	3.5	2.0	0.0	0.0
51	Saint Louis	9.9	2.9	2.1	2.3	1.6	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
52	North Texas	9.9	2.8	1.5	1.2	0.5	0.0	3.9	0.0	0.0
53	St Marys	9.9	5.4	2.7	0.4	1.1	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0
54	St Johns	9.8	3.6	2.2	1.2	1.2	0.0	1.6	0.0	0.0
55	Notre Dame	9.8	3.6	2.1	0.6	0.6	1.7	1.3	0.0	0.0
56	Wisconsin	9.4	4.2	4.2	-0.1	0.1	0.0	0.9	0.0	0.0
57	Colorado	9.3	2.4	3.6	-0.7	0.0	0.9	3.2	0.0	0.0
58	Missouri	9.2	-1.0	2.3	0.0	-0.4	1.3	7.0	0.0	0.0
59	Miss State	9.1	3.7	3.0	0.0	0.2	0.5	2.7	-1.0	0.0
60	UAB	9.0	3.4	0.6	1.5	0.9	0.0	2.5	0.0	0.0
61	Penn State	8.7	2.3	3.4	0.8	0.5	0.0	1.7	0.0	0.0
62	Arizona St	8.6	1.4	2.3	-0.8	0.0	2.7	3.1	0.0	0.0
63	Wyoming	8.3	3.0	-1.2	3.0	2.1	0.0	1.5	0.0	0.0
64	W Virginia	8.2	2.7	3.3	-2.1	-2.3	0.5	6.0	0.0	0.0
65	Vanderbilt	8.1	3.2	0.9	0.7	0.9	1.3	1.1	0.0	0.0
66	Marquette	8.0	3.3	3.1	0.2	0.2	1.2	0.0	0.0	0.0
67	Boise State	7.9	4.0	2.0	1.1	0.7	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
68	Syracuse	7.8	2.6	3.1	-0.4	-0.3	2.7	0.1	0.0	0.0
69	Loyola-Chi	7.8	4.7	2.1	-0.2	-1.0	0.0	2.2	0.0	0.0
70	Wash State	7.5	3.9	0.9	-0.1	-0.1	1.9	1.1	0.0	0.0
71	DePaul	7.4	1.6	1.2	-0.8	-0.3	1.8	3.9	0.0	0.0
72	Toledo	7.4	1.8	1.5	1.7	1.2	0.0	1.1	0.0	0.0
73	San Francisco	7.3	5.3	2.0	0.1	-0.5	0.0	1.4	-1.0	0.0
74	Furman	7.2	1.9	2.1	1.7	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
75	NC State	7.2	-0.5	2.9	-0.2	-0.2	1.3	3.9	0.0	0.0
76	Kansas St	7.1	3.0	1.9	-0.9	-1.5	0.0	4.6	0.0	0.0
77	Clemson	7.1	2.5	2.9	0.8	0.2	0.6	0.2	0.0	0.0
78	Providence	6.9	4.4	2.5	-0.8	-1.6	0.0	2.5	0.0	0.0
79	Fresno St	6.7	2.2	0.7	0.5	0.9	1.3	1.1	0.0	0.0
80	Tulane	6.7	1.3	-0.4	3.4	2.2	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0
81	Richmond	6.5	1.9	1.5	-0.3	-0.4	0.0	3.8	0.0	0.0
82	Northwestern	6.3	2.2	1.9	0.7	0.8	0.0	0.7	0.0	0.0
83	Drake	6.3	1.7	1.2	2.1	1.2	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
84	Wake Forest	6.2	4.3	0.7	-1.2	-2.1	0.0	4.6	0.0	0.0
85	GA Tech	5.9	-1.3	2.4	-0.4	0.1	0.6	4.6	0.0	0.0
86	Utah	5.8	0.2	2.1	1.2	0.9	0.5	0.8	0.0	0.0
87	Colorado St	5.5	3.7	1.2	0.2	-0.4	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
88	Butler	5.5	0.1	2.3	-0.3	-0.5	0.5	3.4	0.0	0.0
89	VCU	5.4	3.2	2.7	-0.7	-0.8	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
90	Grd Canyon	5.3	1.4	0.4	0.8	0.7	0.0	1.9	0.0	0.0
91	Temple	5.1	0.1	1.4	1.6	0.8	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
92	Davidson	5.0	3.3	2.0	-0.2	-0.6	0.0	1.5	-1.0	0.0
93	Bradley	4.9	1.2	0.7	1.2	0.8	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
94	Towson	4.9	2.1	-1.4	2.1	1.5	0.0	0.6	0.0	0.0
95	W Kentucky	4.7	0.1	1.2	1.0	0.8	0.6	0.9	0.0	0.0
96	Liberty	4.7	-0.9	1.5	2.5	1.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
97	S Dakota St	4.7	2.1	1.1	0.6	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
98	Washington	4.5	0.0	2.1	-1.3	-0.5	0.5	3.6	0.0	0.0
99	Minnesota	4.4	0.7	3.2	-1.0	-1.7	0.0	3.1	0.0	0.0
100	Louisville	4.3	-0.2	3.6	-0.6	-1.1	2.2	0.4	0.0	0.0
101	Fla Atlantic	4.3	-0.4	0.2	2.4	1.4	0.0	0.7	0.0	0.0
102	Nebraska	4.3	-1.1	1.8	-0.5	-0.8	0.7	4.1	0.0	0.0
