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 4-6 teams in the country. (e.g. Duke, Kansas)
- Bin 2: Teams that are “solidly ranked.” Not quite elite, but clearly top 25. (e.g. Gonzaga, Texas AM, Virginia)
- 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, Alabama, 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, Wisconsin, Kansas State)
- 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.
11/28: Post-Feast Week
If you are a normal person, you spent Thanksgiving week eating gobs of food and enjoying time with your friends and family. If you are not a normal person, like me, you probably spent an inordinate amount of time absorbing as much college basketball as you possibly could. There were tons of games this week, and if you weren’t constantly paying attention then you probably missed a few interesting results. We saw Alabama play 3-on-5 versus Minnesota (and almost win!), preseason title contender Arizona lose three games in three days, and teams like Arizona State, Tennessee, and Virginia make a name for themselves. It was very overwhelming. If you need to catch up, the BOW+ rankings are here to help.
Since we acquired so many informative data points over the past seven days, the rankings are starting to look more sensible. The large amount of new information gives much fewer ties this week. Teams that have gone out and won multiple quality games - Texas AM, Arizona St, Virginia, Baylor, etc. - are going to be higher here than in the human polls because their bodies of work are better at this point. Texas AM in particular is a BOW+ darling early in the year - two top-25 victories (WV and at USC) in addition to several other solid wins will do that for you.
Here are the 11/28 power rankings. For now, I intend to release the rankings once a week, perhaps every Tuesday afternoon like this week.
This includes all games through Monday, November 27th:
| 1 |
Duke |
7.5 |
8-0 |
(0-0) |
1 |
| 2 |
Texas AM |
6.5 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
3 |
| 3 |
Kansas |
4.75 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
2 |
| 4 |
Michigan State |
4.75 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
12 |
| 5 |
Notre Dame |
4.25 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
14 |
| 6 |
Minnesota |
4.25 |
7-0 |
(0-0) |
T7 |
| 7 |
Florida |
4 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
11 |
| 8 |
Villanova |
3.5 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
T4 |
| T9 |
Virginia |
3.5 |
7-0 |
(0-0) |
T24 |
| T9 |
Baylor |
3.5 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
15 |
| 11 |
North Carolina |
3 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
13 |
| 12 |
Arizona St |
3 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 13 |
Kentucky |
2.75 |
6-1 |
(0-0) |
19 |
| 14 |
Gonzaga |
2.75 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
T22 |
| 15 |
Wichita St |
2.25 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
6 |
| 16 |
Creighton |
2.25 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
26 |
| T17 |
Louisville |
2 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T16 |
| T17 |
Miami |
2 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T16 |
| T17 |
Cincinnati |
2 |
7-0 |
(0-0) |
T16 |
| 20 |
Texas Tech |
1.75 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
21 |
| 21 |
USC |
1.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T7 |
| 22 |
West Virginia |
1.25 |
6-1 |
(0-0) |
32 |
| 23 |
Xavier |
1.25 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
T7 |
| 24 |
TCU |
1.25 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
33 |
| 25 |
Nevada |
1.25 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
T30 |
| 26 |
Tennessee |
1.25 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 27 |
UCLA |
1 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
29 |
| 28 |
Washington St |
1 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
T68 |
| 29 |
Alabama |
0.75 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
T24 |
| 30 |
Arkansas |
0.75 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 31 |
Texas |
0.5 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 32 |
Syracuse |
0.5 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 33 |
UNLV |
0.25 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
NA |
| 34 |
Seton Hall |
0 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
20 |
| T35 |
Florida State |
0 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T35 |
Illinois |
0 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T35 |
Mississippi St |
0 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 38 |
Providence |
