Body Of Work(+) Rankings - 1/2/2018
Jack DiTrapani
January 2nd, 2018
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, Michigan St)
- Bin 2: Teams that are “solidly ranked.” Not quite elite, but clearly top 25. (e.g. Purdue, UNC, 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. Clemson, 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 tournament was seeded 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.
1/2: A New (Surprising) Leader as Conference Play Begins
Cheer up Sooner fans, your football team may have lost a heartbreaking classic Rose Bowl playoff game last night, but I have some good news. Out of nowhere, your basketball team is… #1 in this week’s rankings! I’m surprised too! Freshman phenom Trae Young has led the Sooners to a one-loss start with impressive road wins over top 15 teams Wichita State and TCU last Saturday (where Young went for 39 points and 14 assists). I don’t think any other teams can claim to have two road wins of that caliber. Couple those wins with decent victories over Oregon, USC, and Northwestern (by 26) and you have the best resume according to my system (their one loss was to now-ranked Arkansas early in the season). OU comes out at number 1 despite the fact I only place them in bin 2 (“solidly ranked”) in the subjective component of my rankings. That’s how favorably their resume is viewed by my formula.
Let’s chat about Trae Young for a second. He is currently averaging 29.6 points and 10.7 assists per game, first in the country for BOTH categories. Not only is he first in these stats, he’s WAY in first: 25.3 PPG is the second-highest points/game, and 9.1 APG is the 2nd highest assists/game. He’s not just a ballhog who chucks up inefficient shots all game: he’s shooting 41.3% behind the arc, and has the number 1 assist rate in the country, meaning the proportion of possessions when he’s on the floor that end with him getting an assist are the highest of any player in the country. So he passes a ton, and scores a tons efficiently. All for a team that has the best resume in the country. As a freshman. There’s a great chance that Oklahoma will own both the Hesiman and the Naismith awards this Spring.
As conference plays starts up, the discussion of the “bubble” will start heating up. The rankings here are still a little volatile as teams like Georgetown and Mississippi State are finally starting to play teams with an actual pulse, but as it stands this week, the at-large cut-off is #45 (meaning Florida would be the last team in according to these rankings). Take that with a large grain of salt of course.
This includes all games through Monday, January 1st:
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | Prev Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oklahoma | 7 | 11-1 | (1-0) | 7 |
| 2 | Arizona St | 6.75 | 12-1 | (0-1) | 1 |
| 3 | Michigan State | 5.75 | 14-1 | (2-0) | 4 |
| 4 | Duke | 5.5 | 13-1 | (1-1) | 5 |
| 5 | Xavier | 5.5 | 14-1 | (2-0) | 6 |
| 6 | West Virginia | 5.25 | 13-1 | (2-0) | 9 |
| 7 | Villanova | 4.5 | 13-1 | (1-1) | 2 |
| 8 | Texas Tech | 4.25 | 12-1 | (1-0) | 18 |
| 9 | Purdue | 4.25 | 13-2 | (2-0) | 8 |
| 10 | Texas AM | 3.5 | 11-2 | (0-1) | 3 |
| 11 | Virginia | 3 | 12-1 | (1-0) | 13 |
| T12 | Kansas | 3 | 11-2 | (1-0) | T15 |
| T12 | Wichita St | 3 | 11-2 | (1-0) | 11 |
| 14 | TCU | 2.75 | 12-1 | (0-1) | 10 |
