2025-26 College Basketball Rankings & Ratings For All 365 Teams

We have our full rankings for the start of the 2025-2026 college basketball seasonplus a breakdown of our Top 25 rated teams.

by Jason Lisk - Oct 302025

Our 2025–26 college basketball rankings are livejust in time for opening night on MondayNovember 32025.

If you want the nuts and bolts of our processsee our TeamRankings explainer on how we build college basketball preseason ratings.

And yesdebate is part of the funbut historicallyour preseason models have ranked among the most accurate. If you’d rather skip straight to the numbersjump to the data below.

Here’s what you’ll find:

• Highlights from this year’s preseason rankings
• The complete rankings and ratings for all 365 Division I teams
• The key factors that drove each team’s preseason rating

But first things firstthe question that’s on everyone’s mind: who’s No. 1?

Houston at No. 1: Veteran Core Plus Talented Newcomers

Houstonfor the second year in a rowstands atop our college basketball rankings heading into the year. Last seasonthe Cougars earned a No. 1 seedknocked off Duke in the Final Fourand lost a close game after having a lead in the national title. Relative to FloridathoughHouston has more pieces coming back in 2025-2026.

Houston did lose forward J’Wan Robertsbut Joseph Tugleralready one of the best rebounders and interior defenders in college basketballshould be primed to take on an even bigger role this year. The backcourt of Milos Uzan and Emanuel Sharp returns.

And to that coreHouston is adding one of the best freshman classes in the countryto a situation where they don’t have to start out as the starsbut can contribute to a winning team with established success. Forward Chris Cenac and guards Kingston Flemings and Isiah Harwell are all top 20 national recruits who could provide this team with a boost as the season goes on.

Of coursethere’s head coach Kelvin Sampsonwho just keeps getting better with age. Houston’s last time finishing outside our Top 4 in end-of-season power ratings was the 2019-2020 season. We’ll bank on that consistent success carrying forward another year.

Where is Last Year’s ChampionFlorida?

Florida is ranked No. 5 in our initial rankingsand it will certainly be in the mix to compete for a national title again.

The Florida front court is back and deep. All of the key players on the front line (Alex CondonThomas HaughRueben Chinyeluand Micah Handgloten) are back. The question marks come in the backcourtwhere they will be relying on a lot of players new to the program. Gone are All-American Walter Claytonalong with Alijah Martin and Will Richard.

Boogie Flandwho was inconsistent as a freshman at Arkansas last yearhas transferred in. The team has also added Xaivian Leea guard who has been Princeton’s leading scorer the last two seasons. Two key freshmenC.J. Ingram and Alex Lloydcould also play a role.

How quickly the backcourt can come together may decide whether Florida is going to be “pretty good” or compete for a top seed again.

Pretty Balanced Across the Top Conferences

Our top five features teams from five different conferencesand the distribution across the top 25 is also pretty balanced among the top conferences.

Our Top 25 features seven teams from the Big 12six from each of the Big Ten and SECand then six others (3 Big East2 ACCand Gonzaga).

Outside of the Power Five Conferencesthoughyou have to go fairly far down the list past Gonzaga to find the next tier of teams.

The other top-rated teams (besides Gonzaga) from outside the ACC/Big East/Big Ten/Big 12/SEC are:

• San Diego StateNo. 47
• VCUNo. 50
• Utah StateNo. 51
• Boise StateNo. 53
• Saint Mary’sNo. 55
• MemphisNo. 64

NCAAB Preseason Top 25 Comparison

Let’s run through our complete 2025–26 college basketball Top 25.

We included every team that landed in at least one preseason Top 25 from these sources:

• 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 each team’s rank in those five systemsthe average of those ranksand a final column showing TR’s difference from the consensus average. A positive value means TR rates the team higher than consensus; a negative value means lower than consensus.

Teams that received no poll votes were assigned a rank of 55. Teams are sorted by lowest (best) average rank. All rankings are as of October 30.

Teams With At Least One Top 25 Preseason Ranking

Team	TR	KP	BT	AP	COACH	AVG	TR DIFF
Houston	1	1	1	2	2	1.4	0.4
Purdue	2	3	4	1	1	2.2	0.2
Florida	5	2	5	3	3	3.6	-1.4
Duke	3	7	2	6	5	4.6	1.6
UConn	4	5	10	4	4	5.4	1.4
Michigan	7	11	3	7	7	7.0	0.0
Kentucky	6	4	14	9	9	8.4	2.4
St John's	8	16	7	5	6	8.4	0.4
UCLA	9	10	9	12	12	10.4	1.4
Illinois	10	6	8	17	14	11.0	1.0
BYU	17	18	6	8	8	11.4	-5.6
Louisville	16	14	11	11	10	12.4	-3.6
Arizona	12	15	12	13	13	13.0	1.0
Tennessee	11	9	13	18	17	13.6	2.6
Texas Tech	14	12	29	10	11	15.2	1.2
Iowa St	18	13	15	16	18	16.0	-2.0
Kansas	13	21	17	19	19	17.8	4.8
Alabama	15	23	20	15	16	17.8	2.8
Gonzaga	19	8	24	21	20	18.4	-0.6
Arkansas	23	29	16	14	15	19.4	-3.6
Michigan St	21	25	22	22	21	22.2	1.2
Auburn	22	31	28	20	22	24.6	2.6
Ohio St	20	27	19	30	28	24.8	4.8
North Carolina	27	33	18	25	25	25.6	-1.4
Wisconsin	30	20	30	24	24	25.6	-4.4
Creighton	25	41	23	23	23	27.0	2.0
Vanderbilt	31	19	21	36	32	27.8	-3.2
USC	34	22	26	33	33	29.6	-4.4
Baylor	24	17	36	42	30	29.8	5.8
Missouri	28	28	25	34	35	30.0	2.0
Mississippi	37	24	43	32	36	34.4	-2.6

College Basketball Rankings: Top 25 Comparisons

When comparing college basketball rankings across the systems abovea couple of things stand out.

Teams Rated Higher by Human Polls

Last yearthe teams favored more heavily by the human polls were general disappointments. Only Mississippi performed up to the poll expectations (a No. 6 seed as preseason No. 25)while KansasBaylorand Arkansas all went from highly ranked in the preseason to middling seeds in the tournamentand Indiana just missed the field.

This yearthere’s a little more agreement between the polls and the data-driven rankingsand also some more diversity in the data-driven rankingswhich leads to fewer clear discrepancies.

Below are teams ranked higher in both the preseason AP and Coaches Polls than in any of the three leading data-driven systems (TeamRankingsPomeroyTorvik).

Listed are the teams with the largest discrepanciesalong with the difference between (a) their lowest human poll ranking and (b) their highest ranking among the data-driven systems.

• St. John’s +1 (No. 6 in Coaches PollNo. 7 in BT)
• Texas Tech +1 (No. 11 in Coaches PollNo. 12 in KP)
• Arkansas +1 (No. 15 in Coaches PollNo. 16 in BT)
• Purdue +1 (No. 1 in both pollsNo. 2 in all of KPTRBT)

These barely qualify as disagreementsas Purdue is not seen as the top team in the data-driven systems but is closeand all the others are also near at least one of the data-driven rankings.