103	UCSB	4.3	-0.8	0.8	1.3	0.9	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0
104	Vermont	4.2	2.9	1.4	-0.5	-0.6	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
105	Wichita St	4.2	1.6	2.5	-1.3	-1.7	0.0	3.2	0.0	0.0
106	Belmont	4.1	2.3	1.8	-0.7	-1.4	0.0	2.1	0.0	0.0
107	Boston Col	4.1	-0.3	0.5	2.1	1.4	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
108	LA Tech	4.0	0.7	1.5	0.5	0.6	0.0	0.7	0.0	0.0
109	Georgia	3.9	-2.9	1.5	1.0	0.3	0.5	4.6	-1.0	0.0
110	Colgate	3.9	-0.5	1.7	1.5	1.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
111	Akron	3.8	-0.6	1.3	1.4	0.9	0.0	0.9	0.0	0.0
112	UNLV	3.7	1.4	0.7	-1.0	-0.5	0.6	2.5	0.0	0.0
113	Santa Clara	3.6	2.4	0.0	-0.2	0.6	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
114	Central FL	3.5	0.9	2.0	-0.9	-1.2	1.3	1.4	0.0	0.0
115	Geo Mason	3.5	0.3	0.3	1.3	0.8	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
116	S Carolina	3.5	1.3	1.7	-2.0	-1.9	0.5	3.9	0.0	0.0
117	New Mexico	3.4	-1.5	-0.6	2.4	1.1	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0
118	S Methodist	3.4	3.2	2.0	-1.7	-1.7	0.0	2.6	-1.0	0.0
119	Georgetown	3.4	-1.5	2.1	-1.4	-1.2	0.8	4.6	0.0	0.0
120	Chattanooga	3.3	2.1	-0.4	-1.6	-1.4	0.0	4.6	0.0	0.0
121	S Illinois	3.1	-0.4	-0.1	1.0	0.9	0.0	1.7	0.0	0.0
122	Nevada	3.1	-0.1	2.5	-0.7	0.2	0.0	1.3	0.0	0.0
123	NC-Grnsboro	3.0	-2.6	1.5	1.0	0.8	0.0	2.3	0.0	0.0
124	UC Irvine	2.6	-0.7	1.4	0.7	0.5	0.0	0.7	0.0	0.0
125	Oral Roberts	2.5	-1.2	-0.1	2.0	1.0	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
126	Kent State	2.5	-1.2	0.7	1.4	0.6	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
127	Pittsburgh	2.3	-2.3	1.7	0.4	-0.1	0.5	2.1	0.0	0.0
128	San Diego	2.3	-3.2	-0.1	0.6	-0.2	0.0	4.2	1.0	0.0
129	St Bonavent	2.3	2.2	1.7	-2.6	-3.5	0.0	4.4	0.0	0.0
130	Hofstra	2.2	0.0	0.7	-0.1	-0.6	0.0	2.2	0.0	0.0
131	Utah Val St	1.9	-0.2	-0.3	0.4	0.5	0.0	1.5	0.0	0.0
132	Middle Tenn	1.7	0.9	-1.9	1.2	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
133	Missouri St	1.7	2.5	0.7	-1.8	-2.0	0.0	2.3	0.0	0.0
134	Yale	1.6	-1.3	1.8	0.4	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
135	Abl Christian	1.6	-0.4	0.2	0.8	0.4	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0
136	U Penn	1.3	-3.1	0.5	2.5	1.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
137	Iona	1.2	1.6	-0.6	-0.3	-0.2	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
138	U Mass	1.1	-2.4	0.2	-0.6	-0.8	0.0	3.7	1.0	0.0
139	La Salle	1.1	-3.6	-0.6	-0.1	-0.1	0.0	3.5	2.0	0.0
140	N Iowa	1.1	1.2	0.7	-0.6	-0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
141	Murray St	1.1	4.1	1.1	-2.1	-2.8	0.0	1.7	-1.0	0.0
142	Seattle	1.0	-0.8	-0.5	1.0	0.7	0.0	0.6	0.0	0.0
143	James Mad	1.0	-3.1	-1.2	1.9	1.3	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0
144	Marshall	0.9	-4.0	0.8	1.9	1.0	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
145	Indiana St	0.9	-3.7	0.3	1.8	1.1	0.0	1.4	0.0	0.0
146	Hawaii	0.8	-1.8	-0.3	0.9	0.7	0.0	1.4	0.0	0.0
147	S Alabama	0.8	-0.8	-0.4	-1.5	-1.2	0.0	4.6	0.0	0.0
148	Princeton	0.6	0.0	0.1	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
149	Portland	0.6	-2.4	-2.5	2.8	1.6	0.0	1.1	0.0	0.0
