Body Of Work(+) Rankings - 12/13/2017
Jack DiTrapani
December 13, 2017
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. Villanova, Michigan St)
- Bin 2: Teams that are “solidly ranked.” Not quite elite, but clearly top 25. (e.g. Gonzaga, Xavier, 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, Creighton)
- 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, 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. 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.
12/13: Arizona State?
We are roughly one month into the season, and as everyone expected, a team from Arizona is right near the top of the rankings. Of course, everyone thought that team would be the Arizona Wildcats, a preseason top 3 team loaded with talent. But after 3 losses, they are barely scraping the AP top 25. Instead say hello to the Arizona State Sun Devils, the new number 1 team in the BOW+ rankings this week. ASU came into the season with very little expectations, but have taken the country by storm with big wins at Kansas and versus Xavier. Couple those juggernaut wins with nice victories over Kansas State and St Johns and zero losses, and you have what is probably the best resume in college basketball up to this point.
Since these rankings attempt to rank teams on what has been done so far (with a sprinkle of subjectivity), ASU comes in at #1. However, more predictive systems like KenPom and Sagarin’s rankings have not yet bought into the Sun Devil hype. KenPom has ASU at 34th in the country, even though they started the season way down at 100th. Sagarin has them higher at 13th, but overall the advanced metrics are a little hesitant with ASU. These models, despite being successful predicting games over the long run, seem to occassionally just “miss” on certain teams. For example, this year KenPom has UVA 3rd in the country and Sagarin has Purdue 3rd. Now I think those are two great teams, but third in the nation? We’ll see. Another odd example comes from ESPN’s BPI ratings - ESPN’s version of KenPom-like rankings. This system gives Virginia Tech a 52% of chance of winning AT Kentucky on Saturday. Sometimes the advanced models can give awkward outputs.
Here are the 12/13 BOW+ rankings:
This includes all games through Tuesday, December 12th:
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | Prev Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Arizona St | 7.25 | 9-0 | (0-0) | 7 |
| 2 | Michigan State | 6.75 | 9-1 | (2-0) | 3 |
| 3 | Villanova | 6.25 | 10-0 | (0-0) | 6 |
| 4 | Duke | 5 | 11-1 | (0-0) | 1 |
| 5 | Wichita St | 5 | 8-1 | (0-0) | 8 |
| 6 | Texas AM | 4.75 | 8-1 | (0-0) | 2 |
| 7 | North Carolina | 4.5 | 9-1 | (0-0) | 13 |
| 8 | Xavier | 4.5 | 9-1 | (0-0) | 5 |
| 9 | Miami | 3.75 | 8-0 | (0-0) | 9 |
| 10 | Purdue | 3.75 | 10-2 | (2-0) | 19 |
| 11 | Gonzaga | 3.75 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 12 |
| 12 | Seton Hall | 3.5 | 9-1 | (0-0) | 14 |
| 13 | Tennessee | 3.5 | 7-1 | (0-0) | 17 |
| 14 | TCU | 3.25 | 10-0 | (0-0) | 22 |
| 15 | West Virginia | 3.25 | 9-1 | (0-0) | 23 |
| 16 | Florida State | 3 | 9-0 | (0-0) | 15 |
| 17 | Virginia | 2.5 | 8-1 | (0-0) | 11 |
| 18 | Kansas | 2.25 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 4 |
| 19 | Kentucky | 2 | 8-1 | (0-0) | 16 |
