2019 College Basketball Preseason Rankings & Ratings

2019 College Basketball Preseason Rankings & Ratings

November 1, 2019 – by David Hess

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 FourGreat program history and Hall Of Fame coach, so last year wasn’t flukyOnly 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 YearTop 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:

Our 2019-20 college basketball preseason ratings (TR)Ken Pomeroy’s preseason ratings (KP)Bart Torvik’s preseason ratings (BT)ESPN’s Basketball Power Index preseason ratings (BPI)AP poll (AP)Coaches poll (Coach)

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)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	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:

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.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.

If you liked this post, please share it. Thank you! Twitter Facebook