Teams Rated Lower by Human Polls

Last yearthe data-driven rankings prevailed in the showdown with the human polls. HoustonDukeand Auburn all finished as No. 1 seeds and were closer to their data-driven ratings in the preseason by the time the season ended.

The only other team to make the list was Texas Techwhich was just outside the Top 25 in the preseason but inside it in all the ratings systems and finished as a No. 3 seed.

Now to this year’s versionsas there are more disagreements hereand teams that are a little lower in the human polls.

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

Listed is the difference between (a) each team’s highest ranking in the human polls and (b) its lowest ranking among the three data-driven systems.

• Missouri -6 (No. 34 in AP Poll in votesNo. 28 in TR and KP)
• Tennessee -4 (No. 17 in Coaches Poll No. 13 in BT)
• Illinois -4 (No. 14 in Coaches PollNo. 10 in TR)
• UCLA -2 (No. 12 in both pollsNo. 10 in KP)

Missouri only made the Top 25 in Bart Torvik’s ratingsbut is just outside in ours and Pomeroysand lower down the list of votes received by the polls. The voters do not have as much belief that Tennessee will stay as a top teamwhile Illinois and UCLA appear in the Top 10 in all three rankings systemsbut outside it in the polls.

Who’s Most In Sync With Consensus?

Among the 31 teams listed in the table abovethe Coaches Poll is actually closest to consensus this yearjust ahead of TeamRankingswhile Torvik is the only one that has a lower correlation to consensus this year compared to last.

The rank order of correlation to consensus is as follows:

• Coaches Poll (0.970)
• TeamRankings (0.958)
• AP Poll (0.936)
• Pomeroy (0.886)
• Torvik (0.793)

Compared to the other ranking systemsour rankings tend to have fewer or smaller outliers. This makes senseas we incorporate market and poll data to adjust for cases where our model rating alone appears as a significant outlier.

Teams We Rate Higher (Relative to Consensus)

Last yearwe highlighted teams we were higher than consensus onand lower than consensus on. Cincinnati ended up missing the tournamentso that was a misswhile being higher on UCLA was a positiveand we were either closer to or in line with where the others we highlighted finished.

Here are the teams we’re most optimistic about entering this season:

• Baylor: While we are not quite as high as Pomeroy on Baylorwe are still well above the other threeand it’s one of our biggest disagreements with the polls that are largely ignoring Baylor. We have Scott Drew’s squad at No. 24 in the preseason.
• Ohio State: The Buckeyes just missed the NCAA Tournament a year ago in Jake Diebler’s first year as coachbut we see them contending this yearat No. 20 in our rankings.
• Kansas: By their lofty standardsKansas has had a relatively down couple of yearsbut we have them at No. 13higher than anyone else. The Jayhawks check in at No. 19 in both polls after being the preseason No. 1 in the polls the last two years. Kansas has not been ranked outside the Top 10 in the preseason AP poll since 2011. That yearthey started at No. 13 and ended up losing to Kentucky in the national title game.

Teams We Rate Lower (Relative to Consensus)

• BYU: We have BYU at No. 17a team that is generating a lot of buzz and ranked No. 8 in both polls. Adding to that buzz is the fact that freshman sensation A.J. Dybantsa has joined the team.
• Louisville: We have Louisville at No. 16 coming off their return-to-prominence season a year ago with Pat Kelsey as head coach. The optimism is higher elsewhereas they rank as high as No. 10 in the Coaches Poll.
• Wisconsin: We have the Badgers at No. 30while they are ranked No. 24 in both polls.
• USC: The Trojans have underperformed and posted consecutive losing seasons against decent expectations recentlybut have added nine transfersincluding Chad Baker-Mazara from Auburn and Rodney Rice from Maryland. Both of the other rating systems have them higherbut we are starting with them at No. 34.

Full 2025-26 College Basketball RankingsFrom No. 1 To No. 365

Our 2025–26 college basketball rankings cover all 365 Division I teamspaired with each program’s preseason predictive rating.

That rating is expressed in points above or below a perfectly average D-I team on a neutral court (positive = better than averagenegative = worse).

The table’s last eight columns show how much specific inputs contributed to each team’s ratingplus a final “market adjustment” we apply in certain cases.

Here’s a quick explanation of those factors. For a deeper divesee our explainer on how we build college basketball ratings.

• LAST YEAR: How good a team was last season (based on final predictive rating)
• PROGRAM: Recent historical performanceexcluding last season
• RET OFF: Returning offensive productioncompared to typical
• RET DEF: Returning defensive productioncompared to typical
• RECRUIT: Value of incoming freshman recruiting class
• TRANSFER: Value of incoming Division I transfers (JUCO transfers ignored)
• COACH: Recent coaching changes expected to have a positive or negative impact
• MARKET: Adjustment if our ratings-based projection for a team is far off the betting market or our rankings differ greatly from the AP poll