| 20 | Baylor | 2 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 25 |
| 21 | Texas Tech | 2 | 7-1 | (0-0) | 26 |
| 22 | Notre Dame | 1.25 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 10 |
| 23 | Creighton | 1.25 | 7-2 | (0-0) | T27 |
| 24 | Oklahoma | 0.75 | 7-1 | (0-0) | 40 |
| 25 | N Iowa | 0.5 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 34 |
| 26 | Arkansas | 0.25 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 50 |
| 27 | Syracuse | 0.25 | 8-1 | (0-0) | 31 |
| 28 | Louisville | 0 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 42 |
| 29 | Cincinnati | -0.25 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 24 |
| 30 | Florida | -0.25 | 6-3 | (0-0) | 20 |
| 31 | Georgia | -0.5 | 7-1 | (0-0) | 36 |
| 32 | Georgetown | -0.5 | 8-0 | (0-0) | 37 |
| 33 | Arizona | -0.75 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 74 |
| 34 | Clemson | -0.75 | 8-1 | (0-0) | 38 |
| 35 | Nevada | -0.75 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 21 |
| 36 | OK State | -0.75 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 39 |
| T37 | NC State | -1 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 49 |
| T37 | Missouri | -1 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 44 |
| 39 | Houston | -1.25 | 8-1 | (0-0) | 48 |
| 40 | St Johns | -1.25 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 43 |
| 41 | Minnesota | -1.5 | 9-3 | (1-1) | 18 |
| 42 | Auburn | -1.5 | 8-1 | (0-0) | T45 |
| 43 | Rhode Island | -1.5 | 5-3 | (0-0) | T27 |
| 44 | Mississippi St | -1.5 | 8-0 | (0-0) | 32 |
| 45 | Boise St | -1.5 | 9-1 | (0-0) | 47 |
| 46 | Virginia Tech | -1.75 | 9-1 | (0-0) | 51 |
| 47 | St Bonaventure | -1.75 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 55 |
| 48 | Loy Chic | -1.75 | 10-1 | (0-0) | NA |
| T49 | Kansas State | -2 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 33 |
| T49 | Butler | -2 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 58 |
| 51 | Michigan | -2 | 9-3 | (1-1) | 68 |
| 52 | Texas | -2 | 6-3 | (0-0) | 30 |
| 53 | UCLA | -2.25 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 29 |
| 54 | Temple | -2.5 | 6-2 | (0-0) | 66 |
| 55 | Marquette | -2.5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 69 |
| 56 | Mid Tennessee | -2.5 | 7-1 | (0-0) | 72 |
| 57 | LSU | -2.5 | 5-2 | (0-0) | 60 |
| 58 | SMU | -2.75 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 57 |
| 59 | UNLV | -2.75 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 71 |
| 60 | Boston College | -2.75 | 8-3 | (1-0) | 91 |
| 61 | Utah | -3 | 7-2 | (0-0) | T45 |
| 62 | USC | -3 | 4-3 | (0-0) | 35 |
| 63 | Towson | -3 | 10-1 | (0-0) | NA |
| 64 | Maryland | -3.25 | 10-3 | (1-1) | 75 |
| T65 | Washington | -3.25 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 82 |
| T65 | Uconn | -3.25 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 54 |
| 67 | South Carolina | -3.5 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 76 |
| 68 | Ohio State | -3.5 | 8-3 | (2-0) | 65 |
| 69 | St Marys | -3.75 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 67 |
| 70 | Alabama | -3.75 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 59 |
| 71 | W Kentucky | -3.75 | 6-3 | (0-0) | 56 |
| 72 | UCF | -4 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 80 |
