Welcome
If you’ve been following my college football rankings this fall, you already know the drill of how these rankings work. Basically, I have wanted a way to combine subjective views towards teams with an objective component. It is essentially a ranking of the resumes of teams, plus a sprinkle of subjectivity (not my personal opinion, but the general consensus opinion of the media/other rankings, etc.). If I were to come up with a snazzy name for this system, it would be the BOW+ rankings - or the Bodies Of Work (+ subjectivity) rankings.
Within the context of college football, I have tinkered with my formula over the seasons and have what I think is a pretty decent way to compare bodies of work of different teams. For the first time ever, I am attempting to apply this approach to college basketball teams. It may provide valuable insight into which teams are favored by the tournament selection committee, or it could crash and burn. Who knows! Consider this season a test run for applying my rankings approach to college basketball. This is NOT a sophisticated algorithm, and should not be treated the same way as Sagarin, KenPom, or other computer rankings found in places like the Massey Ranking Composite. The rankings should also not be used to predict future games; my rankings should be considered a snapshot of how a team’s body of work has been up to this point. Even though it is not the most complicated ranking system ever created, I think its simplicity can be a positive thing.
Basic Idea
The approach is identical to what I do for football. Speaking of which, you can find all of my football rankings and previous basketball rankings here: (http://rpubs.com/ditrapani4)
I will not go into detail here about how these rankings are calculated, but I will describe the basic concept. Like I mentioned above, these rankings combine subjective and objective features. The subjective component drives the whole process. Every team is placed by me into a bin. There are seven general bins, ranging from -3 to 3. A basic idea of what each bin represents is:
- Bin 3: Elite teams, the cream of the crop. Typically the top 6-8 teams in the country. (e.g. Duke, Arizona)
- Bin 2: Teams that are “solidly ranked.” Not quite elite, but clearly top 25. (e.g. Purdue, Texas AM, Xavier)
- Bin 1: Teams that are “borderline ranked.” You certainly can make a case they are a top 25 team, but certainly can make the case they are not. (e.g. Texas Tech, Virginia, Seton Hall)
- Bin 0: Teams that are “solidly unranked.” Decent teams that have a pulse, but are not considered close to being top 25. This would correspond to anyone around the 8/9 seed area to a “bubble” team. (e.g. Syracuse, Arizona State, Wisconsin, Arkansas)
- Bin -1: Starting to get a little worse here. These teams have little chance at making the tournament, at least if the tiurnament was sseeded today. (e.g. Boston College, DePaul, La Salle)
- Bin -2: Bad, no sniffing the tournament. (e.g. Duquense)
- Bin -3: Really really bad. Cupcakes. Losing to one of these is not going to do good things to your “BOW+” score.)
If a team seems to be somewhere in between two of these categories, they can be binned as a “0.5”, “1.5”, etc.
This is the subjective part of the process. I make the final call which bin a team falls into, but I try to inform myself as much as possible of the consensus of a given team. For example, for a team to be “borderline ranked” (bin 1), they need to at least appear in the “Other Receiving Votes” area of the AP and Coaches polls. I try to make the bins representative of the nationwide media consensus of a given team. Still, there is definitely subjectivity involved.
The objective element of the rankings gives and takes away points from a team depending on the bins of that team’s opponents. For example, beating a team from bin 0 at home by a “non-blowout score” (less than 21 points) rewards that team 0.5 points, and so on. This is the part of the process that I have tinkered with over the years. A team of course loses points for losing a game, depending on the opponent, where the game was played, and whether it was a blowout or not.
So the basic idea of the system is that we have an idea as fans which “bin” a team falls into. Once we determine that, we can get an obective idea of how a team’s resume is depending on the bins of that team’s wins and losses. The final “Score” of the ranking is simply a sum of the bin you are in and the amount of points you have gained/lost from wins and losses.
11/22: Early Reactions
Welcome to an experiment. As I discuss above, I am trying out this method for the first time ever on college basketball. I feel it went relatively well for football, so I thought the same principles could fruitfully be applied to basketball as well. However, I really have no idea what will happen, so we will find out together and don’t hold it against me if Fordham ends up at #1 at the end of the season!
Some basic info: I will only be ranking teams from the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, SEC, AAC, and Atlantic 10, as well as a handful of other teams like Gonzaga, St Mary’s, etc. (these teams will bounce in and out of the page as random teams emerge throughout the season). I will try to update the page twice a week, maybe something like every Friday and Monday. The page will clearly show when the rankings have been updated last (today’s rankings consist of all games through Tuesday night). If you are familiar with the football rankings, you know that there are some cool plots that I make for each division/conference. I WILL have those, but a little later in the season. They are a little messy right now due to so many ties.