TR Rank	Team	25-26 Rating	LAST YR	PROGRAM	RET OFF	RET DEF	RECRUIT	TRANSFER	COACH	MARKET
1	Houston	23.8	11.1	5.6	2.1	0.8	4.2	0.0	0.0	0.0
2	Purdue	22.1	7.1	4.6	4.8	2.6	3.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
3	Duke	19.2	12.2	4.5	-1.1	-2.0	5.6	0.0	0.0	0.0
4	UConn	18.5	5.8	4.5	2.6	1.5	4.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
5	Florida	18.4	11.3	3.1	1.2	0.6	1.5	0.7	0.0	0.0
6	Kentucky	17.7	7.4	4.3	0.4	-0.4	3.6	2.3	0.0	0.0
7	Michigan	17.5	6.8	2.5	1.0	0.5	2.0	4.2	0.0	0.5
8	St John's	17.3	7.3	3.0	0.5	-0.9	2.5	4.9	0.0	0.0
9	UCLA	17.3	6.6	4.1	2.4	0.8	1.9	1.6	0.0	0.0
11	Tennessee	17.1	9.0	5.2	-0.6	-1.3	3.5	1.2	0.0	0.0
10	Illinois	17.1	7.4	4.2	1.3	0.6	1.8	0.7	0.0	1.0
12	Arizona	17.1	8.2	4.8	1.1	-0.4	4.3	0.0	0.0	-1.0
13	Kansas	17.0	6.6	4.5	-0.8	-1.4	4.8	2.3	0.0	1.0
14	Texas Tech	17.0	8.3	3.9	1.1	-0.5	0.0	3.2	0.0	1.0
15	Alabama	16.9	9.4	4.5	1.0	-0.6	4.1	0.0	0.0	-1.5
16	Louisville	16.8	5.9	-0.1	0.1	-0.9	3.4	6.5	0.0	2.0
17	BYU	16.8	6.3	3.7	1.5	0.9	3.4	1.1	0.0	0.0
18	Iowa St	16.7	8.2	4.1	1.9	1.5	2.4	0.1	0.0	-1.5
19	Gonzaga	16.6	8.6	4.7	1.4	-0.6	1.9	0.7	0.0	0.0
20	Ohio St	16.3	5.7	3.3	3.3	0.6	2.9	1.4	0.0	-1.0
21	Michigan St	16.2	8.1	3.7	1.3	0.6	3.3	0.3	0.0	-1.0
22	Auburn	15.8	11.3	4.5	-0.6	-1.7	3.0	0.8	-1.5	0.0
23	Arkansas	15.2	5.0	3.1	1.0	0.2	4.3	1.6	0.0	0.0
24	Baylor	14.9	6.0	4.5	-1.8	-2.4	4.4	4.2	0.0	0.0
25	Creighton	14.4	5.0	4.1	0.0	-0.6	2.2	3.7	0.0	0.0
26	Mississippi St	14.4	5.5	3.0	1.0	-1.1	1.3	4.7	0.0	0.0
27	North Carolina	14.4	5.3	4.2	-0.7	-1.6	4.5	2.6	0.0	0.0
28	Missouri	14.2	6.4	1.2	1.7	0.7	3.2	0.9	0.0	0.0
29	Texas	14.0	4.4	4.4	0.4	-0.8	2.5	2.6	0.5	0.0
30	Wisconsin	14.0	7.2	3.3	1.0	0.2	0.7	1.7	0.0	0.0
31	Vanderbilt	13.9	4.1	1.5	1.2	0.6	0.0	6.5	0.0	0.0
32	Iowa	13.9	3.0	3.8	-1.4	-2.0	0.9	6.5	2.0	1.0
33	Oregon	13.6	5.9	2.8	2.0	0.6	1.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
34	USC	13.6	3.2	2.8	-1.3	-2.0	3.9	7.0	0.0	0.0
35	Georgia	13.4	4.9	0.5	0.0	-0.3	3.3	5.0	0.0	0.0
36	Maryland	13.3	8.5	2.8	-1.7	-2.3	3.1	3.4	-0.5	0.0
37	Mississippi	13.2	6.1	1.5	-0.4	-1.3	2.7	4.5	0.0	0.0
38	Indiana	13.0	3.7	2.6	-1.6	-2.1	2.9	6.0	1.5	0.0
39	Marquette	12.9	5.9	3.9	1.1	1.1	1.9	0.0	0.0	-1.0
40	Villanova	12.9	3.4	3.7	-1.0	-1.5	2.3	5.0	1.0	0.0
41	Cincinnati	12.6	4.0	2.8	-0.7	-1.5	3.1	5.0	0.0	0.0
42	Clemson	12.6	5.7	3.0	-1.1	-1.7	1.8	5.0	0.0	0.0
43	SMU	12.4	3.7	1.7	1.2	0.6	1.3	3.9	0.0	0.0
44	NC State	12.2	-0.7	2.3	-1.1	-1.5	2.2	7.5	2.5	1.0
45	Texas A&M	12.0	6.1	3.0	-1.5	-2.1	0.0	6.0	0.5	0.0
46	Providence	12.0	0.2	3.2	0.8	0.9	1.9	5.0	0.0	0.0
47	San Diego St	11.8	2.9	3.6	2.6	1.9	0.0	0.7	0.0	0.0
48	Oklahoma	11.7	4.0	3.2	-0.8	-1.6	2.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
49	Washington	11.7	-0.3	1.7	-0.2	-1.0	2.6	8.5	0.0	0.5
50	VCU	11.4	4.2	2.4	-0.7	-1.2	1.2	5.0	0.5	0.0
51	Utah St	11.3	3.4	3.1	1.7	1.5	0.0	1.6	0.0	0.0
52	Virginia	11.3	-0.7	3.1	-1.5	-1.7	2.5	7.0	0.5	2.0
53	Boise St	11.1	3.7	3.2	1.4	0.8	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0
54	TCU	10.8	1.8	3.6	0.2	-0.4	1.7	3.8	0.0	0.0
55	Saint Mary's	10.7	5.4	4.1	1.1	-0.2	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0
56	Nebraska	10.6	3.8	1.8	0.2	0.0	0.0	4.7	0.0	0.0
57	Northwestern	9.8	3.8	2.9	1.6	0.3	0.0	1.3	0.0	0.0
58	Kansas St	9.4	2.1	3.0	-0.9	-1.3	1.4	5.0	0.0	0.0
59	Xavier	9.3	4.3	3.3	-1.5	-2.1	0.8	5.0	-0.5	0.0
60	Pittsburgh	9.1	3.3	2.0	0.2	-1.1	0.8	4.0	0.0	0.0
61	Notre Dame	9.1	0.1	1.4	1.9	0.8	3.0	2.0	0.0	0.0
62	LSU	9.1	1.6	2.2	-0.6	-1.4	2.4	5.0	0.0	0.0
63	Wake Forest	8.2	1.5	2.9	0.2	-0.4	0.6	3.5	0.0	0.0
64	Memphis	8.2	2.7	2.6	-1.8	-2.4	0.8	6.2	0.0	0.0
65	Oklahoma St	8.2	0.1	2.5	-1.0	-1.4	2.0	6.0	0.0	0.0
66	West Virginia	8.0	4.1	2.3	-1.7	-2.2	0.0	5.5	0.0	0.0
67	Dayton	7.9	0.9	2.8	0.3	0.0	0.0	4.0	0.0	0.0
68	Miami	7.8	-3.1	3.1	-1.3	-0.7	2.9	6.5	0.5	0.0
69	San Francisco	7.8	1.7	2.5	0.9	0.5	0.0	2.2	0.0	0.0
70	Syracuse	7.6	-1.0	1.8	0.1	-0.6	2.8	4.4	0.0	0.0
71	Butler	7.2	1.6	1.7	-0.5	-1.7	1.2	5.0	0.0	0.0
72	UCF	7.2	2.1	2.3	-1.6	-2.1	0.0	6.5	0.0	0.0
73	Utah	7.0	2.3	2.4	-0.6	-1.5	0.0	5.0	-0.5	0.0
74	Minnesota	6.9	0.8	1.1	-1.0	-1.4	0.0	5.0	2.5	0.0
75	South Carolina	6.9	1.6	1.2	-1.4	-1.8	2.4	5.0	0.0	0.0
76	Colorado	6.9	1.3	2.9	0.7	0.0	1.8	1.1	0.0	-1.0
77	Virginia Tech	6.7	-2.3	2.9	1.3	1.1	0.6	2.5	0.0	0.5
78	Arizona St	6.6	1.9	1.8	-1.4	-2.1	1.3	5.0	0.0	0.0
79	New Mexico	6.5	4.4	2.2	-1.5	-2.1	0.0	4.0	-0.5	0.0
80	Yale	6.4	1.1	1.5	2.3	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
81	Saint Louis	6.2	-1.4	1.1	1.3	1.3	0.0	3.9	0.0	0.0
82	DePaul	6.0	-0.6	0.1	1.1	0.5	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
83	Rutgers	5.8	1.9	2.5	-1.2	-1.5	3.7	1.3	0.0	-1.0
84	G Washington	5.7	-2.0	-0.7	2.4	1.0	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
85	Georgia Tech	5.5	-0.3	0.5	0.3	0.0	2.4	1.7	0.0	1.0