-0.25 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
55 |
| 39 |
Purdue |
-0.5 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
T7 |
| 40 |
Penn State |
-0.5 |
6-1 |
(0-0) |
50 |
| T41 |
Colorado |
-0.5 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
T51 |
| T41 |
Georgetown |
-0.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T51 |
| 43 |
Oklahoma |
-0.75 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 44 |
Rhode Island |
-0.75 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
67 |
| 45 |
Vermont |
-0.75 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
72 |
| 46 |
N Iowa |
-0.75 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
NA |
| T47 |
Georgia |
-1 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T47 |
Kansas State |
-1 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T49 |
Georgia Tech |
-1 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
57 |
| T49 |
Temple |
-1 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
28 |
| 51 |
OK State |
-1 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
58 |
| T52 |
Rutgers |
-1 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
60 |
| T52 |
Loy Chic |
-1 |
7-0 |
(0-0) |
NA |
| 54 |
St Johns |
-1.25 |
6-1 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 55 |
Utah |
-1.25 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
T30 |
| 56 |
Michigan |
-1.5 |
6-1 |
(0-0) |
70 |
| 57 |
Clemson |
-1.5 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
64 |
| T58 |
Ole Miss |
-1.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T65 |
| T58 |
Auburn |
-1.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T65 |
| 60 |
Missouri |
-1.5 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
71 |
| 61 |
Marquette |
-1.5 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
56 |
| 62 |
UT Arlington |
-1.5 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
62 |
| 63 |
Uconn |
-1.75 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 64 |
LSU |
-2 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
59 |
| 65 |
Memphis |
-2 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
76 |
| 66 |
W Kentucky |
-2 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
NA |
| 67 |
Virginia Tech |
-2.25 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
73 |
| 68 |
Boise St |
-2.25 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
77 |
| 69 |
St Marys |
-2.5 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
T22 |
| 70 |
Butler |
-2.5 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
61 |
| 71 |
Northwestern |
-2.5 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
81 |
| 72 |
South Carolina |
-2.5 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
78 |
| 73 |
Maryland |
-2.75 |
6-2 |
(0-0) |
27 |
| 74 |
Houston |
-3 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
85 |
| T75 |
Ohio State |
-3 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
T51 |
| T75 |
San Diego St |
-3 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
T87 |
| T77 |
Oregon |
-3.25 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| T77 |
SMU |
-3.25 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 79 |
Wisconsin |
-3.25 |
3-4 |
(0-0) |
83 |
| 80 |
NC State |
-3.25 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
T51 |
| 81 |
UCF |
-3.25 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
T34 |
| 82 |
Boston College |
-3.25 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
75 |
| 83 |
Mid Tennessee |
-3.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
92 |
| 84 |
Tulane |
-3.75 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
T68 |
| 85 |
St Bonaventure |
-4 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
94 |
| 86 |
Arizona |
-4.25 |
3-3 |
(0-0) |
T4 |
| T87 |
VCU |
-4.25 |
3-3 |
(0-0) |
91 |
| T87 |
Davidson |
-4.25 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
74 |
| T89 |
Washington |
-4.25 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
100 |
| T89 |
BYU |
-4.25 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
84 |
| T89 |
Coll Charl |
-4.25 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
63 |
| T92 |
Iowa |
-4.5 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
T96 |
| T92 |
Iowa State |
-4.5 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
101 |
| 94 |
La Salle |
-4.5 |
4-3 |
(0-0) |
99 |
| 95 |
DePaul |
-4.5 |
2-4 |
(0-0) |
90 |
| 96 |
Indiana |
-4.75 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
98 |
| 97 |
Nebraska |
-4.75 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
T87 |
| 98 |
Vanderbilt |
-5.25 |
2-4 |
(0-0) |
82 |
| 99 |
Old Dominion |
-5.25 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
