Indiana’s No. 1

Preseason Rankings 1 to 345

Editor’s note: Dan’s preseason rankings will be appearing in both the soon to be released College Basketball Prospectus 2012-13, and in the issue of ESPN The Magazine that hits streets this Friday. Support Dan’s indefatigable analytical efforts by purchasing several copies of both.

Earlier this month, I revealed my my new methodology for ranking Division I teams. Using 10 years of historical trends, I projected the performance of every D-I player, and then projected lineups for all 345 teams. (Sorry, Northern Kentucky and New Orleans. Get some D-I results I can use, then we’ll talk.) Today I share the results, which I think are fun for a number of reasons. Most notably they sometimes depart from conventional thinking. It is also interesting to see how the model evaluates teams that may otherwise fly under the radar.

A good example of this is probably a team like Pennsylvania. Shockingly, the model picks the Quakers to finish in last place in the Ivy League this season. At first it seemed unfathomable to me that one of the most dominant Ivy teams of the last 40 years could be picked so low. But when I looked inside the numbers, it actually made a lot of sense.

What the model notes is that Penn loses their three most efficient and important players from last season: Zack Rosen, Tyler Bernardini, and Rob Belcore. Other than the middling efficiency of Miles Cartwright, the players that return this season are either extremely inefficient (Fran Dougherty, Henry Brooks) or are yet to shoot (Steve Rennard). And unfortunately for head coach Jerome Allen, over the last 10 years Penn has not been a school that’s been able to bring in first-year players and get efficient seasons out of them. Ivy players need time to develop. And thus on paper, this looks like it might be one of the worst Pennsylvania offenses in some time.

Most surprises are not that drastic. But a number of the results should make us reevaluate our preconceived notions:
Pitt has a ton of elite talent, and may be better than we think.
San Diego State adds some talented players, but their stats last season weren’t quite as good as their NCAA seed would indicate.
Louisville loses highly efficient offensive players like Chris Smith and Kyle Kuric and now depends on highly inefficient players like Peyton Siva, Wayne Blackshear, Kevin Ware, and Russ Smith. The Cardinals should have the best defense in the nation, but even accounting for previous injuries, their offense remains a major question mark.
Baylor is clearly one of the most talented teams in the nation, but Scott Drew hasn’t been able to turn that talent into wins quite like other elite coaches.
North Carolina is going to rely heavily on freshmen this year, and three of them will have to play vital roles. Marcus Paige, Brice Johnson, and Joel James almost have to play major minutes this season. And since no one in that trio is in the Can’t Miss Top 10, or for that matter the Rarely Miss Top 20, inconsistent play might be unavoidable.
Of course the limit of the model is that the recruiting rankings, coaching data, and previous years’ stats can’t tell us everything. There may be a number of factors outside the model that deserve consideration.

For example, UCLA is the ultimate “on paper” team. On paper, the Bruins have a Final Four coach who knows how to develop players and coach elite defense. On paper, Ben Howland brings back three dominant forwards, and adds three guards/wings who are expected to be instant impact players. On paper, one of the new players is a 22-year-old point guard who as a top-50 prospect in high school was recruited heavily by both North Carolina and UCLA. On paper, the other two new players are top-5 recruits with off-the-chart talent.
But what the model doesn’t see is what the rest of us fear. Will Josh Smith ever get in shape and be a dominant player for 35 minutes a game? Above and beyond his statistical shortcomings at North Carolina, wasn’t Larry Drew a negative drag on his teammates? Which UCLA players will be eligible? (I assume Shabazz Muhammad and Kyle Anderson are eligible in my projections.) Will the plethora of big men slow down the offense? Can Anderson defend opposing guards? Can Howland survive the pressure after all the chaos in recent years? All of those factors matter. None are inputs for a statistical model.

Similarly, many of the counter-intuitive results are due to the defensive projections. Given how little predictive power the defensive statistics have, I tried to move the ball forward by incorporating coach-level defensive effects. But I will readily admit the defensive model is not perfect.
Michigan is almost certainly too low in my prediction, but I haven’t been able to use historic data to generate a higher ranking for the Wolverines. John Beilein has never had a top-25 defense, and a team of newcomers is not the situation where a coach typically has his best defensive season. Then again this is the most athletic team Beilein has ever had in Ann Arbor, and it feels like Michigan’s defense will be better than what is projected here.

By the same token, New Mexico feels too high to me. Certainly Steve Alford doesn’t get enough credit as a defensive coach. His 2006 Iowa team was one of the best defensive teams in the last decade. And the model believes Alex Kirk might be able to return from injury and help fill in for the loss of Drew Gordon in the paint. But it still feels like the Lobos’ defense should fall off more than the model predicts.