86	Georgetown	5.5	0.8	-0.2	-0.4	-0.9	0.7	4.6	0.0	1.0
87	Colorado St	5.5	3.7	2.6	-0.7	-1.5	0.0	3.4	-2.0	0.0
88	Penn St	5.4	3.7	2.5	-1.0	-1.7	1.7	0.8	0.0	-0.5
89	Liberty	5.1	0.8	1.0	2.0	0.9	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
90	N Texas	5.1	0.7	2.5	-1.5	-2.0	0.0	5.5	0.0	0.0
91	Santa Clara	5.0	3.2	1.8	0.3	-0.4	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
92	Oregon St	4.9	1.1	-0.2	-0.3	-0.7	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
93	Grand Canyon	4.9	-0.6	2.0	-0.6	-0.9	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
94	Bradley	4.8	0.3	2.0	0.4	0.0	0.0	2.2	0.0	0.0
95	Stanford	4.8	0.9	1.7	0.5	0.8	0.9	0.1	0.0	0.0
96	George Mason	4.7	0.6	1.0	-0.6	-1.2	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
97	California	4.6	-0.7	0.1	-0.1	0.3	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
98	UNLV	4.6	-0.2	2.0	-1.2	-1.4	0.0	6.0	-0.5	0.0
99	Nevada	4.4	1.3	2.3	-1.0	-1.3	0.0	3.1	0.0	0.0
100	Akron	4.4	-0.6	1.0	2.0	0.7	0.0	1.4	0.0	0.0
101	N Iowa	4.2	-0.2	0.7	2.0	1.6	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
102	Florida St	4.1	0.8	1.1	-1.3	-1.6	0.7	5.0	-0.5	0.0
103	Duquesne	4.0	-2.5	0.3	0.9	0.7	0.0	4.6	0.0	0.0
104	UC Irvine	3.4	1.6	1.4	0.2	-0.1	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
105	NC Wilmington	3.1	-1.0	0.4	0.0	-0.3	0.0	4.0	0.0	0.0
106	UAB	2.7	-0.6	2.3	-1.6	-1.7	0.0	4.2	0.0	0.0
107	Tulane	2.7	-2.3	1.2	2.1	0.9	0.0	0.7	0.0	0.0
108	Chattanooga	2.5	-1.0	0.7	-0.2	-0.3	0.0	3.3	0.0	0.0
109	Illinois St	2.4	-1.8	-0.8	2.9	1.2	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
111	High Point	2.3	0.3	-1.0	-0.7	-0.8	0.0	5.5	-1.0	0.0
110	Seton Hall	2.3	-3.8	2.7	-1.4	-1.1	0.0	6.0	0.0	0.0
112	Belmont	2.1	-1.8	1.3	1.2	0.6	0.0	0.9	0.0	0.0
113	Saint Joseph's	2.1	0.4	0.5	0.4	0.6	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
114	Furman	1.8	-1.9	1.3	1.2	1.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
115	Boston College	1.7	-3.8	1.0	1.1	0.6	0.0	2.7	0.0	0.0
116	Loyola Chi	1.7	-1.2	1.2	0.1	-0.1	0.0	1.7	0.0	0.0
117	St Bonaventure	1.6	-1.4	1.1	-1.0	-1.1	0.0	4.0	0.0	0.0
118	Towson	1.6	-3.1	0.9	1.5	0.0	0.0	2.2	0.0	0.0
119	McNeese	1.6	2.0	-1.2	0.8	-0.4	0.0	1.4	-1.5	0.5
120	Ohio	1.5	-3.7	0.6	0.7	0.4	0.0	3.4	0.0	0.0
121	S Florida	1.5	-4.1	0.3	-0.5	-0.2	0.0	5.5	0.5	0.0
122	Murray St	1.4	-2.1	0.8	-1.5	-1.3	0.0	4.6	1.0	0.0
123	Wichita St	1.4	-2.0	1.2	-1.5	-1.2	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
124	Seattle	1.3	-2.6	0.8	1.0	0.7	0.0	1.5	0.0	0.0
126	Kent St	1.3	-1.5	0.9	0.5	0.4	0.0	1.1	0.0	0.0
125	Hawai'i	1.3	-4.9	0.2	0.8	0.3	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
127	Drake	1.3	2.0	2.4	-1.5	-2.1	0.0	3.0	-2.5	0.0
128	Washington St	1.3	-0.9	3.0	-0.6	-0.8	0.0	1.6	0.0	-1.0
129	UCSD	1.3	4.2	-1.0	-0.9	-1.7	0.0	1.6	-1.0	0.0
130	Charleston	1.2	-2.6	1.3	-1.4	-1.0	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
131	Loyola Mymt	1.2	-2.7	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.0	3.0	0.0	0.0
132	Temple	1.2	-3.2	0.5	-0.7	-0.4	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
133	J Madison	1.1	-3.7	1.2	-1.0	-0.3	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
134	Troy	1.1	-0.8	0.3	1.0	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
135	Utah Valley	0.8	-1.1	1.1	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.7	0.0	0.0
136	S Dakota St	0.7	-1.2	0.8	1.5	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	-1.0
137	Miami OH	0.7	-2.6	-1.6	2.8	1.6	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0
138	E Tennessee St	0.6	-2.8	-0.7	-0.7	-0.2	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
139	W Kentucky	0.6	-3.2	0.5	-1.1	-0.5	0.0	4.9	0.0	0.0
140	New Mexico St	0.6	-2.1	-0.1	-1.3	-0.9	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
141	Kennesaw St	0.5	-2.6	-0.6	1.8	0.8	0.0	1.1	0.0	0.0
142	Middle Tenn	0.3	-1.7	0.1	-0.2	-0.1	0.0	2.2	0.0	0.0
143	Davidson	0.3	-2.7	1.3	-0.9	-0.1	0.0	2.7	0.0	0.0
144	Florida Atlantic	0.1	-1.1	2.6	-0.9	-0.9	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
145	Louisiana Tech	0.1	-2.0	1.0	-0.4	0.2	0.0	1.3	0.0	0.0
146	Jacksonville St	0.1	-1.6	-0.6	-1.0	-1.0	0.0	4.2	0.0	0.0
147	UTEP	0.0	-3.1	-0.2	-1.1	-0.6	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
148	Tulsa	-0.1	-6.0	-0.9	-1.1	0.0	0.0	8.0	0.0	0.0
149	St Thomas	-0.1	-1.4	-0.8	1.1	1.0	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
150	Richmond	-0.2	-5.9	1.3	0.6	0.9	0.0	2.9	0.0	0.0
151	Cornell	-0.2	-1.4	0.5	1.3	0.3	0.0	0.6	0.0	-1.5
152	Winthrop	-0.2	-2.9	-0.5	-1.0	-0.2	0.0	4.5	0.0	0.0
153	UCSB	-0.2	-2.5	0.2	0.0	0.1	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0
154	Arkansas St	-0.3	0.4	-0.7	-1.5	-1.9	0.0	5.0	-1.5	0.0
155	S Illinois	-0.3	-4.0	0.8	-0.1	0.4	0.0	1.9	0.0	0.5