150	Illinois St	0.6	-2.2	-0.7	-1.4	-0.6	0.0	4.5	1.0	0.0
151	Loyola Mymt	0.5	-2.8	0.6	-0.1	0.5	0.0	2.3	0.0	0.0
152	S Florida	0.5	-3.9	0.8	0.8	0.3	0.5	2.0	0.0	0.0
153	Rhode Island	0.5	-0.4	1.5	-0.6	-0.7	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
154	Col Charlestn	0.4	-1.0	0.0	-0.1	-0.2	0.0	1.7	0.0	0.0
155	Norfolk St	0.4	-2.1	-1.4	2.2	1.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
156	Texas State	0.2	-0.8	0.5	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
157	Tulsa	0.2	-1.6	1.3	-0.8	-0.6	1.3	0.5	0.0	0.0
158	Cal Baptist	0.1	-3.6	-0.6	-0.1	-0.2	0.0	4.6	0.0	0.0
159	N Mex State	0.1	1.9	1.4	-2.0	-2.6	0.0	2.4	-1.0	0.0
160	Samford	0.0	-3.1	-1.4	2.4	0.8	0.5	0.9	0.0	0.0
161	Jacksonville	0.0	-2.4	-1.7	1.6	0.9	0.0	1.6	0.0	0.0
162	Ste F Austin	-0.1	-0.5	-0.2	0.4	0.2	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
163	Charlotte	-0.1	-2.5	-0.9	-0.7	-0.6	0.0	4.6	0.0	0.0
164	California	-0.1	-0.6	0.2	-0.4	0.2	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0
165	Wofford	-0.2	-0.2	1.7	-0.8	-1.6	0.0	0.7	0.0	0.0
166	Delaware	-0.2	-1.1	-0.9	-0.1	-0.1	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0
167	Montana St	-0.2	-1.5	-1.2	0.7	0.2	0.0	1.6	0.0	0.0
168	E Washingtn	-0.2	-3.7	0.4	0.2	0.3	0.0	2.6	0.0	0.0
169	Sam Hous St	-0.2	-1.2	-0.3	-0.2	0.4	0.0	1.1	0.0	0.0
170	LA Lafayette	-0.2	-2.3	-0.6	1.7	0.6	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0
171	Longwood	-0.3	-1.3	-2.1	1.7	1.2	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0
172	NC-Asheville	-0.5	-2.6	-2.8	0.9	0.8	0.0	3.2	0.0	0.0
173	South Dakota	-0.5	-3.0	-0.4	1.2	0.1	0.0	1.6	0.0	0.0
174	NC-Wilmgton	-0.6	-1.4	-1.7	-0.6	-0.3	0.0	3.4	0.0	0.0
175	Coastal Car	-0.7	-1.3	0.2	-0.7	-0.5	0.0	1.6	0.0	0.0
176	N Kentucky	-0.7	-3.3	0.1	1.7	0.9	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
177	Duquesne	-0.8	-5.2	0.8	-0.6	-0.4	0.0	4.6	0.0	0.0
178	IPFW	-0.8	-4.2	-1.4	2.1	1.4	0.0	1.3	0.0	0.0
179	S Utah	-0.8	-2.0	-0.2	0.5	0.1	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
180	Nicholls St	-0.9	-3.0	-1.2	-0.1	0.2	0.0	3.2	0.0	0.0
181	Winthrop	-1.0	-2.3	0.5	-0.1	0.1	0.0	0.9	0.0	0.0
182	Georgia St	-1.0	-1.7	0.7	-1.9	-1.2	0.0	3.0	0.0	0.0
183	App State	-1.2	-1.7	-0.3	-0.3	-0.5	0.0	1.6	0.0	0.0
184	Ohio	-1.2	-0.6	0.5	-1.6	-1.1	0.0	1.5	0.0	0.0
185	UC Riverside	-1.3	-2.1	-0.5	0.7	0.0	0.0	0.7	0.0	0.0
186	Bryant	-1.3	-3.0	-1.4	-0.9	-0.7	0.0	4.6	0.0	0.0
187	Morehead St	-1.3	-0.5	-1.3	-1.7	-1.5	0.0	3.7	0.0	0.0
188	Wright State	-1.3	-2.4	1.0	-0.5	0.0	0.0	0.6	0.0	0.0
189	Buffalo	-1.4	-0.3	2.1	-2.3	-1.9	0.0	0.9	0.0	0.0
190	Old Dominion	-1.5	-1.9	0.9	-1.1	-0.3	0.0	0.9	0.0	0.0
191	Fla Gulf Cst	-1.5	-2.8	-1.8	-0.2	0.1	0.0	2.1	1.0	0.0
192	Jksnville St	-1.6	-1.1	-0.4	-1.2	-1.4	0.0	2.5	0.0	0.0
193	Mercer	-1.6	-2.9	-0.1	-0.3	-0.1	0.0	1.8	0.0	0.0
194	Montana	-1.6	-4.4	0.3	0.1	0.1	0.0	2.3	0.0	0.0
195	Weber State	-1.7	-2.3	-0.3	-0.9	-0.2	0.0	2.1	0.0	0.0
196	GA Southern	-1.9	-4.6	0.1	0.2	-0.1	0.0	2.5	0.0	0.0
197	St Josephs	-1.9	-1.7	-0.9	0.3	0.2	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
198	Lg Beach St	-1.9	-2.2	-1.5	0.8	0.2	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