In the end, you will probably see some results you agree with, and some where you think the model overlooks something. But don’t just listen to my opinion. Every D-I team is discussed in the upcoming College Basketball Prospectus book by a team of extremely talented writers. Some of those writers agree with my numbers. Some of them reach completely different conclusions.
Also, be sure to check out the model’s lineup projections at the front of the book. These player-level projections usually make it clear why a team is ranked high or low. Of course due to space limitations, only a limited number of lineup projections (my top 30 teams) made it into the book. But if you buy a copy and don’t see the lineup projection you wanted to see, just send me a tweet and I’ll do my best to address various lineup and projection based questions in future columns.

For example, as editor John Gasaway asked me a few weeks ago: How can the model predict a 10-8 season for Rutgers? The answer of course is that the Scarlet Knights bring back all their key perimeter players and flip Gilvydas Biruta for Wally Judge in the paint. While Judge’s numbers at Kansas State were pretty terrible, it turns out that for transfers, the stats at the previous school don’t have nearly as much predictive power as other factors. On average in the last decade, major-conference to major-conference transfers have been key contributors for their new teams, and former elite recruits have thrived in new environments. And thus the model predicts that Judge, a former top-20 recruit, will provide the needed upgrade in the paint to take Rutgers to the next level.

A few final thoughts:
With no fewer than five legitimate contenders, who will win the new-look 16-team Atlantic 10?
With eight teams predicted to finish 9-9 or better, is the Big 12 race the most exciting in the nation? Take it from Bob Huggins: “If we’re the sixth-best team in the league, it’s a hell of a league.”
Are you ready to get on the Davidson and Robert Morris bandwagons?
Or will the love affair with Murray State and Belmont continue?

Here are the model’s team projections, 1 to 345, with predicted conference wins and losses (“CW” and “CL”), last season’s offensive and defensive ratings, predictions for this season’s numbers in those categories, and a projected Pythagorean expectation (“Pyth”). Enjoy:

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
1 Indiana B10 14 4 120.6 95.3 124.9 93.8 .949
2 Kentucky SEC 15 3 122.9 88.2 119.8 90.8 .945
3 UCLA P12 15 3 107.3 93.0 119.5 91.2 .941
4 Kansas B12 13 5 114.2 86.0 110.7 86.2 .928
5 Michigan St. B10 13 5 115.2 85.8 113.9 89.1 .926
6 Florida SEC 14 4 121.1 95.9 120.0 94.0 .924
7 Duke ACC 14 4 116.1 95.8 116.9 91.6 .924
8 Ohio St. B10 13 5 117.4 85.2 111.4 87.6 .921
9 Arizona P12 14 4 106.8 93.8 117.2 92.6 .918
10 Louisville BE 13 5 105.0 84.0 105.2 83.2 .917
11 Syracuse BE 13 5 118.1 90.3 116.7 92.5 .916
12 NC State ACC 13 5 111.0 95.4 116.9 94.3 .900
13 Gonzaga WCC 14 2 111.7 92.9 115.3 93.7 .894
14 UNLV MWC 12 4 107.4 92.9 111.4 90.6 .893
15 New Mexico MWC 11 5 111.0 89.7 112.6 91.7 .892
16 Missouri SEC 12 6 125.4 98.4 119.6 97.7 .888
17 Tennessee SEC 12 6 104.8 93.3 111.8 91.4 .887
18 Memphis CUSA 14 2 113.2 88.7 113.1 92.6 .886
19 Pittsburgh BE 11 7 112.5 100.3 117.4 96.1 .886
20 Texas B12 11 7 111.4 94.1 112.5 92.2 .886

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
21 Marquette BE 11 7 110.9 89.2 111.4 91.5 .883
22 Notre Dame BE 11 7 109.7 95.0 113.1 93.2 .879
23 Minnesota B10 11 7 107.9 94.4 111.9 92.6 .875
24 Creighton MVC 15 3 118.5 101.8 117.8 97.6 .873
25 Baylor B12 11 7 116.2 93.4 115.1 95.4 .873
26 North Carolina ACC 12 6 114.7 88.6 110.1 91.5 .870
27 Georgetown BE 11 7 110.7 87.8 109.4 90.9 .869
28 Alabama SEC 11 7 104.4 87.9 108.0 89.9 .868
29 Kansas St. B12 11 7 109.0 91.1 108.6 90.4 .868
30 Iowa St. B12 11 7 112.9 94.9 113.5 94.5 .867
31 Stanford P12 11 7 106.6 90.6 111.4 92.8 .867
32 St. Louis A10 12 4 110.8 88.3 107.2 89.3 .866
33 Wisconsin B10 10 8 114.3 87.1 104.1 86.8 .865
34 Miami FL ACC 12 6 109.9 96.1 113.6 94.7 .865
35 Arkansas SEC 11 7 104.6 101.3 116.1 97.1 .862
36 Butler A10 12 4 98.0 92.5 109.5 91.7 .860
37 Saint Joseph’s A10 12 4 109.2 98.0 113.9 95.5 .859
38 Florida St. ACC 11 7 107.0 89.3 110.3 92.6 .857
39 Temple A10 12 4 112.0 97.4 111.6 94.1 .852
40 California P12 11 7 109.6 92.1 110.7 93.7 .848