Things are a bit wonky at the beginning of the season. The first thing you may notice is that there are a large amount of ties. This makes sense early in the year: we generally think that, say, Syracuse and Florida State are roughly on the same level (tier 0), and neither team has played anyone of note so far, so they end up tied. A bunch of teams fall into that category. You may also notice that when there have been informative results, they have been wildly influential and lead to some puzzling outcomes.
For example, Texas AM has one of the best wins of the season thus far, beating a ranked West Virginia by over 20 points (and decent wins against OK State and Penn State). That, coupled with the fact that they are considered a consensus ranked team, has them all the way at the #3 spot. Arizona, a team that is widely considered to be better than Texas AM, is below the Aggies at T4th. Remember, this is a ranking of bodies of work, so anyone who has a great win like Texas AM will be rewarded handsomely at this point. The same goes in the opposite direction: if a team has lost thus far this season, there is a good chance they will be behind a “bad” undefeated team that hasn’t been tested yet (for example, Rutgers is ahead of Wisconsin).
The same phenomenon happened in the college football rankings, and things leveled off as more results trickled in. Of course, the football season only has 12 games, so it will be interesting to see what happens with a sport with around 30 games per season.
One last note. You will see there is a column for the “previous rank” of each team. Since this is the first batch of rankings, today this column indicates where the team was ranked before any games were played, so it’s an indicator of how a team has moved up/down early in the season relative to preseason expectations.
Here is the inaugural BOW+ rankings for college basketball. You will then find conference rankings later on. Remember, plots will come later in the season.
This includes all games through Tuesday, Novermber 22nd:
| 1 |
Duke |
4.75 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T1 |
| 2 |
Kansas |
4.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T1 |
| 3 |
Texas AM |
4.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T22 |
| T4 |
Arizona |
3 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T1 |
| T4 |
Villanova |
3 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T1 |
| 6 |
Wichita St |
3 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T6 |
| T7 |
Minnesota |
2.75 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T9 |
| T7 |
Purdue |
2.75 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T18 |
| T7 |
USC |
2.75 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T9 |
| T7 |
Xavier |
2.75 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T9 |
| 11 |
Florida |
2.5 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T6 |
| 12 |
Michigan State |
2.5 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
T1 |
| 13 |
North Carolina |
2.5 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T9 |
| 14 |
Notre Dame |
2.25 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T9 |
| 15 |
Baylor |
2.25 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T22 |
| T16 |
Louisville |
2 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T9 |
| T16 |
Miami |
2 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T9 |
| T16 |
Cincinnati |
2 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T9 |
| 19 |
Kentucky |
2 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T6 |
| 20 |
Seton Hall |
1.75 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T22 |
| 21 |
Texas Tech |
1.75 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T22 |
Gonzaga |
1.5 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T18 |
| T22 |
St Marys |
1.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T18 |
| T24 |
Virginia |
1.25 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T22 |
| T24 |
Alabama |
1.25 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T22 |
| 26 |
Creighton |
1.25 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 27 |
Maryland |
1 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 28 |
Temple |
1 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| 29 |
UCLA |
0.75 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T22 |
| T30 |
Utah |
0.75 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T30 |
Nevada |
0.75 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 32 |
West Virginia |
0.5 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T9 |
| 33 |
TCU |
0.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T29 |
| T34 |
Florida State |
0 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T34 |
Syracuse |
0 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T34 |
Illinois |
0 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T34 |
Tennessee |
0 |
2-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T34 |
Georgia |
0 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T34 |
Arkansas |
0 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T34 |
Mississippi St |
0 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T34 |
Oklahoma |
0 |
2-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T34 |
Texas |
0 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T34 |
Kansas State |
0 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T34 |
Oregon |
0 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T34 |
Arizona St |
0 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| T34 |
Uconn |
0 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T34 |
UCF |
0 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T34 |
SMU |
0 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T34 |
St Johns |
0 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 50 |
Penn State |
-0.5 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T51 |
NC State |
-0.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| T51 |
Ohio State |
-0.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| T51 |
Colorado |
-0.5 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| T51 |
Georgetown |
-0.5 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| 55 |
Providence |
-0.75 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T29 |
| 56 |
Marquette |
-0.75 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 57 |
Georgia Tech |
-1 |
1-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 58 |
OK State |
-1 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| 59 |
LSU |
-1 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| 60 |
Rutgers |
-1 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 61 |
Butler |