| 73 | Valparaiso | -4 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 41 |
| 74 | Coll Charl | -4 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 77 |
| 75 | Penn State | -4.25 | 8-3 | (1-1) | 70 |
| 76 | Rutgers | -4.25 | 9-3 | (0-2) | 73 |
| 77 | BYU | -4.5 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 83 |
| 78 | Iowa State | -4.5 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 79 |
| 79 | Nebraska | -4.5 | 7-4 | (0-1) | 87 |
| 80 | Northwestern | -4.75 | 6-4 | (1-1) | 88 |
| 81 | Davidson | -4.75 | 4-3 | (0-0) | 81 |
| 82 | Memphis | -4.75 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 84 |
| T83 | Oregon | -5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 90 |
| T83 | Providence | -5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 52 |
| 85 | Tulane | -5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 85 |
| 86 | DePaul | -5.25 | 6-4 | (0-0) | 89 |
| 87 | San Diego St | -5.5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 63 |
| 88 | Colorado | -6.5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | T61 |
| 89 | UT Arlington | -6.5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 53 |
| 90 | Indiana | -7 | 5-5 | (1-1) | 94 |
| 91 | Vermont | -7 | 7-4 | (0-0) | 64 |
| 92 | Old Dominion | -7.25 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 97 |
| 93 | Oregon State | -7.5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 99 |
| 94 | Illinois | -7.75 | 7-4 | (0-2) | 92 |
| 95 | VCU | -7.75 | 5-5 | (0-0) | 78 |
| 96 | Ole Miss | -8.25 | 4-4 | (0-0) | 96 |
| 97 | G Washington | -8.25 | 5-5 | (0-0) | 98 |
| 98 | La Salle | -9 | 5-6 | (0-0) | 95 |
| 99 | Washington St | -9 | 6-3 | (0-0) | T61 |
| 100 | Wisconsin | -9.25 | 4-7 | (1-1) | 86 |
| 101 | Georgia Tech | -9.25 | 4-4 | (0-0) | 93 |
| 102 | Tulsa | -9.5 | 5-4 | (0-0) | T105 |
| 103 | St Josephs | -9.75 | 4-5 | (0-0) | 101 |
| 104 | Wake Forest | -10 | 6-4 | (0-0) | T105 |
| 105 | Vanderbilt | -10.25 | 3-6 | (0-0) | 100 |
| T106 | Pittsburgh | -10.75 | 5-5 | (0-0) | 108 |
| T106 | Umass | -10.75 | 5-5 | (0-0) | 110 |
| 108 | Duquense | -10.75 | 5-3 | (0-0) | 109 |
| 109 | Dayton | -11.5 | 4-5 | (0-0) | 103 |
| 110 | Iowa | -12.25 | 5-6 | (0-2) | 107 |
| 111 | Stanford | -12.5 | 4-6 | (0-0) | 113 |
| 112 | Saint Louis | -13.25 | 5-5 | (0-0) | T111 |
| 113 | E Carolina | -13.75 | 5-4 | (0-0) | 115 |
| 114 | G Mason | -14 | 5-6 | (0-0) | 102 |
| 115 | California | -15.75 | 4-6 | (0-0) | 114 |
| 116 | Fordham | -16 | 4-6 | (0-0) | T111 |
| 117 | S Florida | -18.5 | 4-6 | (0-0) | 116 |
| 118 | Richmond | -21 | 2-8 | (0-0) | 117 |
Conference Ranks
| Rank | Conf | Avg |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Big 12 | 0.425 |
| 2 | Big East | -0.1 |
| 3 | ACC | -1.0667 |
| 4 | SEC | -1.6071 |
| 5 | Other | -3.1912 |
| 6 | Big 10 | -3.8393 |
| 7 | Amer | -5.0417 |
| 8 | Pac 12 | -5.1042 |
| 9 | A10 | -10 |
Next are the rankings within every conference, as well as each team’s national ranking:
ACC
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Duke | 5 | 11-1 | (0-0) | 4 |
| 2 | North Carolina | 4.5 | 9-1 | (0-0) | 7 |
| 3 | Miami | 3.75 | 8-0 | (0-0) | 9 |
| 4 | Florida State | 3 | 9-0 | (0-0) | 16 |
| 5 | Virginia | 2.5 | 8-1 | (0-0) | 17 |
| 6 | Notre Dame | 1.25 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 22 |