199	Oakland	-2.0	-2.1	-1.2	0.5	0.3	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0
200	N Florida	-2.0	-4.7	-0.9	2.2	0.9	0.0	0.6	0.0	0.0
201	Northeastrn	-2.1	-4.4	0.6	0.2	-0.1	0.0	1.7	0.0	0.0
202	St Peters	-2.1	0.5	-1.4	-1.9	-1.7	0.0	3.3	-1.0	0.0
203	Valparaiso	-2.1	-2.7	-0.4	-0.2	-0.3	0.0	1.5	0.0	0.0
204	Youngs St	-2.2	-4.8	-1.7	0.2	-0.2	0.0	4.2	0.0	0.0
205	Harvard	-2.3	-3.5	0.7	0.1	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
206	TX El Paso	-2.3	-1.6	-0.6	-2.1	-1.5	0.0	3.3	0.0	0.0
207	Gard-Webb	-2.4	-2.3	-0.6	-0.7	0.0	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
208	Mass Lowell	-2.4	-4.3	-1.4	1.2	0.7	0.0	1.4	0.0	0.0
209	Southern	-2.6	-3.0	-2.7	1.5	0.4	0.0	1.3	0.0	0.0
210	Brown	-2.6	-2.8	-0.3	0.3	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
211	Fordham	-2.7	-2.2	-1.8	0.2	0.5	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0
212	N Colorado	-2.7	-3.7	0.1	0.8	-0.2	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0
213	Tarleton State	-2.7	-3.3	-1.0	0.2	0.3	0.0	1.1	0.0	0.0
214	Cornell	-2.8	-2.7	-1.2	0.6	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
215	Pepperdine	-2.9	-5.5	0.9	1.7	-0.1	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
216	CS Fullerton	-2.9	-1.6	-1.2	-0.7	-0.1	0.0	0.7	0.0	0.0
217	Rider	-2.9	-3.9	-1.3	1.7	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
218	Bellarmine	-3.0	-3.0	-0.1	-0.5	0.4	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
219	Geo Wshgtn	-3.0	-3.7	-1.4	0.4	0.7	0.0	0.9	0.0	0.0
220	Lipscomb	-3.0	-5.4	-0.1	1.0	0.7	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
221	E Tenn St	-3.1	-2.6	1.6	-1.0	-1.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
222	UC Davis	-3.1	-4.0	-1.0	0.3	0.3	0.0	1.3	0.0	0.0
223	TX Southern	-3.2	-2.3	-1.2	0.1	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
224	Rice	-3.3	-2.9	-0.9	0.2	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
225	TX A&M-CC	-3.3	-4.4	-2.2	2.0	1.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
226	Ball State	-3.4	-5.4	0.7	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0
227	Drexel	-3.4	-1.3	-0.9	-0.7	-0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
228	Florida Intl	-3.4	-4.9	-0.9	-0.3	-0.2	0.0	2.8	0.0	0.0
229	Oregon St	-3.7	-3.3	2.4	-1.7	-1.4	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
230	Troy	-3.7	-2.7	-1.8	-0.5	-0.2	0.0	1.5	0.0	0.0
231	Fairfield	-3.7	-3.0	-2.2	0.8	0.5	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
232	Austin Peay	-3.8	-5.6	-0.2	1.1	0.2	0.0	0.7	0.0	0.0
233	Campbell	-3.8	-3.4	-1.2	-0.2	-0.2	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
234	N Dakota St	-3.8	-2.0	0.1	-1.2	-0.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
235	Boston U	-3.8	-3.4	-0.6	-0.3	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
236	Wagner	-3.9	-1.0	-2.2	-1.1	-0.4	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
237	Navy	-4.0	-2.5	-1.0	-0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
238	Quinnipiac	-4.1	-3.9	-1.6	0.9	0.3	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