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
41 San Diego St. MWC 10 6 105.4 94.7 109.5 92.9 .844
42 Ohio MAC 14 2 105.2 93.7 108.2 92.2 .838
43 Rutgers BE 10 8 100.8 95.7 109.9 93.9 .835
44 Michigan B10 9 9 113.0 95.1 110.7 94.5 .834
45 USC P12 10 8 87.6 94.4 105.6 90.3 .832
46 Northern Iowa MVC 14 4 105.0 96.5 112.3 96.1 .831
47 Oklahoma St. B12 9 9 105.9 98.1 109.2 93.9 .825
48 VCU A10 11 5 105.3 91.2 106.3 91.7 .819
49 Murray St. OVC 14 2 105.7 91.8 108.1 93.6 .814
50 St. Mary’s WCC 12 4 112.2 97.2 113.2 98.1 .814
51 Davidson SC 16 2 110.4 98.9 112.5 97.4 .814
52 Cincinnati BE 9 9 109.6 91.8 106.1 92.0 .812
53 Oklahoma B12 9 9 103.1 97.2 112.2 97.3 .812
54 Illinois B10 9 9 103.3 93.3 108.7 94.4 .810
55 West Virginia B12 9 9 109.8 96.5 107.1 93.3 .805
56 Mississippi SEC 9 9 104.1 95.7 109.5 95.9 .796
57 Wyoming MWC 8 8 99.2 92.5 101.3 89.1 .790
58 Villanova BE 8 10 107.8 98.4 106.9 94.2 .784
59 Robert Morris NEC 15 3 104.2 99.7 109.8 97.0 .781
60 Bucknell Pat 12 2 105.4 97.5 110.5 97.8 .779

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
61 Virginia ACC 9 9 102.9 87.7 103.5 91.8 .774
62 Drexel CAA 14 4 109.7 95.1 105.9 94.0 .774
63 Akron MAC 13 3 106.5 97.1 108.1 96.2 .767
64 Iowa B10 7 11 110.9 101.9 110.8 98.6 .766
65 Colorado P12 9 9 103.0 93.2 106.1 94.6 .764
66 Washington P12 8 10 108.4 95.2 106.8 95.6 .756
67 BYU WCC 11 5 104.1 91.7 103.2 92.4 .756
68 Virginia Tech ACC 9 9 105.3 97.1 107.4 96.3 .755
69 Seton Hall BE 7 11 104.8 92.8 102.8 92.2 .751
70 Colorado St. MWC 7 9 109.3 101.5 110.3 99.1 .748
71 South Florida BE 7 11 101.7 88.9 103.8 93.4 .748
72 LSU SEC 8 10 99.6 92.8 103.9 93.4 .748
73 Purdue B10 7 11 116.7 97.1 103.3 93.1 .744
74 Belmont OVC 13 3 116.3 97.0 110.0 99.6 .734
75 Massachusetts A10 9 7 105.4 95.3 106.2 96.2 .734
76 St. John’s BE 7 11 102.3 101.3 107.2 97.1 .734
77 South Dakota St. Sum 13 3 111.4 98.9 112.9 102.2 .734
78 Boise St. MWC 7 9 102.7 102.5 110.7 100.6 .728
79 Lehigh Pat 12 2 106.2 97.2 108.5 98.7 .724
80 College of Charleston SC 15 3 99.7 99.8 105.1 95.9 .719