156	San Jose St	-0.4	-3.4	-0.5	-0.9	-0.6	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
157	Wyoming	-0.4	-3.6	1.0	-1.0	-0.4	0.0	3.6	0.0	0.0
158	Rice	-0.4	-4.3	-0.7	0.5	0.3	0.0	3.7	0.0	0.0
159	NC Asheville	-0.4	-4.4	-0.2	0.8	0.4	0.0	3.0	0.0	0.0
160	Toledo	-0.4	-4.9	1.5	-0.2	0.7	0.0	2.5	0.0	0.0
161	Illinois Chicago	-0.5	-2.9	-1.5	-0.5	-0.6	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
162	Rhode Island	-0.5	-2.8	-0.4	-1.4	-0.9	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
163	E Carolina	-0.7	-3.7	-0.3	0.3	0.9	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0
164	Radford	-0.8	-3.4	-1.0	-1.1	-0.8	0.0	5.0	0.5	0.0
165	S Alabama	-0.8	-1.7	0.1	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
166	Cal Baptist	-0.9	-3.3	-0.4	1.1	-0.1	0.0	1.8	0.0	0.0
167	Wright St	-1.1	-4.7	-0.2	0.1	0.0	0.0	3.7	0.0	0.0
168	Harvard	-1.1	-6.0	-0.6	3.0	1.4	1.2	0.0	0.0	0.0
169	E Kentucky	-1.2	-4.2	-0.7	0.4	0.4	0.0	2.8	0.0	0.0
170	Princeton	-1.3	-3.8	1.5	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
171	Indiana St	-1.3	-4.1	1.3	0.1	0.1	0.0	1.4	0.0	0.0
172	N Colorado	-1.3	-1.0	-1.0	0.4	-0.1	0.0	1.3	0.0	-1.0
173	Missouri St	-1.4	-4.8	1.0	0.3	0.3	0.0	1.8	0.0	0.0
174	Youngstown St	-1.5	-3.9	-0.1	-0.4	-0.1	0.0	3.0	0.0	0.0
175	Iona	-1.5	-6.4	1.0	-1.2	-0.1	0.0	4.6	0.5	0.0
176	Hofstra	-1.5	-4.6	1.1	0.9	0.4	0.0	0.6	0.0	0.0
177	Samford	-1.7	-1.3	0.6	-1.5	-1.4	0.0	3.3	-1.5	0.0
178	Fordham	-1.8	-5.3	0.0	-1.5	-0.4	0.0	5.0	0.5	0.0
179	Charlotte	-1.8	-5.8	0.6	-0.9	-0.2	0.0	4.5	0.0	0.0
180	Purdue FW	-1.8	-2.6	-0.7	-0.3	-0.4	0.0	2.2	0.0	0.0
181	Texas St	-1.8	-4.3	-0.1	-0.6	-0.3	0.0	3.4	0.0	0.0
182	Southern	-1.9	-4.8	-1.3	2.1	1.0	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
183	CS Northridge	-1.9	-1.2	-2.4	-0.1	-0.2	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0
184	Brown	-2.0	-4.9	-0.4	1.3	1.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.0
185	Sam Houston	-2.0	-3.8	0.9	-1.4	-0.6	0.0	2.9	0.0	0.0
186	Oakland	-2.0	-4.1	-0.4	0.1	-0.2	0.0	2.5	0.0	0.0
187	UTSA	-2.0	-4.0	-1.9	-1.3	-0.6	0.0	4.8	0.0	1.0
188	Incarnate Word	-2.0	-5.2	-3.7	1.3	0.8	0.0	4.8	0.0	0.0
189	Lipscomb	-2.0	-0.2	-0.7	-0.5	-0.2	0.0	0.0	-0.5	0.0
190	App State	-2.1	-3.9	0.6	-0.7	-0.1	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0
191	UMass	-2.2	-4.7	0.4	-0.5	0.1	0.0	2.6	0.0	0.0
192	San Diego	-2.2	-7.5	-1.0	-0.9	0.2	0.0	6.0	0.0	1.0
193	N Alabama	-2.3	-1.7	-1.8	0.6	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
194	SF Austin	-2.3	-6.2	0.5	-0.4	0.3	0.0	2.5	1.0	0.0
195	N Dakota St	-2.4	-1.5	-0.8	-0.6	0.2	0.0	0.8	0.0	-0.5
196	Old Dominion	-2.4	-7.7	-0.6	0.6	0.4	0.0	3.9	0.0	1.0
197	Campbell	-2.5	-4.4	-1.5	-1.1	-0.5	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
198	Abl Christian	-2.5	-5.2	-0.2	0.7	0.5	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.5
199	Vermont	-2.5	-5.9	1.4	0.7	0.1	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
200	Marshall	-2.5	-3.7	-0.1	-0.3	-0.2	0.0	1.8	0.0	0.0
201	La Salle	-2.5	-4.8	-0.7	-1.4	-0.6	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
202	Montana	-2.5	-3.0	-0.4	0.2	0.2	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0
203	Omaha	-2.6	-2.9	-2.7	1.4	1.2	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0
204	FGCU	-2.7	-3.9	-0.7	0.2	0.7	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.5
205	Longwood	-2.8	-4.2	0.0	0.7	0.3	0.0	1.3	-1.0	0.0
207	Colgate	-2.9	-6.0	0.7	1.3	1.0	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
206	CS Bakersfield	-2.9	-4.8	-1.6	-0.1	0.3	0.0	3.8	-0.5	0.0
208	UT Arlington	-2.9	-5.0	-0.4	-0.7	0.0	0.0	3.1	0.0	0.0
209	Wofford	-3.0	-2.0	-0.2	-0.9	-0.7	0.0	1.3	-0.5	0.0
210	Navy	-3.1	-6.9	-1.1	3.4	1.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
211	Little Rock	-3.1	-5.5	-2.0	1.2	0.5	0.0	1.7	0.0	1.0
212	Portland St	-3.1	-4.1	-1.4	1.3	0.8	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
213	Quinnipiac	-3.2	-4.9	-0.6	0.8	0.3	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
214	NC Greensboro	-3.2	-2.6	0.3	-1.5	-1.1	0.0	1.6	0.0	0.0
215	Fresno St	-3.3	-6.1	0.6	-0.2	0.1	0.0	2.2	0.0	0.0
216	Montana St	-3.4	-3.4	0.0	-0.1	-0.1	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
217	Norfolk St	-3.5	-3.7	-0.6	-1.3	-0.6	0.0	2.8	0.0	0.0
218	Idaho	-3.5	-6.0	-2.8	2.3	1.2	0.0	1.7	0.0	0.0
219	Robert Morris	-3.5	-2.3	-2.1	-0.9	-1.0	0.0	2.8	0.0	0.0
220	Pacific	-3.5	-6.7	-2.3	0.0	0.5	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
221	Texas A&M-CC	-3.5	-2.8	-0.8	-0.7	-0.4	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
222	Nicholls	-3.6	-3.2	-1.2	-0.4	0.2	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
223	Monmouth	-3.6	-6.0	-1.3	0.8	1.2	0.0	1.7	0.0	0.0
224	Florida Intl	-3.7	-6.2	-1.4	-1.1	0.0	0.0	5.0	0.0	0.0