-1.25 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 62 |
UT Arlington |
-1.25 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 63 |
Coll Charl |
-1.25 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 64 |
Clemson |
-1.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T65 |
Ole Miss |
-1.5 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T65 |
Auburn |
-1.5 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 67 |
Rhode Island |
-1.5 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
T22 |
| T68 |
Washington St |
-1.5 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T103 |
| T68 |
Tulane |
-1.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T109 |
| 70 |
Michigan |
-1.75 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 71 |
Missouri |
-1.75 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T29 |
| 72 |
Vermont |
-1.75 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| 73 |
Virginia Tech |
-2 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T29 |
| 74 |
Davidson |
-2 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 75 |
Boston College |
-2 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 76 |
Memphis |
-2 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 77 |
Boise St |
-2.25 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 78 |
South Carolina |
-2.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 79 |
Old Dominion |
-2.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 80 |
Saint Louis |
-2.5 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T103 |
| 81 |
Northwestern |
-2.75 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
T18 |
| 82 |
Vanderbilt |
-2.75 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 83 |
Wisconsin |
-2.75 |
2-3 |
(0-0) |
T29 |
| 84 |
BYU |
-2.75 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| 85 |
Houston |
-3 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 86 |
Oregon State |
-3 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| T87 |
Nebraska |
-3 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| T87 |
San Diego St |
-3 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| 89 |
St Josephs |
-3.25 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| 90 |
DePaul |
-3.25 |
1-2 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 91 |
VCU |
-3.5 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 92 |
Mid Tennessee |
-3.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 93 |
Umass |
-3.75 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T103 |
| 94 |
St Bonaventure |
-4 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| 95 |
G Mason |
-4 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
T103 |
| T96 |
Iowa |
-4.5 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T96 |
Stanford |
-4.5 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 98 |
Indiana |
-4.5 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 99 |
La Salle |
-4.5 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 100 |
Washington |
-4.5 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 101 |
Iowa State |
-4.75 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| T102 |
Dayton |
-5.25 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| T102 |
Oakland |
-5.25 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 104 |
Duquense |
-5.5 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
T109 |
| 105 |
G Washington |
-6 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
T103 |
| 106 |
Yale |
-6.25 |
2-3 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 107 |
Harvard |
-6.5 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
T103 |
| 108 |
California |
-6.75 |
2-3 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 109 |
S Florida |
-7.25 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
T109 |
| 110 |
Tulsa |
-7.75 |
2-3 |
(0-0) |
T71 |
| 111 |
E Carolina |
-8.25 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
T109 |
| 112 |
Richmond |
-9.25 |
1-3 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 113 |
Fordham |
-9.5 |
1-3 |
(0-0) |
T113 |
| 114 |
Pittsburgh |
-10.25 |
1-4 |
(0-0) |
T88 |
| 115 |
Wake Forest |
-11 |
1-4 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
Conference Ranks
| 1 |
Big 12 |
0.375 |
| 2 |
Big East |
0.225 |
| 3 |
SEC |
-0.0536 |
| 4 |
Big 10 |
-0.875 |
| 5 |
ACC |
-0.9 |
| 6 |
Pac 12 |
-1.125 |
| 7 |
Amer |
-1.9792 |
| 8 |
Other |
-2.3214 |
| 9 |
A10 |
-4.6071 |
Next are the rankings within every conference, as well as each team’s national ranking:
ACC
| 1 |
Duke |
4.75 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
1 |
| 2 |
North Carolina |
2.5 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
13 |
| 3 |
Notre Dame |
2.25 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
14 |
| T4 |
Louisville |
2 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T16 |
| T4 |
Miami |
2 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T16 |
| 6 |
Virginia |
1.25 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T24 |
| T7 |
Florida State |
0 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T7 |
Syracuse |
0 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 9 |
NC State |
-0.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T51 |
| 10 |
Georgia Tech |
-1 |
1-1 |
(0-0) |
57 |
| 11 |
Clemson |
-1.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
64 |
| 12 |
Virginia Tech |
-2 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
73 |
| 13 |
Boston College |
-2 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
75 |
| 14 |
Pittsburgh |
-10.25 |
1-4 |
(0-0) |
114 |
| 15 |
Wake Forest |
-11 |
1-4 |
(0-0) |
115 |
Big 10
| T1 |
Minnesota |
2.75 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T7 |
| T1 |
Purdue |
2.75 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T7 |
| 3 |
Michigan State |
2.5 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
12 |
| 4 |
Maryland |
1 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
27 |
| 5 |
Illinois |
0 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 6 |
Penn State |
-0.5 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
50 |
| 7 |
Ohio State |
-0.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T51 |
| 8 |
Rutgers |
-1 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
60 |
| 9 |
Michigan |
-1.75 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
70 |
| 10 |
Northwestern |
-2.75 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
81 |
| 11 |
Wisconsin |
-2.75 |
2-3 |
(0-0) |
83 |
| 12 |
Nebraska |
-3 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T87 |
| 13 |
Iowa |
-4.5 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
T96 |
| 14 |
Indiana |