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
81 Washington St. P12 7 11 108.6 99.8 108.1 98.7 .718
82 Central Florida CUSA 10 6 104.4 98.4 107.2 98.0 .715
83 Oregon St. P12 7 11 109.6 100.7 108.4 99.1 .715
84 Manhattan MAAC 14 4 101.6 97.2 105.8 96.9 .713
85 South Carolina SEC 8 10 101.6 101.0 105.8 96.8 .712
86 Fresno St. MWC 7 9 98.9 101.3 107.5 98.4 .712
87 Detroit Horz 12 4 106.1 101.0 109.9 100.6 .712
88 Penn St. B10 6 12 100.8 97.3 104.1 95.3 .711
89 Vermont AE 14 2 102.9 97.6 104.0 95.3 .710
90 Clemson ACC 8 10 104.0 94.6 101.9 93.5 .708
91 North Dakota St. Sum 13 3 104.1 105.5 110.5 101.3 .708
92 Illinois St. MVC 11 7 107.8 98.6 105.9 97.4 .702
93 North Texas SB 15 5 98.5 98.2 105.2 96.8 .701
94 Princeton Ivy 11 3 106.6 98.6 104.1 95.9 .699
95 East Carolina CUSA 10 6 102.9 99.5 109.0 100.5 .696
96 Richmond A10 9 7 107.5 100.8 110.3 101.8 .694
97 Middle Tennessee SB 15 5 106.5 94.6 105.6 97.8 .687
98 Oregon P12 7 11 115.4 101.0 107.0 99.3 .683
99 Marshall CUSA 10 6 108.7 99.3 104.7 97.4 .678
100 Auburn SEC 7 11 96.1 95.4 104.3 97.1 .676

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
101 UTEP CUSA 10 6 99.5 97.6 101.7 94.7 .674
102 Northwestern B10 6 12 113.6 102.2 108.4 101.0 .673
103 Wagner NEC 14 4 102.4 96.9 101.8 94.9 .671
104 Long Beach St. BW 14 4 108.7 93.7 105.3 98.5 .665
105 DePaul BE 6 12 106.7 105.0 111.1 103.9 .664
106 Valparaiso Horz 11 5 102.9 101.4 106.0 99.3 .660
107 Connecticut BE 6 12 109.8 94.8 103.4 97.0 .659
108 Utah St. WAC 13 5 106.1 102.0 106.7 100.1 .658
109 Dayton A10 8 8 111.8 99.9 105.9 99.4 .656
110 Tennessee St. OVC 12 4 98.4 99.6 104.4 98.2 .653
111 Maryland ACC 7 11 104.4 101.2 104.5 98.3 .652
112 Texas A&M; SEC 7 11 99.9 94.7 101.7 95.7 .650
113 SC Upstate ASun 13 5 100.9 97.6 103.7 97.7 .650
114 Nevada MWC 6 10 103.9 98.2 106.5 100.3 .650
115 Green Bay Horz 10 6 99.0 101.4 105.0 99.2 .641
116 Georgia SEC 6 12 102.1 96.9 101.1 95.7 .638
117 Xavier A10 8 8 108.3 94.8 102.1 96.6 .637
118 La Salle A10 8 8 106.2 94.7 105.3 99.8 .635
119 Mercer ASun 13 5 103.9 95.9 105.0 99.6 .633
120 Old Dominion CAA 11 7 101.1 94.3 100.6 95.5 .630

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
121 St. Bonaventure A10 7 9 110.5 97.1 106.2 100.9 .629
122 Providence BE 5 13 108.3 103.8 107.4 102.2 .626
123 Florida Gulf Coast ASun 13 5 103.5 105.1 108.1 103.0 .622
124 Georgia St. CAA 11 7 100.4 90.6 99.4 95.1 .612
125 Northeastern CAA 11 7 98.8 101.4 105.3 101.2 .600
126 Tulane CUSA 9 7 96.7 100.2 102.8 98.9 .599
127 Wichita St. MVC 8 10 115.4 90.6 99.3 95.9 .588
128 Georgia Tech ACC 5 13 95.8 98.1 100.5 97.2 .585
129 Evansville MVC 8 10 108.7 103.9 105.2 102.0 .579
130 Arizona St. P12 5 13 98.4 104.9 103.7 100.7 .576
131 Texas Tech B12 4 14 91.9 100.2 103.5 100.4 .575
132 Columbia Ivy 10 4 100.4 103.3 104.6 101.6 .574
133 Iona MAAC 12 6 114.5 101.7 105.4 102.5 .570
134 South Alabama SB 13 7 98.2 103.9 104.8 102.1 .565
135 Indiana St. MVC 8 10 99.2 97.6 99.1 96.7 .562
136 St. Francis NY NEC 12 6 95.0 100.1 101.5 99.1 .562
137 Delaware CAA 10 8 102.0 103.1 104.9 102.4 .561
138 Southern Illinois MVC 8 10 96.3 103.4 101.5 99.2 .557
139 George Mason CAA 10 8 102.5 96.5 98.5 96.4 .555
140 Montana BSky 15 5 101.3 95.0 102.2 100.1 .554