239	Kennesaw St	-4.2	-3.5	-4.0	1.9	1.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
240	Dartmouth	-4.4	-2.8	-0.6	-0.6	-0.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
241	Sac State	-4.5	-7.6	-1.0	-1.4	-0.2	0.0	4.6	1.0	0.0
242	Stony Brook	-4.5	-4.4	-0.4	-1.6	-0.9	0.0	2.7	0.0	0.0
243	Niagara	-4.5	-2.4	-2.1	-1.1	-0.6	0.0	1.7	0.0	0.0
244	Portland St	-4.6	-5.0	-1.1	-2.4	-0.8	0.0	4.6	0.0	0.0
245	TN Martin	-4.7	-6.3	-3.4	0.9	0.6	0.0	3.5	0.0	0.0
246	Mt St Marys	-4.7	-4.6	-2.0	0.6	0.4	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
247	Alabama St	-4.7	-6.7	-4.0	-1.5	-0.3	0.0	5.8	2.0	0.0
248	Air Force	-4.8	-4.6	-1.5	0.6	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
249	Queens*	-4.9	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
250	E Carolina	-4.9	-2.1	-0.6	-1.7	-1.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0
251	Pacific	-4.9	-5.8	0.4	-1.0	-0.6	0.0	2.1	0.0	0.0
252	E Kentucky	-4.9	-4.2	-1.2	0.2	-0.1	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
253	TN State	-4.9	-5.3	-2.4	-0.6	-0.3	0.0	3.7	0.0	0.0
254	UC San Diego	-5.0	-5.1	-1.6	0.7	0.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
255	Siena	-5.1	-4.2	-0.7	-0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
256	Arkansas St	-5.2	-2.6	-1.1	-0.9	-0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
257	Maryland BC	-5.3	-4.1	-0.9	-1.4	-0.7	0.0	1.9	0.0	0.0
258	Detroit	-5.3	-3.9	-1.4	-0.3	-1.0	0.0	1.4	0.0	0.0
259	LA Monroe	-5.4	-5.2	-1.0	-0.6	-0.1	0.0	1.5	0.0	0.0
260	Loyola-MD	-5.4	-5.0	-1.3	0.3	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
261	San Jose St	-5.6	-5.1	-3.5	1.3	0.6	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
262	Monmouth	-5.6	-0.9	-1.4	-1.9	-1.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
263	Army	-5.7	-6.2	-1.0	1.2	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
264	Miami (OH)	-5.7	-4.5	-0.3	-1.1	-0.7	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
265	Howard	-5.8	-3.8	-3.6	-0.5	0.0	0.7	1.4	0.0	0.0
266	Bowling Grn	-5.8	-5.7	0.6	-1.2	-0.5	0.0	1.1	0.0	0.0
267	Merrimack	-5.8	-6.2	-0.9	0.9	0.2	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
268	W Michigan	-5.9	-8.1	-1.8	0.7	0.5	0.0	1.7	1.0	0.0
269	VA Military	-6.0	-2.6	-1.3	-1.5	-0.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
270	TX-Arlington	-6.0	-3.5	-0.1	-1.7	-0.9	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
271	Cleveland St	-6.0	-2.5	-1.8	-0.8	-0.6	0.0	0.7	-1.0	0.0
272	S Indiana*	-6.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
273	High Point	-6.1	-4.5	-2.4	0.9	0.9	0.0	0.0	-1.0	0.0
274	Cal Poly	-6.1	-6.7	-2.7	1.7	0.7	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
275	Canisius	-6.1	-4.8	-1.7	-0.2	-0.3	0.0	0.9	0.0	0.0
276	Prairie View	-6.2	-6.0	-1.2	-0.6	-0.4	0.0	2.1	0.0	0.0
277	Radford	-6.2	-5.6	-0.4	-1.0	-0.5	0.0	1.3	0.0	0.0
278	NC A&T	-6.4	-6.2	-2.3	0.3	-0.2	0.0	2.1	0.0	0.0
279	Dixie State	-6.4	-5.3	-3.1	0.7	0.6	0.0	0.7	0.0	0.0
280	Albany	-6.5	-5.8	-1.5	-1.9	-0.4	0.0	3.1	0.0	0.0
281	TX-San Ant	-6.6	-6.6	-0.1	0.2	-0.2	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