| 15 | North Carolina | 2.75 | 12-2 | (1-0) | 12 |
| 16 | Kentucky | 2 | 11-2 | (1-0) | 23 |
| 17 | Seton Hall | 2 | 13-2 | (2-0) | 21 |
| 18 | Arkansas | 2 | 11-2 | (1-0) | 25 |
| 19 | Arizona | 1.75 | 11-3 | (1-0) | 24 |
| 20 | Miami | 1.25 | 12-1 | (1-0) | 19 |
| 21 | Cincinnati | 1.25 | 12-2 | (1-0) | 27 |
| 22 | Tennessee | 1.25 | 9-3 | (0-1) | 14 |
| 23 | Gonzaga | 1 | 12-3 | (2-0) | 17 |
| 24 | Clemson | 1 | 12-1 | (1-0) | 22 |
| 25 | Creighton | 0.75 | 11-3 | (1-1) | 20 |
| 26 | Florida State | 0.25 | 11-2 | (0-1) | 26 |
| 27 | Baylor | 0.25 | 10-3 | (0-1) | T15 |
| 28 | Butler | 0.25 | 12-3 | (2-0) | T41 |
| 29 | St Bonaventure | -0.5 | 11-2 | (1-0) | 29 |
| 30 | OK State | -0.5 | 10-3 | (0-1) | 28 |
| 31 | UCLA | -1.25 | 11-3 | (2-0) | 43 |
| 32 | Mississippi St | -1.25 | 12-1 | (0-0) | 34 |
| 33 | Auburn | -1.5 | 12-1 | (0-0) | 32 |
| 34 | Syracuse | -1.5 | 12-2 | (1-0) | 38 |
| 35 | SMU | -1.5 | 12-3 | (2-0) | T41 |
| 36 | Notre Dame | -1.75 | 11-3 | (1-0) | 37 |
| 37 | Houston | -1.75 | 12-2 | (2-0) | T45 |
| 38 | Michigan | -1.75 | 12-3 | (1-1) | 36 |
| 39 | Rhode Island | -1.75 | 9-3 | (1-0) | 40 |
| 40 | Texas | -1.75 | 10-4 | (1-1) | 31 |
| 41 | Minnesota | -2 | 12-3 | (1-1) | 47 |
| 42 | Kansas State | -2.25 | 11-3 | (1-1) | 35 |
| 43 | Louisville | -2.5 | 10-3 | (0-0) | 30 |
| 44 | Marquette | -2.5 | 10-4 | (1-1) | 51 |
| 45 | Florida | -2.5 | 9-4 | (1-0) | 53 |
| 46 | Boise St | -2.75 | 12-2 | (2-0) | 56 |
| 47 | Nevada | -2.75 | 13-3 | (2-0) | 55 |
| 48 | Maryland | -2.75 | 12-3 | (1-1) | 52 |
| 49 | Missouri | -2.75 | 10-3 | (0-0) | 48 |
| 50 | Boston College | -2.75 | 10-4 | (1-1) | 54 |
| 51 | Georgia | -3 | 9-3 | (0-1) | 39 |
| 52 | Alabama | -3 | 9-4 | (1-0) | 70 |
| 53 | St Marys | -3.5 | 13-2 | (2-0) | 59 |
| 54 | Ohio State | -3.5 | 11-4 | (2-0) | 62 |
| 55 | Utah | -3.75 | 10-3 | (2-0) | T68 |
| 56 | Virginia Tech | -4 | 11-3 | (0-1) | T45 |
| 57 | UNLV | -4.25 | 11-3 | (0-1) | 44 |
| 58 | Washington | -5 | 11-4 | (1-1) | 64 |
| 59 | St Johns | -5 | 10-4 | (0-2) | 33 |
| 60 | New Mexico St | -5 | 12-3 | (0-0) | 71 |
| 61 | Northwestern | -5.25 | 10-5 | (1-1) | 72 |
| 62 | LSU | -5.25 | 9-3 | (0-0) | 75 |
| T63 | NC State | -5.25 | 10-4 | (0-1) | 57 |
| T63 | UCF | -5.25 | 10-4 | (1-1) | 66 |
| 65 | Georgetown | -5.75 | 10-3 | (0-2) | 49 |
| 66 | Nebraska | -5.75 | 10-5 | (0-1) | 78 |
| 67 | Coll Charl | -5.75 | 10-3 | (1-0) | T73 |
| 68 | BYU | -6 | 12-3 | (1-1) | 63 |
| T69 | San Diego St | -6.25 | 9-4 | (1-1) | 58 |
| T69 | Mid Tennessee | -6.25 | 9-4 | (1-0) | 77 |
| 71 | Oregon | -6.5 | 11-4 | (1-1) | 67 |
| 72 | Old Dominion | -6.5 | 10-3 | (1-0) | 81 |
| 73 | Uconn | -6.5 | 7-6 | (0-1) | 79 |
| 74 | Loy Chic | -6.75 | 11-3 | (1-1) | 85 |
| 75 | South Carolina | -7 | 9-4 | (0-1) | T68 |
| 76 | N Iowa | -7 | 8-6 | (0-2) | 50 |
| T77 | USC | -7.25 | 10-5 | (1-1) | 65 |
| T77 | Providence | -7.25 | 10-5 | (1-1) | 82 |
| 79 | VCU | -7.25 | 9-5 | (1-0) | 86 |
| 80 | Penn State | -7.5 | 11-4 | (1-1) | 84 |
| 81 | Tulane | -7.5 | 10-4 | (1-1) | 76 |
| 82 | Fresno St | -8 | 11-4 | (1-1) | 80 |
| 83 | Iowa State | -8.25 | 9-4 | (0-2) | 61 |
| 84 | Temple | -8.25 | 7-6 | (0-2) | 60 |
| 85 | Missouri St | -8.25 | 12-3 | (2-0) | NA |
| 86 | DePaul | -8.5 | 7-7 | (0-2) | 88 |
| 87 | Wisconsin | -9 | 8-7 | (1-1) | 89 |
| 88 | Vermont | -9 | 8-5 | (0-0) | 91 |
| 89 | Illinois | -9.25 | 10-5 | (0-2) | 92 |