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
141 Cleveland St. Horz 9 7 104.2 95.4 99.5 97.6 .550
142 Idaho WAC 11 7 104.3 104.4 103.9 102.2 .543
143 Air Force MWC 4 12 97.5 101.4 102.3 101.2 .530
144 Long Island NEC 12 6 107.1 107.5 107.2 106.0 .527
145 Oral Roberts Slnd 14 4 108.9 102.7 102.9 102.0 .523
146 Santa Clara WCC 8 8 101.5 113.1 109.9 108.9 .523
147 Quinnipiac NEC 12 6 102.9 100.7 102.3 101.5 .519
148 George Washington A10 6 10 99.7 101.3 101.2 100.5 .517
149 James Madison CAA 9 9 99.5 107.5 104.6 104.1 .511
150 Hawaii BW 11 7 101.1 106.6 102.7 102.4 .509
151 Nebraska B10 3 15 100.2 99.9 101.1 100.8 .508
152 New Mexico St. WAC 10 8 107.4 96.1 98.7 98.6 .505
153 Texas Arlington WAC 10 8 103.5 98.1 99.3 99.1 .505
154 Western Kentucky SB 12 8 96.5 99.1 96.8 96.7 .504
155 Harvard Ivy 9 5 107.4 93.3 101.0 100.9 .504
156 Niagara MAAC 10 8 101.2 109.2 105.1 105.0 .503
157 Fairfield MAAC 10 8 99.1 92.6 94.8 94.8 .501
158 Denver WAC 10 8 108.8 99.4 100.1 100.3 .495
159 Louisiana Tech WAC 10 8 100.2 102.9 100.0 100.2 .494
160 San Diego WCC 7 9 100.0 104.8 100.4 100.6 .494

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
161 Kent St. MAC 10 6 103.1 99.7 101.6 101.9 .493
162 Utah P12 4 14 89.6 105.7 103.1 103.4 .491
163 NC Wilmington CAA 9 9 97.4 105.6 101.9 102.3 .490
164 Southern Miss CUSA 7 9 109.3 99.3 100.5 101.0 .486
165 Portland WCC 7 9 95.8 107.9 103.2 103.9 .483
166 Youngstown St. Horz 8 8 104.3 104.7 102.9 103.6 .482
167 Wake Forest ACC 4 14 99.8 104.8 106.6 107.4 .480
168 Drake MVC 7 11 98.4 96.9 99.3 100.1 .479
169 Loyola MD MAAC 10 8 102.3 98.5 101.7 102.7 .474
170 Stephen F. Austin Slnd 13 5 95.8 94.3 95.6 96.7 .469
171 Boston College ACC 4 14 92.6 102.4 100.5 102.0 .464
172 Missouri St. MVC 6 12 103.3 96.7 97.3 98.8 .461
173 Houston CUSA 7 9 102.7 106.1 103.0 104.6 .460
174 SMU CUSA 7 9 94.9 98.9 95.9 97.5 .458
175 Jacksonville St. OVC 10 6 97.2 101.0 100.5 102.3 .456
176 Sacred Heart NEC 11 7 99.8 107.6 103.9 105.8 .454
177 Toledo MAC 9 7 100.8 105.7 101.6 103.5 .452
178 Buffalo MAC 9 7 106.1 99.2 97.6 99.5 .451
179 Weber St. BSky 14 6 107.2 105.8 102.6 104.7 .449
180 Pacific BW 10 8 94.7 107.6 101.8 104.0 .446

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
181 Vanderbilt SEC 4 14 115.7 92.7 94.2 96.4 .442
182 UC Irvine BW 10 8 94.8 104.1 99.8 102.2 .440
183 Arkansas St. SB 10 10 101.1 105.3 99.3 101.9 .435
184 Texas Southern SWAC 16 2 89.2 101.4 99.6 102.3 .431
185 Elon SC 11 7 95.3 105.1 100.6 103.3 .430
186 Stetson ASun 10 8 99.1 107.4 102.2 105.2 .426
187 Northern Colorado BSky 13 7 102.3 112.4 105.1 108.4 .421
188 Morehead St. OVC 9 7 98.0 101.4 95.1 98.2 .419
189 TCU B12 2 16 105.1 104.6 97.2 100.4 .418
190 Cal Poly BW 10 8 102.7 103.7 100.8 104.1 .416
191 UAB CUSA 6 10 99.7 96.7 98.1 101.4 .416
192 Louisiana Lafayette SB 10 10 91.4 96.4 94.6 97.9 .413
193 Florida Atlantic SB 10 10 98.4 103.1 102.0 105.6 .410
194 Bowling Green MAC 8 8 101.6 98.8 97.8 101.5 .406
195 North Dakota BSky 13 7 93.4 103.7 98.2 101.9 .406
196 Cornell Ivy 7 7 95.8 100.5 95.6 99.3 .405
197 Savannah St. MEAC 12 4 92.6 94.5 93.6 97.2 .403
198 Western Illinois Sum 9 7 94.8 97.6 95.8 99.5 .402
199 Marist MAAC 9 9 96.1 105.1 99.2 103.2 .399
200 Loyola Marymount WCC 6 10 100.2 98.5 96.9 101.0 .397