| 7 | Syracuse | 0.25 | 8-1 | (0-0) | 27 |
| 8 | Louisville | 0 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 28 |
| 9 | Clemson | -0.75 | 8-1 | (0-0) | 34 |
| 10 | NC State | -1 | 8-2 | (0-0) | T37 |
| 11 | Virginia Tech | -1.75 | 9-1 | (0-0) | 46 |
| 12 | Boston College | -2.75 | 8-3 | (1-0) | 60 |
| 13 | Georgia Tech | -9.25 | 4-4 | (0-0) | 101 |
| 14 | Wake Forest | -10 | 6-4 | (0-0) | 104 |
| 15 | Pittsburgh | -10.75 | 5-5 | (0-0) | T106 |
Big 10
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Michigan State | 6.75 | 9-1 | (2-0) | 2 |
| 2 | Purdue | 3.75 | 10-2 | (2-0) | 10 |
| 3 | Minnesota | -1.5 | 9-3 | (1-1) | 41 |
| 4 | Michigan | -2 | 9-3 | (1-1) | 51 |
| 5 | Maryland | -3.25 | 10-3 | (1-1) | 64 |
| 6 | Ohio State | -3.5 | 8-3 | (2-0) | 68 |
| 7 | Penn State | -4.25 | 8-3 | (1-1) | 75 |
| 8 | Rutgers | -4.25 | 9-3 | (0-2) | 76 |
| 9 | Nebraska | -4.5 | 7-4 | (0-1) | 79 |
| 10 | Northwestern | -4.75 | 6-4 | (1-1) | 80 |
| 11 | Indiana | -7 | 5-5 | (1-1) | 90 |
| 12 | Illinois | -7.75 | 7-4 | (0-2) | 94 |
| 13 | Wisconsin | -9.25 | 4-7 | (1-1) | 100 |
| 14 | Iowa | -12.25 | 5-6 | (0-2) | 110 |
SEC
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Texas AM | 4.75 | 8-1 | (0-0) | 6 |
| 2 | Tennessee | 3.5 | 7-1 | (0-0) | 13 |
| 3 | Kentucky | 2 | 8-1 | (0-0) | 19 |
| 4 | Arkansas | 0.25 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 26 |
| 5 | Florida | -0.25 | 6-3 | (0-0) | 30 |
| 6 | Georgia | -0.5 | 7-1 | (0-0) | 31 |
| 7 | Missouri | -1 | 8-2 | (0-0) | T37 |
| 8 | Auburn | -1.5 | 8-1 | (0-0) | 42 |
| 9 | Mississippi St | -1.5 | 8-0 | (0-0) | 44 |
| 10 | LSU | -2.5 | 5-2 | (0-0) | 57 |
| 11 | South Carolina | -3.5 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 67 |
| 12 | Alabama | -3.75 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 70 |
| 13 | Ole Miss | -8.25 | 4-4 | (0-0) | 96 |
| 14 | Vanderbilt | -10.25 | 3-6 | (0-0) | 105 |
Big 12
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TCU | 3.25 | 10-0 | (0-0) | 14 |
| 2 | West Virginia | 3.25 | 9-1 | (0-0) | 15 |
| 3 | Kansas | 2.25 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 18 |
| 4 | Baylor | 2 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 20 |
| 5 | Texas Tech | 2 | 7-1 | (0-0) | 21 |
| 6 | Oklahoma | 0.75 | 7-1 | (0-0) | 24 |
| 7 | OK State | -0.75 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 36 |
| 8 | Kansas State | -2 | 8-2 | (0-0) | T49 |
| 9 | Texas | -2 | 6-3 | (0-0) | 52 |
| 10 | Iowa State | -4.5 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 78 |
Pac 12
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Arizona St | 7.25 | 9-0 | (0-0) | 1 |
| 2 | Arizona | -0.75 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 33 |
| 3 | UCLA | -2.25 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 53 |
| 4 | Utah | -3 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 61 |
| 5 | USC | -3 | 4-3 | (0-0) | 62 |
| 6 | Washington | -3.25 | 7-3 | (0-0) | T65 |
| 7 | Oregon | -5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | T83 |
| 8 | Colorado | -6.5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 88 |
| 9 | Oregon State | -7.5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 93 |
| 10 | Washington St | -9 | 6-3 | (0-0) | 99 |