225	William & Mary	-3.7	-5.2	-2.7	0.2	0.3	0.0	3.7	0.0	0.0
226	Dartmouth	-3.7	-4.6	-1.8	1.9	0.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
227	Milwaukee	-3.8	-2.0	-1.8	-0.5	-0.4	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
228	Drexel	-3.8	-3.8	0.2	-0.2	0.4	0.0	0.2	0.0	-0.5
229	E Washington	-3.8	-6.7	0.0	1.4	0.2	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
230	Marist	-4.0	-6.5	-1.2	1.5	1.2	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
231	Pepperdine	-4.0	-4.3	-1.0	-1.2	-0.5	0.6	2.5	0.0	0.0
232	Elon	-4.0	-4.3	-2.4	-1.3	-0.4	0.0	4.4	0.0	0.0
233	SE Missouri St	-4.1	-4.2	-2.4	1.6	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
234	Siena	-4.2	-5.8	-2.2	2.7	0.8	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0
235	Bethune	-4.2	-7.1	-3.5	0.5	0.4	0.0	5.5	0.0	0.0
236	SE Louisiana	-4.2	-4.0	-2.0	-0.4	0.2	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0
237	Louisiana	-4.4	-8.4	0.5	-0.5	0.4	1.2	2.4	0.0	0.0
238	Lamar	-4.4	-3.5	-3.0	0.4	0.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.0
239	Northeastern	-4.4	-4.5	-1.7	0.6	0.3	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
240	Sacramento St	-4.5	-8.8	-2.1	-1.4	0.4	0.0	6.9	0.5	0.0
241	Tennessee St	-4.5	-5.6	-2.0	0.9	0.7	0.0	0.5	1.0	0.0
242	Bowling Green	-4.5	-7.1	-1.7	-0.1	0.4	0.0	2.9	0.0	1.0
243	Jackson St	-4.5	-6.3	-2.3	1.7	0.7	0.0	1.6	0.0	0.0
244	Merrimack	-4.6	-4.3	-1.9	-1.2	-0.4	0.0	3.2	0.0	0.0
245	Hampton	-4.6	-4.6	-3.5	0.0	0.3	0.0	3.1	0.0	0.0
246	SIU Edward	-4.6	-4.8	-1.8	0.7	0.6	0.0	0.7	0.0	0.0
247	UC Davis	-4.7	-5.5	-0.4	0.6	0.4	0.0	0.7	0.0	-0.5
248	Ball St	-4.7	-6.2	-1.0	-1.4	0.0	0.0	3.9	0.0	0.0
249	Cleveland St	-4.8	-2.8	-0.5	-1.5	-1.1	0.0	0.6	0.5	0.0
250	NW State	-4.9	-5.3	-2.6	0.8	0.4	0.0	1.8	0.0	0.0
251	UT Rio Grande	-4.9	-5.5	-2.3	-0.7	0.2	0.0	3.5	0.0	0.0
252	Portland	-5.0	-6.6	-0.8	-1.0	0.6	0.0	2.7	0.0	0.0
253	Columbia	-5.1	-7.1	-3.0	2.1	0.8	0.0	0.5	1.0	0.5
254	S Utah	-5.2	-7.8	0.1	-1.4	0.3	0.0	3.7	0.0	0.0
255	Georgia So	-5.2	-6.3	-1.3	-0.7	0.0	0.0	3.2	0.0	0.0
256	Mercer	-5.2	-5.8	-0.7	-1.1	0.0	0.0	2.3	0.0	0.0
257	Stony Brook	-5.2	-9.2	-1.6	-0.8	0.5	0.0	5.9	0.0	0.0
258	Delaware	-5.3	-5.3	-0.3	-0.5	0.1	0.0	0.6	0.0	0.0
259	Queens	-5.4	-4.9	-1.9	0.7	0.1	0.0	0.7	0.0	0.0
260	Sacred Heart	-5.4	-6.3	-2.6	1.2	0.5	0.0	1.8	0.0	0.0
261	Valparaiso	-5.4	-4.1	-1.5	-1.3	-0.5	0.0	2.1	0.0	0.0
262	S Indiana	-5.4	-8.8	-2.8	-1.4	0.2	0.0	7.4	0.0	0.0
263	Cal Poly	-5.4	-3.5	-2.6	0.5	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
264	UC Riverside	-5.5	-3.3	-0.2	-1.4	-0.7	0.0	1.6	-1.5	0.0
265	Long Beach St	-5.5	-7.8	-0.1	-1.3	0.5	0.0	3.2	0.0	0.0
266	Bryant	-5.6	-2.5	-0.5	-1.0	-0.8	0.0	0.2	-1.0	0.0
267	Evansville	-5.6	-5.6	-2.5	-0.2	0.4	0.0	1.8	0.0	0.5
268	N Kentucky	-5.6	-4.8	-0.5	-0.6	-0.1	0.0	0.8	0.0	-0.5
269	Mt St Mary's	-5.7	-5.8	-1.5	-0.6	0.3	0.0	1.9	0.0	0.0
270	Boston U	-5.7	-7.6	-1.5	2.4	1.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
271	Texas So	-5.7	-6.7	-1.4	1.9	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
272	Weber St	-5.8	-6.2	-0.1	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.7	0.0	-0.5
273	Idaho St	-5.8	-3.8	-2.1	-0.1	0.3	0.0	0.5	0.0	-0.5
274	Manhattan	-5.8	-5.8	-2.5	1.7	0.7	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
275	Utah Tech	-5.9	-7.9	-1.1	-0.5	0.5	0.0	2.1	0.0	1.0
276	Jacksonville	-5.9	-4.7	-1.2	-0.9	0.0	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
277	Presbyterian	-5.9	-5.4	-2.3	0.3	0.7	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
278	UMass Lowell	-6.0	-5.5	-0.1	-1.5	-0.4	0.0	1.6	0.0	0.0
279	Tarleton St	-6.1	-7.6	0.1	-0.3	0.4	0.0	1.3	0.0	0.0
280	Penn	-6.1	-7.7	-0.3	0.9	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.0
281	Coastal Car	-6.1	-8.6	-1.4	-0.4	0.4	0.0	2.9	0.0	1.0
282	N Arizona	-6.1	-5.2	-2.3	-0.5	0.0	0.0	1.9	0.0	0.0
283	New Orleans	-6.2	-10.0	-3.0	-0.5	1.7	0.0	5.7	0.0	0.0
284	Bucknell	-6.2	-4.9	-2.4	0.3	0.5	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0
285	Grambling	-6.3	-7.7	-1.7	-1.4	0.2	0.0	4.9	-0.5	0.0
286	E Michigan	-6.3	-6.8	-2.8	-1.4	0.0	0.0	4.7	0.0	0.0
287	South Dakota	-6.3	-5.0	-1.9	0.4	-0.6	0.0	0.8	0.0	0.0
288	Hou Christian	-6.4	-6.7	-4.3	0.5	0.5	0.0	3.6	0.0	0.0
289	Austin Peay	-6.5	-6.8	-2.0	0.3	0.6	0.0	1.4	0.0	0.0
290	Morehead St	-6.5	-8.7	0.0	-0.7	0.4	0.0	2.4	0.0	0.0
291	Saint Peter's	-6.6	-7.1	-0.6	0.4	0.3	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
292	Georgia St	-6.6	-6.5	-0.8	-0.1	0.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
293	C Michigan	-6.7	-4.5	-2.6	-1.5	-0.7	0.0	2.1	0.5	0.0
294	Maine	-6.7	-4.8	-2.5	-0.7	-0.1	0.0	1.4	0.0	0.0
295	Alabama St	-6.8	-6.5	-3.1	-0.4	0.2	0.0	3.0	0.0	0.0
296	Oral Roberts	-6.8	-8.1	0.4	-1.4	0.7	0.0	1.7	0.0	0.0