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
201 Milwaukee Horz 6 10 98.5 97.4 96.0 100.1 .395
202 Hofstra CAA 7 11 96.7 102.4 98.5 102.8 .393
203 Loyola Chicago Horz 6 10 93.4 105.7 99.3 103.7 .392
204 North Florida ASun 9 9 100.0 103.7 99.9 104.4 .389
205 Cal St. Fullerton BW 9 9 106.7 108.3 102.3 107.5 .377
206 Bradley MVC 5 13 90.8 101.9 96.3 101.2 .374
207 American Pat 8 6 99.1 100.9 97.1 102.1 .374
208 Duquesne A10 4 12 104.7 101.2 96.9 102.0 .371
209 Wright St. Horz 6 10 92.6 98.5 93.3 98.5 .365
210 NC Asheville BSth 11 5 108.4 102.8 99.6 105.2 .364
211 SE Missouri St. OVC 8 8 103.0 110.1 102.8 108.6 .362
212 Canisius MAAC 8 10 93.7 113.0 104.3 110.5 .355
213 Albany AE 10 6 106.6 110.8 101.4 107.7 .352
214 Seattle WAC 7 11 96.5 102.6 96.4 102.4 .350
215 Arkansas Little Rock SB 9 11 96.1 98.4 93.0 98.9 .348
216 Oakland Sum 8 8 112.4 111.2 102.8 109.4 .344
217 Gardner Webb BSth 11 5 92.8 103.2 95.3 101.7 .340
218 Western Michigan MAC 7 9 102.9 105.5 97.2 103.9 .336
219 Stony Brook AE 9 7 102.1 99.3 94.1 100.7 .333
220 Army Pat 7 7 91.1 105.6 95.9 102.7 .331

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
221 Southern Utah BSky 11 9 95.6 103.1 97.0 104.0 .329
222 UC Davis BW 8 10 90.2 112.7 104.2 111.9 .326
223 Fordham A10 4 12 92.9 104.1 98.9 106.3 .324
224 Florida International SB 8 12 97.3 104.4 94.0 101.1 .322
225 IPFW Sum 7 9 95.2 106.9 98.5 106.0 .320
226 Mississippi St. SEC 2 16 109.9 101.3 92.3 99.5 .316
227 Texas St. WAC 7 11 97.1 108.1 98.3 106.2 .311
228 UC Santa Barbara BW 7 11 109.8 102.8 94.7 102.4 .308
229 Charlotte A10 3 13 98.4 97.7 90.0 97.5 .305
230 Coastal Carolina BSth 10 6 101.2 104.4 97.4 105.5 .304
231 Texas San Antonio WAC 6 12 101.4 103.5 96.5 104.8 .301
232 NC Greensboro SC 9 9 95.5 106.7 97.1 105.5 .300
233 Lipscomb ASun 7 11 98.9 103.4 97.6 106.0 .300
234 Miami OH MAC 7 9 100.0 104.1 95.0 103.2 .299
235 Ball St. MAC 7 9 97.5 102.9 93.9 102.1 .297
236 Delaware St. MEAC 11 5 98.9 108.3 100.1 108.9 .297
237 William & Mary CAA 6 12 95.9 109.0 97.9 106.5 .296
238 San Jose St. WAC 6 12 97.1 108.7 97.2 105.8 .295
239 Liberty BSth 10 6 98.6 110.1 97.8 106.5 .295
240 East Tennessee St. ASun 7 11 99.8 97.9 93.5 101.9 .293