79 |
| 100 |
Dayton |
-5.25 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
T102 |
| 101 |
Saint Louis |
-6 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
80 |
| 102 |
G Mason |
-6 |
3-3 |
(0-0) |
95 |
| 103 |
Umass |
-6.25 |
3-3 |
(0-0) |
93 |
| 104 |
St Josephs |
-7 |
3-3 |
(0-0) |
89 |
| 105 |
Oregon State |
-7.5 |
3-3 |
(0-0) |
86 |
| 106 |
Tulsa |
-7.75 |
3-3 |
(0-0) |
110 |
| 107 |
Yale |
-8.25 |
4-4 |
(0-0) |
106 |
| 108 |
G Washington |
-8.25 |
2-4 |
(0-0) |
105 |
| 109 |
Duquense |
-8.5 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
104 |
| 110 |
Stanford |
-9.5 |
3-5 |
(0-0) |
T96 |
| 111 |
Fordham |
-9.5 |
2-3 |
(0-0) |
113 |
| 112 |
S Florida |
-10 |
4-3 |
(0-0) |
109 |
| 113 |
Pittsburgh |
-10.25 |
2-4 |
(0-0) |
114 |
| 114 |
California |
-10.5 |
2-4 |
(0-0) |
108 |
| 115 |
Wake Forest |
-11 |
2-4 |
(0-0) |
115 |
| 116 |
Richmond |
-13.5 |
1-5 |
(0-0) |
112 |
| 117 |
E Carolina |
-13.75 |
2-4 |
(0-0) |
111 |
Conference Ranks
| 1 |
Big 12 |
0.575 |
| 2 |
SEC |
0.0536 |
| 3 |
Big East |
-0.35 |
| 4 |
ACC |
-0.65 |
| 5 |
Big 10 |
-1.4286 |
| 6 |
Other |
-2.1875 |
| 7 |
Pac 12 |
-2.875 |
| 8 |
Amer |
-3.7708 |
| 9 |
A10 |
-6.2857 |
Next are the rankings within every conference, as well as each team’s national ranking:
ACC
| 1 |
Duke |
7.5 |
8-0 |
(0-0) |
1 |
| 2 |
Notre Dame |
4.25 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
5 |
| 3 |
Virginia |
3.5 |
7-0 |
(0-0) |
T9 |
| 4 |
North Carolina |
3 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
11 |
| T5 |
Louisville |
2 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T17 |
| T5 |
Miami |
2 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T17 |
| 7 |
Syracuse |
0.5 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
32 |
| 8 |
Florida State |
0 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T35 |
| 9 |
Georgia Tech |
-1 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T49 |
| 10 |
Clemson |
-1.5 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
57 |
| 11 |
Virginia Tech |
-2.25 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
67 |
| 12 |
NC State |
-3.25 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
80 |
| 13 |
Boston College |
-3.25 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
82 |
| 14 |
Pittsburgh |
-10.25 |
2-4 |
(0-0) |
113 |
| 15 |
Wake Forest |
-11 |
2-4 |
(0-0) |
115 |
Big 10
| 1 |
Michigan State |
4.75 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
4 |
| 2 |
Minnesota |
4.25 |
7-0 |
(0-0) |
6 |
| 3 |
Illinois |
0 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
T35 |
| 4 |
Purdue |
-0.5 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
39 |
| 5 |
Penn State |
-0.5 |
6-1 |
(0-0) |
40 |
| 6 |
Rutgers |
-1 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
T52 |
| 7 |
Michigan |
-1.5 |
6-1 |
(0-0) |
56 |
| 8 |
Northwestern |
-2.5 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
71 |
| 9 |
Maryland |
-2.75 |
6-2 |
(0-0) |
73 |
| 10 |
Ohio State |
-3 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
T75 |
| 11 |
Wisconsin |
-3.25 |
3-4 |
(0-0) |
79 |
| 12 |
Iowa |
-4.5 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
T92 |
| 13 |
Indiana |
-4.75 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
96 |
| 14 |
Nebraska |
-4.75 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
97 |
SEC
| 1 |
Texas AM |
6.5 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
2 |
| 2 |
Florida |
4 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
7 |
| 3 |
Kentucky |
2.75 |
6-1 |
(0-0) |
13 |
| 4 |
Tennessee |
1.25 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
26 |
| 5 |
Alabama |
0.75 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
29 |
| 6 |
Arkansas |
0.75 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
30 |
| 7 |
Mississippi St |
0 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T35 |
| 8 |
Georgia |
-1 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
T47 |
| T9 |
Ole Miss |
-1.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T58 |
| T9 |
Auburn |
-1.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
T58 |
| 11 |
Missouri |
-1.5 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
60 |
| 12 |
LSU |
-2 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
64 |
| 13 |
South Carolina |
-2.5 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
72 |
| 14 |
Vanderbilt |
-5.25 |
2-4 |
(0-0) |
98 |
Big 12
| 1 |
Kansas |
4.75 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
3 |
| 2 |
Baylor |
3.5 |
5-0 |
(0-0) |
T9 |
| 3 |
Texas Tech |
1.75 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
20 |
| 4 |
West Virginia |
1.25 |
6-1 |