282	CS Bakersfld	-6.8	-5.3	-0.7	-0.6	-0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
283	New Orleans	-6.8	-5.2	-2.3	-0.7	-0.1	0.0	1.4	0.0	0.0
284	SIU Edward	-6.8	-5.9	-3.3	0.7	0.4	0.0	1.3	0.0	0.0
285	Presbyterian	-6.9	-5.2	-2.4	0.5	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
286	Binghamton	-6.9	-5.9	-3.0	0.5	0.4	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
287	S Mississippi	-6.9	-8.7	-0.7	-1.9	-0.1	0.0	4.4	0.0	0.0
288	AR Lit Rock	-7.0	-6.8	-0.4	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
289	Denver	-7.0	-6.2	-2.9	-0.5	-0.3	0.0	2.9	0.0	0.0
290	Citadel	-7.0	-4.6	-1.9	-0.8	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0
291	W Carolina	-7.1	-6.6	-1.0	-0.6	-0.3	0.0	1.4	0.0	0.0
292	WI-Milwkee	-7.1	-8.0	-1.8	-2.3	-0.3	1.2	3.1	1.0	0.0
293	N Arizona	-7.2	-8.3	-1.9	1.6	0.2	0.0	1.3	0.0	0.0
294	Manhattan	-7.2	-4.9	-2.4	-1.4	0.4	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
295	TN Tech	-7.3	-4.4	-3.2	-1.8	-1.0	0.0	3.1	0.0	0.0
296	Evansville	-7.3	-7.1	-1.2	-1.4	-0.4	0.0	1.8	1.0	0.0
297	Beth-Cook	-7.4	-8.0	-2.3	1.8	0.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
298	Grambling St	-7.5	-6.7	-2.5	1.3	-0.2	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0
299	Alcorn State	-7.5	-5.0	-3.9	0.1	0.0	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
300	N Illinois	-7.6	-6.4	-1.2	0.1	-0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
301	LIU	-7.6	-4.2	-1.0	-2.2	-0.7	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0
302	Marist	-7.6	-3.3	-2.1	-2.1	-1.1	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
303	Cal St Nrdge	-7.6	-8.3	-1.5	0.8	-0.4	0.0	0.9	1.0	0.0
304	Lehigh	-7.8	-6.5	-1.8	0.2	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
305	Rob Morris	-7.8	-7.3	-1.8	0.6	0.4	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
306	E Michigan	-7.8	-6.8	-1.2	-0.8	-0.3	0.0	1.3	0.0	0.0
307	UMKC	-7.9	-3.6	-1.3	-1.3	-0.7	0.0	0.0	-1.0	0.0
308	Bucknell	-7.9	-8.1	-0.9	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0
309	St. Thomas (MN)	-8.0	-6.4	-2.2	0.2	-0.2	0.0	0.6	0.0	0.0
310	American	-8.0	-8.3	-0.9	0.8	0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
311	St Fran (PA)	-8.0	-7.7	-1.3	1.1	-0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
312	Elon	-8.1	-4.9	-1.9	-1.4	-0.7	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
313	Stetson	-8.2	-6.0	-2.4	-0.3	0.1	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0
314	IL-Chicago	-8.2	-5.5	-1.4	-1.8	-0.7	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
315	Coppin State	-8.2	-6.6	-3.3	-0.4	-0.1	0.0	2.2	0.0	0.0
316	Wm & Mary	-8.2	-8.0	-1.2	-0.2	-0.4	0.0	1.6	0.0	0.0
317	Hampton	-8.3	-7.8	-2.1	0.1	-0.2	0.0	1.7	0.0	0.0
318	Sacred Hrt	-8.4	-7.1	-1.5	-0.7	0.1	0.0	0.9	0.0	0.0
319	N Hampshire	-8.4	-4.0	-2.7	-2.2	-1.3	0.0	1.8	0.0	0.0
320	N Alabama	-8.4	-6.2	-2.0	-0.4	-0.1	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0
321	Maryland ES	-8.4	-6.9	-4.0	0.7	0.8	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
322	NC Central	-8.5	-5.6	-2.6	-0.3	-0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