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
241 Siena MAAC 6 12 95.5 102.1 95.1 103.7 .292
242 Cal St. Bakersfield ind 98.6 107.9 99.6 108.6 .291
243 Mount St. Mary’s NEC 8 10 91.1 105.1 95.9 104.8 .287
244 Eastern Kentucky OVC 7 9 98.3 110.1 99.8 109.3 .284
245 Utah Valley GWC 6 2 96.8 105.0 95.5 104.5 .283
246 Sam Houston St. Slnd 10 8 86.8 99.9 92.0 100.9 .281
247 Chattanooga SC 8 10 95.4 105.3 95.8 105.1 .280
248 Eastern Michigan MAC 6 10 87.8 99.3 89.0 97.7 .278
249 SE Louisiana Slnd 10 8 83.7 99.6 92.6 102.0 .272
250 Campbell BSth 9 7 100.7 109.1 98.4 108.4 .271
251 Yale Ivy 5 9 98.8 98.5 94.8 104.5 .269
252 Charleston Southern BSth 9 7 101.9 104.0 98.9 109.2 .266
253 VMI BSth 9 7 99.7 109.9 101.5 112.1 .265
254 Rhode Island A10 3 13 101.0 105.6 97.4 107.7 .264
255 Maine AE 8 8 94.0 105.0 94.1 104.0 .264
256 Montana St. BSky 10 10 93.5 108.8 98.3 108.6 .264
257 UMKC Sum 6 10 96.5 110.2 95.9 106.0 .263
258 Cal St. Northridge BW 6 12 95.8 112.4 97.6 108.2 .259
259 Western Carolina SC 8 10 99.1 106.6 94.8 105.1 .257
260 Furman SC 8 10 95.5 103.5 93.5 103.8 .255

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
261 Jacksonville ASun 6 12 97.7 104.6 94.8 105.3 .255
262 Rider MAAC 6 12 102.2 106.5 96.7 107.5 .252
263 Georgia Southern SC 8 10 95.4 103.3 93.5 104.0 .251
264 Tennessee Tech OVC 6 10 100.2 104.8 96.6 107.5 .249
265 Morgan St. MEAC 10 6 95.8 107.0 93.4 104.2 .247
266 Austin Peay OVC 6 10 99.7 105.6 96.0 107.3 .241
267 IUPUI Sum 6 10 105.6 110.2 99.4 111.2 .241
268 Dartmouth Ivy 5 9 88.9 103.0 91.7 102.6 .240
269 Wofford SC 8 10 100.0 104.0 94.2 105.5 .239
270 North Carolina A&T; MEAC 10 6 91.3 106.7 93.4 104.7 .237
271 Bethune Cookman MEAC 10 6 99.4 110.8 99.8 111.9 .236
272 Illinois Chicago Horz 4 12 94.8 108.6 95.3 107.0 .235
273 Boston University AE 7 9 97.2 99.3 89.5 100.5 .235
274 Tulsa CUSA 3 13 105.0 97.0 90.0 101.0 .234
275 San Francisco WCC 4 12 107.5 105.4 93.3 104.8 .232
276 Jackson St. SWAC 13 5 85.0 109.6 94.2 106.1 .227
277 Northwestern St. Slnd 9 9 94.5 101.7 93.4 105.3 .226
278 Rice CUSA 3 13 99.0 97.8 92.3 104.1 .226
279 Brown Ivy 5 9 91.9 110.1 97.6 110.1 .225
280 South Dakota Sum 6 10 96.2 109.1 98.5 111.4 .221

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
281 New Hampshire AE 7 9 89.3 102.4 91.5 103.7 .218
282 Monmouth NEC 6 12 95.5 107.3 93.8 106.3 .217
283 Eastern Washington BSky 8 12 98.8 104.7 96.7 109.6 .216
284 Holy Cross Pat 5 9 95.8 102.5 92.8 105.3 .215
285 Pennsylvania Ivy 4 10 101.9 99.1 89.7 102.0 .213
286 St. Peter’s MAAC 5 13 86.4 105.7 89.3 101.5 .212
287 Troy SB 5 15 101.9 113.4 97.3 110.6 .212
288 McNeese St. Slnd 8 10 99.3 106.1 93.7 106.6 .211
289 Sacramento St. BSky 8 12 95.8 110.1 95.3 109.2 .198
290 UMBC AE 6 10 88.2 114.8 96.4 110.7 .194
291 Central Connecticut NEC 6 12 97.8 102.7 91.5 105.2 .193
292 The Citadel SC 6 12 89.7 109.2 95.7 110.1 .192
293 UC Riverside BW 5 13 87.6 99.5 89.7 103.5 .188
294 Texas A&M; CC Slnd 8 10 87.1 105.3 89.5 103.4 .185
295 Tennessee Martin OVC 5 11 90.5 115.6 96.4 111.4 .184
296 Hartford AE 6 10 89.4 105.1 90.4 104.8 .179
297 Pepperdine WCC 3 13 91.7 104.8 89.7 104.1 .179
298 North Carolina Central MEAC 8 8 95.4 99.9 89.7 104.3 .176
299 Idaho St. BSky 7 13 93.7 111.3 94.9 110.8 .171
300 Lafayette Pat 5 9 103.0 110.9 95.4 111.6 .167