297	VMI	-6.9	-7.5	-3.1	2.5	1.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
298	UMBC	-7.0	-7.4	-1.4	0.2	0.4	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.0
299	LIU	-7.0	-7.4	-3.8	2.0	0.5	0.0	0.6	0.0	1.0
300	W Carolina	-7.1	-9.9	-0.8	1.6	0.3	0.0	1.2	0.0	0.5
301	W Michigan	-7.1	-7.1	-2.6	-0.9	0.2	0.0	2.8	0.0	0.5
302	Kansas City	-7.1	-5.0	-1.4	-0.5	-0.1	0.0	0.8	0.0	-1.0
303	Southern Miss	-7.2	-7.7	-1.2	-1.4	0.2	0.0	2.8	0.0	0.0
304	Air Force	-7.3	-7.3	-0.8	0.5	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
305	American	-7.4	-5.9	-2.3	0.4	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
306	S Carolina St	-7.4	-3.9	-3.5	1.4	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	-2.0
307	C Connecticut	-7.4	-4.1	-2.9	-0.8	-0.3	0.0	0.6	0.0	0.0
308	Lafayette	-7.5	-7.0	-2.4	1.1	0.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
309	Detroit Mercy	-7.6	-8.9	-1.9	2.2	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5
310	Gardner-Webb	-7.7	-6.1	-0.5	-1.4	-0.1	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
311	Lehigh	-7.7	-7.4	-1.9	1.0	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
312	W Georgia	-7.7	-9.8	-3.4	1.7	0.4	0.0	3.4	0.0	0.0
313	Alabama A&M	-8.0	-11.7	-2.9	-1.0	1.0	0.0	6.2	0.5	0.0
314	Fairfield	-8.0	-9.3	-0.8	-0.1	0.5	0.0	1.7	0.0	0.0
315	Howard	-8.0	-7.5	-1.3	-1.2	0.2	0.0	1.9	0.0	0.0
316	Delaware St	-8.0	-7.2	-3.9	-0.6	0.2	0.0	3.5	0.0	0.0
317	Loyola MD	-8.0	-7.8	-2.7	1.3	0.8	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
318	Rider	-8.1	-7.9	-0.9	-0.2	0.3	0.0	0.6	0.0	0.0
319	NC Central	-8.2	-7.2	-1.3	-1.1	0.3	0.0	2.1	0.0	-1.0
320	Albany	-8.2	-6.7	-2.3	-0.9	0.1	0.0	1.6	0.0	0.0
321	North Dakota	-8.2	-6.0	-2.3	-0.6	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
322	N Illinois	-8.3	-10.4	-1.9	-1.5	0.8	0.0	4.7	0.0	0.0
323	Lindenwood	-8.5	-8.2	-3.8	1.2	0.4	0.0	1.8	0.0	0.0
324	UT Martin	-8.6	-6.6	-1.7	-0.3	0.4	0.0	0.1	0.0	-0.5
325	Binghamton	-8.7	-8.3	-2.2	-1.0	0.4	0.0	2.3	0.0	0.0
326	Alcorn St	-8.8	-8.7	-1.9	-0.8	0.5	0.0	2.7	-0.5	0.0
327	Florida A&M	-9.0	-8.4	-3.5	-0.9	0.4	0.0	3.4	0.0	0.0
328	Denver	-9.0	-7.6	-2.0	-1.2	0.3	0.0	1.4	0.0	0.0
329	Green Bay	-9.1	-8.9	-3.3	0.7	0.4	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0
330	Charleston So	-9.1	-8.0	-3.0	-1.2	0.5	0.0	2.6	0.0	0.0
331	Tenn Tech	-9.2	-7.4	-2.4	-0.6	0.2	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
332	Buffalo	-9.2	-9.8	-1.2	0.3	0.5	0.0	1.0	0.0	0.0
333	E Illinois	-9.3	-8.3	-3.7	0.9	0.4	0.0	1.5	0.0	0.0
334	Bellarmine	-9.4	-10.2	-1.6	0.9	0.4	0.0	0.1	0.5	0.5
335	N Florida	-9.4	-6.4	-1.4	-1.2	0.7	0.0	0.4	-0.5	-1.0
336	W Illinois	-9.5	-9.7	-1.6	-1.5	-0.3	0.0	3.7	0.0	0.0
337	CS Fullerton	-9.6	-10.9	-0.1	-1.4	0.9	0.0	1.9	0.0	0.0
338	Canisius	-9.6	-11.7	-1.6	-1.6	0.6	0.0	4.6	0.0	0.0
339	Niagara	-9.7	-8.2	-1.2	-1.1	0.4	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
340	Chicago St	-9.9	-12.4	-2.6	-1.3	1.1	0.0	4.3	1.0	0.0
341	Army	-9.9	-8.2	-2.4	0.2	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
342	E Texas A&M	-10.0	-8.7	-3.0	-0.3	0.5	0.0	1.1	0.0	0.5
343	Stonehill	-10.0	-8.5	-3.7	0.0	0.5	0.0	1.6	0.0	0.0
344	Morgan St	-10.0	-8.6	-2.8	-1.1	0.5	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0
345	SC Upstate	-10.2	-10.2	-1.7	0.8	0.6	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0
346	St Francis PA	-10.2	-7.9	-3.5	-1.0	0.3	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0
347	NC A&T	-10.3	-8.8	-3.0	-0.4	0.4	0.0	1.5	0.0	0.0
348	UL Monroe	-10.3	-10.5	-2.1	-1.2	0.9	0.0	2.1	0.5	0.0
349	Prairie View	-10.4	-11.6	-2.5	-1.6	1.7	0.0	3.2	0.0	0.5
350	New Hampshire	-10.5	-11.7	-1.4	-0.3	1.0	0.0	2.0	0.0	0.0
351	The Citadel	-10.5	-11.8	-1.7	0.3	1.4	0.0	0.2	0.0	1.0
352	Le Moyne	-10.7	-10.7	-3.0	-0.7	0.5	0.0	2.7	0.0	0.5
353	F Dickinson	-10.7	-7.8	-3.1	-1.4	0.2	0.0	1.4	0.0	0.0
354	Holy Cross	-10.7	-8.2	-3.7	0.8	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
355	Stetson	-11.0	-10.7	-1.0	-0.7	0.5	0.0	0.9	0.0	0.0
356	Wagner	-11.5	-9.6	-1.4	-1.1	0.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
357	NJIT	-12.1	-10.9	-3.3	0.1	0.4	0.0	1.5	0.0	0.0
358	Mercyhurst	-12.3	-9.5	-3.4	0.1	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
359	New Haven	-12.4
360	IU Indy	-12.7	-7.5	-4.3	-1.6	0.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
361	C Arkansas	-13.5	-9.9	-3.3	-1.0	0.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
362	Maryland ES	-13.7	-12.1	-2.8	0.4	0.3	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0
363	AR-Pine Bluff	-14.9	-14.2	-3.7	-1.4	0.5	0.0	3.9	0.0	0.0
364	Coppin St	-15.9	-12.7	-3.7	-0.6	0.9	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
365	Miss Valley St	-24.8	-19.6	-4.3	-0.7	-0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