323	SE Missouri	-8.5	-4.6	-2.7	-0.9	-0.6	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
324	W Illinois	-8.5	-4.3	-2.7	-1.4	-0.6	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
325	Central Mich	-8.5	-7.5	-0.7	-0.6	-0.3	0.0	0.6	0.0	0.0
326	SC Upstate	-8.6	-5.0	-3.3	-0.3	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
327	Morgan St	-8.6	-6.5	-2.6	-0.3	-0.2	0.0	0.9	0.0	0.0
328	SE Louisiana	-8.7	-5.5	-2.9	-1.7	-0.5	0.0	2.1	0.0	0.0
329	Lafayette	-8.7	-7.4	-1.5	-0.4	0.1	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
330	Hartford	-8.8	-5.6	-0.8	-1.9	-0.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
331	TX-Pan Am	-8.9	-6.4	-1.5	-1.5	-0.7	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
332	TX A&M-Com*	-9.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
333	NW State	-9.0	-8.6	-2.9	-1.6	-0.1	0.0	4.2	0.0	0.0
334	NJIT	-9.1	-8.3	-1.5	-0.2	-0.2	0.0	1.1	0.0	0.0
335	McNeese St	-9.6	-6.9	-2.5	-0.1	-0.2	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
336	Alab A&M	-9.7	-7.7	-4.0	-0.8	0.3	0.0	1.6	1.0	0.0
337	St Fran (NY)	-9.7	-7.2	-2.1	0.0	-0.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
338	Idaho State	-9.8	-8.7	-2.1	-0.6	-0.2	0.0	1.8	0.0	0.0
339	Jackson St	-9.9	-5.6	-2.5	-1.2	-0.6	0.0	1.1	-1.0	0.0
340	Hsn Christian	-10.5	-9.3	-3.2	1.0	0.1	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
341	Charl South	-10.6	-9.2	-2.5	0.7	-0.2	0.0	0.6	0.0	0.0
342	Central Ark	-10.9	-7.5	-2.5	-0.4	-0.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
343	WI-Grn Bay	-10.9	-8.4	-1.2	-1.1	-0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
344	Chicago St	-10.9	-8.6	-4.0	-0.8	-0.2	0.0	2.7	0.0	0.0
345	Neb Omaha	-11.1	-9.9	-1.3	-0.5	-0.4	0.0	0.0	1.0	0.0
346	Maine	-11.1	-9.9	-3.1	-0.7	-0.2	0.0	1.8	1.0	0.0
347	North Dakota	-11.2	-9.5	-1.7	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
348	Holy Cross	-11.3	-9.2	-2.2	-0.1	-0.2	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
349	Florida A&M	-11.7	-6.7	-2.6	-2.3	-0.5	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
350	Columbia	-12.2	-10.1	-2.0	0.3	-0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
351	Central Conn	-12.2	-9.2	-3.6	0.4	-0.4	0.0	0.7	0.0	0.0
352	Ark Pine Bl	-12.4	-10.2	-4.0	-1.8	0.4	0.0	3.1	0.0	0.0
353	Lindenwood*	-12.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
353	Stonehill*	-12.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
355	F Dickinson	-12.6	-9.6	-1.7	-2.3	0.1	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
356	Lamar	-12.7	-9.1	-1.5	-2.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
357	Incar Word	-13.4	-9.6	-4.0	-0.6	0.0	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
358	Idaho	-13.5	-8.7	-3.8	-1.9	-0.1	0.0	0.9	0.0	0.0
359	E Illinois	-13.7	-11.7	-2.0	0.5	-0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
360	S Car State	-14.4	-7.4	-4.0	-1.6	-0.3	0.0	0.0	-1.0	0.0
361	IUPUI	-16.0	-13.1	-2.2	-2.5	0.9	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
362	Delaware St	-16.7	-11.6	-4.0	-2.4	0.4	0.0	0.9	0.0	0.0
363	Miss Val St	-17.3	-11.9	-4.0	-1.7	0.2	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0