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
301 Navy Pat 4 10 89.2 110.1 93.0 108.9 .166
302 Samford SC 6 12 100.2 112.0 96.7 113.3 .164
303 Lamar Slnd 7 11 105.8 100.2 85.2 100.0 .163
304 Howard MEAC 8 8 86.7 106.4 90.3 106.5 .156
305 Nebraska Omaha Sum 4 12 94.0 117.8 98.7 116.4 .155
306 Southern SWAC 11 7 86.8 107.8 91.5 108.2 .151
307 Bryant NEC 5 13 91.0 115.9 96.7 114.5 .151
308 Appalachian St. SC 5 13 98.1 107.4 91.9 108.7 .151
309 Radford BSth 6 10 87.9 105.7 87.8 104.1 .148
310 Houston Baptist GWC 4 4 90.2 110.6 94.3 112.0 .146
311 Prairie View A&M; SWAC 11 7 83.0 104.5 87.5 104.0 .145
312 Hampton MEAC 8 8 89.8 101.8 86.6 102.9 .145
313 Portland St. BSky 6 14 105.2 110.6 96.2 114.5 .144
314 Presbyterian BSth 6 10 99.8 109.1 90.8 108.7 .136
315 Nicholls St. Slnd 6 12 94.0 119.4 96.1 115.2 .135
316 Northern Arizona BSky 5 15 86.9 113.3 93.9 113.1 .130
317 Binghamton AE 5 11 85.3 112.4 94.3 113.6 .129
318 Winthrop BSth 6 10 92.7 102.2 87.0 104.9 .129
319 High Point BSth 6 10 103.5 110.9 91.2 109.9 .128
320 Texas Pan American GWC 4 4 89.5 108.7 90.1 108.9 .125

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
321 Northern Illinois MAC 3 13 87.0 109.9 88.1 106.7 .123
322 NJIT GWC 4 4 94.3 109.6 89.4 108.3 .123
323 Florida A&M; MEAC 7 9 90.8 110.7 92.3 112.0 .121
324 Central Michigan MAC 3 13 94.9 106.0 89.1 108.3 .119
325 SIU Edwardsville OVC 4 12 92.5 110.1 89.9 109.3 .118
326 Central Arkansas Slnd 5 13 89.6 111.9 90.6 110.8 .113
327 Norfolk St. MEAC 6 10 97.7 102.1 87.5 107.1 .112
328 Kennesaw St. ASun 3 15 94.4 114.5 91.7 112.7 .108
329 Louisiana Monroe SB 3 17 93.4 112.6 93.2 114.6 .108
330 St. Francis PA NEC 4 14 91.3 109.2 88.9 109.9 .102
331 Md. Eastern Shore MEAC 6 10 83.9 106.5 87.4 108.5 .098
332 Fairleigh Dickinson NEC 3 15 86.1 108.3 87.9 109.4 .096
333 Colgate Pat 3 11 95.1 115.8 92.5 115.2 .095
334 Arkansas Pine Bluff SWAC 8 10 90.3 112.8 87.1 108.6 .095
335 Alcorn St. SWAC 8 10 85.0 109.7 86.4 107.8 .094
336 Alabama St. SWAC 8 10 84.3 105.2 83.9 105.5 .087
337 Towson CAA 1 17 83.8 108.5 85.2 107.5 .085
338 South Carolina St. MEAC 5 11 88.4 117.0 88.4 113.3 .073
339 Chicago St. GWC 2 6 85.3 109.6 85.9 111.0 .067
340 Alabama A&M; SWAC 7 11 87.1 113.6 87.5 113.6 .064

Rk School Conf CW CL ORtg12 DRtg12 ORtg13 DRtg13 Pyth
———————————————————————————-
341 Mississippi Valley St. SWAC 6 12 94.2 103.9 82.0 108.0 .056
342 Longwood BSth 3 13 93.9 122.6 90.5 119.3 .056
343 Eastern Illinois OVC 2 14 94.0 110.7 86.2 114.3 .053
344 Coppin St. MEAC 3 13 103.8 117.0 84.4 112.8 .049
345 Grambling SWAC 2 16 80.2 116.8 78.4 118.7 .014

FDan Hanner writes about college hoops at RealGM.com, and is a longtime contributor to the College Basketball Prospectus book series.

Scroll to Top