| 11 | Stanford | -12.5 | 4-6 | (0-0) | 111 |
| 12 | California | -15.75 | 4-6 | (0-0) | 115 |
American
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wichita St | 5 | 8-1 | (0-0) | 5 |
| 2 | Cincinnati | -0.25 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 29 |
| 3 | Houston | -1.25 | 8-1 | (0-0) | 39 |
| 4 | Temple | -2.5 | 6-2 | (0-0) | 54 |
| 5 | SMU | -2.75 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 58 |
| 6 | Uconn | -3.25 | 7-3 | (0-0) | T65 |
| 7 | UCF | -4 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 72 |
| 8 | Memphis | -4.75 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 82 |
| 9 | Tulane | -5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 85 |
| 10 | Tulsa | -9.5 | 5-4 | (0-0) | 102 |
| 11 | E Carolina | -13.75 | 5-4 | (0-0) | 113 |
| 12 | S Florida | -18.5 | 4-6 | (0-0) | 117 |
Big East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Villanova | 6.25 | 10-0 | (0-0) | 3 |
| 2 | Xavier | 4.5 | 9-1 | (0-0) | 8 |
| 3 | Seton Hall | 3.5 | 9-1 | (0-0) | 12 |
| 4 | Creighton | 1.25 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 23 |
| 5 | Georgetown | -0.5 | 8-0 | (0-0) | 32 |
| 6 | St Johns | -1.25 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 40 |
| 7 | Butler | -2 | 8-2 | (0-0) | T49 |
| 8 | Marquette | -2.5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 55 |
| 9 | Providence | -5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | T83 |
| 10 | DePaul | -5.25 | 6-4 | (0-0) | 86 |
A10
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rhode Island | -1.5 | 5-3 | (0-0) | 43 |
| 2 | St Bonaventure | -1.75 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 47 |
| 3 | Davidson | -4.75 | 4-3 | (0-0) | 81 |
| 4 | VCU | -7.75 | 5-5 | (0-0) | 95 |
| 5 | G Washington | -8.25 | 5-5 | (0-0) | 97 |
| 6 | La Salle | -9 | 5-6 | (0-0) | 98 |
| 7 | St Josephs | -9.75 | 4-5 | (0-0) | 103 |
| 8 | Umass | -10.75 | 5-5 | (0-0) | T106 |
| 9 | Duquense | -10.75 | 5-3 | (0-0) | 108 |
| 10 | Dayton | -11.5 | 4-5 | (0-0) | 109 |
| 11 | Saint Louis | -13.25 | 5-5 | (0-0) | 112 |
| 12 | G Mason | -14 | 5-6 | (0-0) | 114 |
| 13 | Fordham | -16 | 4-6 | (0-0) | 116 |
| 14 | Richmond | -21 | 2-8 | (0-0) | 118 |
Other
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gonzaga | 3.75 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 11 |
| 2 | N Iowa | 0.5 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 25 |
| 3 | Nevada | -0.75 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 35 |
| 4 | Boise St | -1.5 | 9-1 | (0-0) | 45 |
| 5 | Loy Chic | -1.75 | 10-1 | (0-0) | 48 |
| 6 | Mid Tennessee | -2.5 | 7-1 | (0-0) | 56 |
| 7 | UNLV | -2.75 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 59 |
| 8 | Towson | -3 | 10-1 | (0-0) | 63 |
| 9 | St Marys | -3.75 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 69 |
| 10 | W Kentucky | -3.75 | 6-3 | (0-0) | 71 |
| 11 | Valparaiso | -4 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 73 |
| 12 | Coll Charl | -4 | 7-2 | (0-0) | 74 |
| 13 | BYU | -4.5 | 8-2 | (0-0) | 77 |
| 14 | San Diego St | -5.5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 87 |
| 15 | UT Arlington | -6.5 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 89 |
| 16 | Vermont | -7 | 7-4 | (0-0) | 91 |
| 17 | Old Dominion | -7.25 | 7-3 | (0-0) | 92 |