What Do We Use These Ratings For?

These preseason ratings drive our preseason projections, and they serve as the Bayesian priors for our predictive ratings as the season progresses. (Nerd translation: Our preseason ratings still impact our team ratings even months into the season, because they have demonstrated lasting predictive value even in later stages of the season. Their influence on our team ratings does diminish as the season goes on, though.)

Using these ratings, we’ve run full-season projections, which are live on the site now. Key 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.

Now that we’ve published our preseason ratings for the 2022-23 season, all of these projections are now data-driven and automated, and numbers will update every morning throughout the college basketball season.

NOTE: We are still in the process of calibrating our bracketology projections and NCAA tournament predictions for this season. The values on those pages will change over the next day or two, but will be finalized by Saturday, November 5.

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. In short, our finish was consistently good.

We also found this comparison from John Wobus for the most recent seasons. (Note: The “Week0” column is the one that ranks preseason rating accuracy. The “Overall” column, which the page is sorted by when you load it and where we ranked No. 1 last year, is based on a blend of the performance of the ratings released over the course of the whole season. Also, we are ignoring the “Consensus” system when tallying ranks on John’s page.)

2021-22: 3rd of 23 (behind INCC, Sagarin)2020-21: 3rd of 21 (behind Lefevre, INCC)2019-20: 5th of 20 (behind Lefevre, INCC, Sagarin, Pomeroy)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

Based on those results, we feel we can objectively say that we’ve been among the most accurate systems over the long term. We were consistently a bit behind Dan Hanner’s player-based projections while he was doing them, but he unfortunately stopped after the 2017-18 season. More recently, INCC is the only system that has consistently topped us, but it doesn’t have as long of a historical record of accuracy.

We post all this not to brag, but to try to preemptively deflect the inevitable “Team X is WAY too high/low in your rankings! You guys have no idea what you’re doing!” comments. While our rankings are by no means perfect, the projections they drive have more than held their own in comparison to other widely recognized top-tier projection systems. We expect them to do so again this season.

Some Final Advice On Interpreting Preseason College Basketball Rankings

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

Differences are to be expected, though. No one else ranks teams exactly like we do, and our approach often discounts things that media analysts and other basketball “experts” believe to be important, because we haven’t found any hard data to back up their supposed value.

Just remember, we’re going to get plenty of individual teams wrong this year, and some teams very wrong, for a variety of reasons. But that’s inevitable when the challenge is to project 363 different teams. If we’re down on your team, just hope that we’re wrong! No system is perfect, and just like the rest of them, ours has its strengths and weaknesses.

We also have very specific goals for our preseason college basketball team ratings, which include predicting both the margins of victory of future college basketball games and the end-of-season ratings of all 363 teams, in a way that minimizes error over the entire universe of games and teams. Other rankings-makers may not be chasing those same goals.

Look at Ratings, Not Just Rankings

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

For example, Dayton is our No. 22 team in our preseason rankings this year. However, their rating is less than one point lower than No. 11 Auburn’s rating, meaning that there’s a cluster of 12 teams all rated within one point of one another, a very slim difference.

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

Golf Pool Picks

Get an edge in your One And Done and Majors pools

Learn MoreGet Picks Now