What Do We Use These Ratings For?

Our preseason ratings power all preseason projections and act as Bayesian priors for our in-season predictive ratings. In plain English: they continue to inform team strength months into the year because they’ve proved predictivebut their weight fades as new game data rolls in.

Based on these ratingswe’ve run full-season projectionsincluding:

• NCAAB Projected Conference Standings: Expected conference and overall recordsplus win odds for regular-season titles and conference tournaments.
• Bracketology Projections: Odds to make the NCAA tournamentprojected seedsand more (don’t miss the Bracketology by Conference view).
• NCAA Tournament Bracket Predictions: Round-by-round advancement odds—Sweet 16Final Fourand title probabilities.

With the 2025–26 preseason ratings publishedall of these pages are fully automated and update every morning throughout the season.

Ratings Accuracy

Several respected analystssuch as Ken PomeroyDan Hannerand Bart Torvikhave evaluated our preseason ratings and projections against other stat-based systems in prior yearsand we’ve consistently performed well.

We also reference John Wobus’s multi-season comparison for a more recent look. A few notes on his tables:

• “Week0” reflects preseason rating accuracy.

• “Overall” blends performance across ratings released throughout the season; we ranked No. 1 in 2022–23 on this metric.

• We exclude the “Consensus” aggregator when tallying our placement.

Wobus’s site only tracked through the 2022–23 seasonand we haven’t found a comparable preseason accuracy resource for more current seasons.  If you know of oneplease let us know!

For the years we do have comparison data forhere is how we fared:

• 2022-23: 3rd of 22 (behind Evan MiyaPomeroy)
• 2021-22: 3rd of 23 (behind INCCSagarin)
• 2020-21: 3rd of 21 (behind LefevreINCC)
• 2019-20: 5th of 20 (behind LefevreINCCSagarinPomeroy)
• 2018-19: 4th of 18 (behind TorvikGasawayPomeroy)
• 2017-18: 2nd of 7 (behind Hanner)
• 2016-17: 4th of 7 (behind TorvikHannerGasaway)
• 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 these resultswe feel confident that our system has ranked among the most accurate over the long term. While Dan Hanner’s player-based projections consistently edged us out when he was activehe stopped after the 2017-18 season. More recentlythe INCC system is the only one that has regularly outperformed oursthough it doesn’t have as extensive a historical track record. Kudos as well to Evan Miya for an outstanding 2023!

We also use preseason ratings to guide our Bracketology predictions for the NCAA Tournament. Last yearbefore any games had startedwe correctly projected 40 of the 68 teams (59%) that eventually made the 2025 NCAA Tournament. We correctly projected three of the four No. 1 seeds (and our fourth was a No. 2 seed). Twenty-six of the 28 teams on our projected top seven seed lines actually made the NCAA Tournament.

We share these results not to boast but to address the inevitable “Team X is WAY too high/low in your rankings!” comments. While our rankings are certainly not flawlessthey have consistently held their own against other top-tier projection systemsand we expect them to do so again this season.

Final Advice On Interpreting College Basketball Rankings

Rankings are a starting pointnot gospel. Use them to frame expectations and spot valuebut keep these in mind:

• Predictive vs. results: Our ratings estimate future performance on a neutral court; they’re not a resume or power poll.
• Tiers > exact ranks: Small gaps mean teams are effectively peers—don’t overreact to being 12th vs. 15th.
• Priors fade: Preseason inputs carry weight earlythen diminish as game data accumulates. Early swings aren’t always “real.”
• Context matters: Injuriessuspensionstransfers gaining eligibilityand travel spots can move the needle faster than models update.
• Strength of schedule: Records can deceive; ratings adjust for opponent quality and game location (home/away/neutral).
• Uncertainty is real: Close projections are coin flips. Treat 1–2 point edges as modestnot locks.
• Human vs. model gaps: Polls reflect perception; models reflect projected strength. Disagreements can signal opportunity or missing info.
• Look at components: If a team’s rating rides on one factor (e.g.returning minutes)it’s more fragile than a balanced profile.
• Update cadence: Pages refresh daily in-season; check back after major injuries or high-leverage games.
• Decision support: Combine ratings with matchup specifics (temposhot profilefoul rates) before making picks or bets.

Bottom line: think in probabilities and tiersnot absolutes. Let the numbers guide youthen layer in fresh context to make smarter calls.

Look at RatingsNot Just Rankings

Rankings are handybut the rating tells you more.

Example: One team may be ranked No. 25 in our preseason listyet its rating is less than one point behind the No. 15-ranked team. This represents a large cluster of similarly rated teams through this stretch.

Takeaway: don’t fixate on the exact rank. Use the rating to identify a team’s performance tier.

<> .editor-note {background: #373737;color: #fff;padding: 1em;} .blog-promo-image-thumb {display: none;} .blog-promo-text {text-align: center;} .blog-promo-text h2 {font-size: 1.25em;margin:0;} .blog-promo-text .text-p {margin:.5em 0 !important;} .blog-promo-text .button-p {margin-bottom: 0 !important;} .blog-promo-text .button-p a {display: block;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;max-width:480px;} .blog-promo-text .button-p a + a {margin-top: 1rem;} @media only screen and (min-width: 768px) { /*.blog-promo-image-thumb {display: block;float: left;width:170px;margin-right: 16px;}*/ .blog-promo-text {text-align: left;} .blog-promo-text .button-p {display: flex;gap:1em;} .blog-promo-text .button-p a {flex-basis: 250px;margin: 0 !important;} }