-4.5 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
98 |
SEC
| 1 |
Texas AM |
4.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
3 |
| 2 |
Florida |
2.5 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
11 |
| 3 |
Kentucky |
2 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
19 |
| 4 |
Alabama |
1.25 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T24 |
| T5 |
Tennessee |
0 |
2-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T5 |
Georgia |
0 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T5 |
Arkansas |
0 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T5 |
Mississippi St |
0 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 9 |
LSU |
-1 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
59 |
| T10 |
Ole Miss |
-1.5 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T65 |
| T10 |
Auburn |
-1.5 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T65 |
| 12 |
Missouri |
-1.75 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
71 |
| 13 |
South Carolina |
-2.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
78 |
| 14 |
Vanderbilt |
-2.75 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
82 |
Big 12
| 1 |
Kansas |
4.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
2 |
| 2 |
Baylor |
2.25 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
15 |
| 3 |
Texas Tech |
1.75 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
21 |
| 4 |
West Virginia |
0.5 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
32 |
| 5 |
TCU |
0.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
33 |
| T6 |
Oklahoma |
0 |
2-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T6 |
Texas |
0 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T6 |
Kansas State |
0 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 9 |
OK State |
-1 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
58 |
| 10 |
Iowa State |
-4.75 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
101 |
Pac 12
| 1 |
Arizona |
3 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T4 |
| 2 |
USC |
2.75 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T7 |
| 3 |
UCLA |
0.75 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
29 |
| 4 |
Utah |
0.75 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T30 |
| T5 |
Oregon |
0 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T5 |
Arizona St |
0 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 7 |
Colorado |
-0.5 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T51 |
| 8 |
Washington St |
-1.5 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T68 |
| 9 |
Oregon State |
-3 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
86 |
| 10 |
Stanford |
-4.5 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
T96 |
| 11 |
Washington |
-4.5 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
100 |
| 12 |
California |
-6.75 |
2-3 |
(0-0) |
108 |
American
| 1 |
Wichita St |
3 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
6 |
| 2 |
Cincinnati |
2 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T16 |
| 3 |
Temple |
1 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
28 |
| T4 |
Uconn |
0 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T4 |
UCF |
0 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T4 |
SMU |
0 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 7 |
Tulane |
-1.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T68 |
| 8 |
Memphis |
-2 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
76 |
| 9 |
Houston |
-3 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
85 |
| 10 |
S Florida |
-7.25 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
109 |
| 11 |
Tulsa |
-7.75 |
2-3 |
(0-0) |
110 |
| 12 |
E Carolina |
-8.25 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
111 |
Big East
| 1 |
Villanova |
3 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T4 |
| 2 |
Xavier |
2.75 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T7 |
| 3 |
Seton Hall |
1.75 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
20 |
| 4 |
Creighton |
1.25 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
26 |
| 5 |
St Johns |
0 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 6 |
Georgetown |
-0.5 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T51 |
| 7 |
Providence |
-0.75 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
55 |
| 8 |
Marquette |
-0.75 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
56 |
| 9 |
Butler |
-1.25 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
61 |
| 10 |
DePaul |
-3.25 |
1-2 |
(0-0) |
90 |
A10
| 1 |
Rhode Island |
-1.5 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
67 |
| 2 |
Davidson |
-2 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
74 |
| 3 |
Saint Louis |
-2.5 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
80 |
| 4 |
St Josephs |
-3.25 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
89 |
| 5 |
VCU |
-3.5 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
91 |
| 6 |
Umass |
-3.75 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
93 |
| 7 |
St Bonaventure |
-4 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
94 |
| 8 |
G Mason |
-4 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
95 |
| 9 |
La Salle |
-4.5 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
99 |
| 10 |
Dayton |
-5.25 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
T102 |
| 11 |
Duquense |
-5.5 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
104 |
| 12 |
G Washington |
-6 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
105 |
| 13 |
Richmond |
-9.25 |
1-3 |
(0-0) |
112 |
| 14 |
Fordham |
-9.5 |
1-3 |
(0-0) |
113 |
Other
| T1 |
Gonzaga |
1.5 |
3-0 |
(0-0) |
T22 |
| T1 |
St Marys |
1.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T22 |
| 3 |
Nevada |
0.75 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T30 |
| 4 |
UT Arlington |
-1.25 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
62 |
| 5 |
Coll Charl |
-1.25 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
63 |
| 6 |
Vermont |
-1.75 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
72 |
| 7 |
Boise St |
-2.25 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
77 |
| 8 |
Old Dominion |
-2.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
79 |
| 9 |
BYU |
-2.75 |
2-1 |
(0-0) |
84 |
| 10 |
San Diego St |
-3 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T87 |
| 11 |
Mid Tennessee |
-3.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
92 |
| 12 |
Oakland |
-5.25 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
T102 |
| 13 |
Yale |
-6.25 |
2-3 |
(0-0) |
106 |
| 14 |
Harvard |
-6.5 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
107 |