(0-0) |
22 |
| 5 |
TCU |
1.25 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
24 |
| 6 |
Texas |
0.5 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
31 |
| 7 |
Oklahoma |
-0.75 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
43 |
| 8 |
Kansas State |
-1 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
T47 |
| 9 |
OK State |
-1 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
51 |
| 10 |
Iowa State |
-4.5 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
T92 |
Pac 12
| 1 |
Arizona St |
3 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
12 |
| 2 |
USC |
1.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
21 |
| 3 |
UCLA |
1 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
27 |
| 4 |
Washington St |
1 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
28 |
| 5 |
Colorado |
-0.5 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
T41 |
| 6 |
Utah |
-1.25 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
55 |
| 7 |
Oregon |
-3.25 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
T77 |
| 8 |
Arizona |
-4.25 |
3-3 |
(0-0) |
86 |
| 9 |
Washington |
-4.25 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
T89 |
| 10 |
Oregon State |
-7.5 |
3-3 |
(0-0) |
105 |
| 11 |
Stanford |
-9.5 |
3-5 |
(0-0) |
110 |
| 12 |
California |
-10.5 |
2-4 |
(0-0) |
114 |
American
| 1 |
Wichita St |
2.25 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
15 |
| 2 |
Cincinnati |
2 |
7-0 |
(0-0) |
T17 |
| 3 |
Temple |
-1 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
T49 |
| 4 |
Uconn |
-1.75 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
63 |
| 5 |
Memphis |
-2 |
3-1 |
(0-0) |
65 |
| 6 |
Houston |
-3 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
74 |
| 7 |
SMU |
-3.25 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
T77 |
| 8 |
UCF |
-3.25 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
81 |
| 9 |
Tulane |
-3.75 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
84 |
| 10 |
Tulsa |
-7.75 |
3-3 |
(0-0) |
106 |
| 11 |
S Florida |
-10 |
4-3 |
(0-0) |
112 |
| 12 |
E Carolina |
-13.75 |
2-4 |
(0-0) |
117 |
Big East
| 1 |
Villanova |
3.5 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
8 |
| 2 |
Creighton |
2.25 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
16 |
| 3 |
Xavier |
1.25 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
23 |
| 4 |
Seton Hall |
0 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
34 |
| 5 |
Providence |
-0.25 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
38 |
| 6 |
Georgetown |
-0.5 |
4-0 |
(0-0) |
T41 |
| 7 |
St Johns |
-1.25 |
6-1 |
(0-0) |
54 |
| 8 |
Marquette |
-1.5 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
61 |
| 9 |
Butler |
-2.5 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
70 |
| 10 |
DePaul |
-4.5 |
2-4 |
(0-0) |
95 |
A10
| 1 |
Rhode Island |
-0.75 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
44 |
| 2 |
St Bonaventure |
-4 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
85 |
| T3 |
VCU |
-4.25 |
3-3 |
(0-0) |
T87 |
| T3 |
Davidson |
-4.25 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
T87 |
| 5 |
La Salle |
-4.5 |
4-3 |
(0-0) |
94 |
| 6 |
Dayton |
-5.25 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
100 |
| 7 |
Saint Louis |
-6 |
3-2 |
(0-0) |
101 |
| 8 |
G Mason |
-6 |
3-3 |
(0-0) |
102 |
| 9 |
Umass |
-6.25 |
3-3 |
(0-0) |
103 |
| 10 |
St Josephs |
-7 |
3-3 |
(0-0) |
104 |
| 11 |
G Washington |
-8.25 |
2-4 |
(0-0) |
108 |
| 12 |
Duquense |
-8.5 |
2-2 |
(0-0) |
109 |
| 13 |
Fordham |
-9.5 |
2-3 |
(0-0) |
111 |
| 14 |
Richmond |
-13.5 |
1-5 |
(0-0) |
116 |
Other
| 1 |
Gonzaga |
2.75 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
14 |
| 2 |
Nevada |
1.25 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
25 |
| 3 |
UNLV |
0.25 |
6-0 |
(0-0) |
33 |
| 4 |
Vermont |
-0.75 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
45 |
| 5 |
N Iowa |
-0.75 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
46 |
| 6 |
Loy Chic |
-1 |
7-0 |
(0-0) |
T52 |
| 7 |
UT Arlington |
-1.5 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
62 |
| 8 |
W Kentucky |
-2 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
66 |
| 9 |
Boise St |
-2.25 |
5-1 |
(0-0) |
68 |
| 10 |
St Marys |
-2.5 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
69 |
| 11 |
San Diego St |
-3 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
T75 |
| 12 |
Mid Tennessee |
-3.5 |
4-1 |
(0-0) |
83 |
| T13 |
BYU |
-4.25 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
T89 |
| T13 |
Coll Charl |
-4.25 |
4-2 |
(0-0) |
T89 |
| 15 |
Old Dominion |
-5.25 |
5-2 |
(0-0) |
99 |
| 16 |
Yale |
-8.25 |
4-4 |
(0-0) |
107 |