| 90 | G Washington | -9.25 | 8-6 | (1-0) | 93 |
| 91 | Indiana | -9.75 | 8-6 | (1-1) | 94 |
| 92 | Rutgers | -10 | 10-5 | (0-2) | 83 |
| 93 | Memphis | -10.25 | 9-5 | (0-1) | T73 |
| 94 | Ole Miss | -10.75 | 8-5 | (1-0) | 101 |
| 95 | Tulsa | -11 | 9-5 | (2-0) | 99 |
| 96 | Pittsburgh | -11 | 8-6 | (0-1) | 100 |
| 97 | La Salle | -11.5 | 7-7 | (1-0) | 103 |
| 98 | Wake Forest | -12 | 7-6 | (0-1) | 102 |
| 99 | Oregon State | -12.25 | 9-5 | (1-1) | 95 |
| 100 | Iowa | -12.5 | 9-6 | (0-2) | 105 |
| 101 | Vanderbilt | -12.75 | 5-8 | (0-1) | 98 |
| 102 | Davidson | -13 | 5-7 | (0-1) | 97 |
| 103 | Colorado | -13 | 8-6 | (0-2) | 90 |
| 104 | Duquense | -13 | 10-4 | (1-0) | 108 |
| 105 | Washington St | -13.25 | 8-6 | (0-2) | 96 |
| 106 | St Josephs | -14 | 5-7 | (0-1) | 104 |
| 107 | Umass | -14.75 | 7-7 | (0-1) | 107 |
| 108 | Georgia Tech | -15.25 | 6-7 | (0-1) | 110 |
| 109 | California | -15.75 | 7-7 | (1-0) | 112 |
| 110 | Dayton | -15.75 | 6-7 | (0-1) | 106 |
| 111 | Stanford | -17 | 6-8 | (0-1) | 109 |
| 112 | Saint Louis | -17.25 | 7-7 | (0-1) | 111 |
| 113 | G Mason | -18 | 6-8 | (0-1) | 113 |
| 114 | Fordham | -18 | 5-8 | (0-1) | 114 |
| 115 | E Carolina | -22 | 6-7 | (0-2) | 115 |
| 116 | S Florida | -22.5 | 7-8 | (0-2) | 116 |
| 117 | Richmond | -24.75 | 3-10 | (1-0) | 117 |
Conference Ranks
| Rank | Conf | Avg |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Big 12 | 0.975 |
| 2 | Big East | -1.6 |
| 3 | ACC | -2.8167 |
| 4 | SEC | -2.9286 |
| 5 | Big 10 | -4.9286 |
| 6 | Other | -5.4375 |
| 7 | Pac 12 | -7.2083 |
| 8 | Amer | -7.6875 |
| 9 | A10 | -12.7679 |
Next are the rankings within every conference, as well as each team’s national ranking:
ACC
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Duke | 5.5 | 13-1 | (1-1) | 4 |
| 2 | Virginia | 3 | 12-1 | (1-0) | 11 |
| 3 | North Carolina | 2.75 | 12-2 | (1-0) | 15 |
| 4 | Miami | 1.25 | 12-1 | (1-0) | 20 |
| 5 | Clemson | 1 | 12-1 | (1-0) | 24 |
| 6 | Florida State | 0.25 | 11-2 | (0-1) | 26 |
| 7 | Syracuse | -1.5 | 12-2 | (1-0) | 34 |
| 8 | Notre Dame | -1.75 | 11-3 | (1-0) | 36 |
| 9 | Louisville | -2.5 | 10-3 | (0-0) | 43 |
| 10 | Boston College | -2.75 | 10-4 | (1-1) | 50 |
| 11 | Virginia Tech | -4 | 11-3 | (0-1) | 56 |
| 12 | NC State | -5.25 | 10-4 | (0-1) | T63 |
| 13 | Pittsburgh | -11 | 8-6 | (0-1) | 96 |
| 14 | Wake Forest | -12 | 7-6 | (0-1) | 98 |
| 15 | Georgia Tech | -15.25 | 6-7 | (0-1) | 108 |
Big 10
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Michigan State | 5.75 | 14-1 | (2-0) | 3 |
| 2 | Purdue | 4.25 | 13-2 | (2-0) | 9 |
| 3 | Michigan | -1.75 | 12-3 | (1-1) | 38 |
| 4 | Minnesota | -2 | 12-3 | (1-1) | 41 |
| 5 | Maryland | -2.75 | 12-3 | (1-1) | 48 |
| 6 | Ohio State | -3.5 | 11-4 | (2-0) | 54 |
| 7 | Northwestern | -5.25 | 10-5 | (1-1) | 61 |
| 8 | Nebraska | -5.75 | 10-5 | (0-1) | 66 |
| 9 | Penn State | -7.5 | 11-4 | (1-1) | 80 |
| 10 | Wisconsin | -9 | 8-7 | (1-1) | 87 |
| 11 | Illinois | -9.25 | 10-5 | (0-2) | 89 |
| 12 | Indiana | -9.75 | 8-6 | (1-1) | 91 |
| 13 | Rutgers | -10 | 10-5 | (0-2) | 92 |
| 14 | Iowa | -12.5 | 9-6 | (0-2) | 100 |
SEC
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Texas AM | 3.5 | 11-2 | (0-1) | 10 |
| 2 | Kentucky | 2 | 11-2 | (1-0) | 16 |
| 3 | Arkansas | 2 | 11-2 | (1-0) | 18 |
| 4 | Tennessee | 1.25 | 9-3 | (0-1) | 22 |
| 5 | Mississippi St | -1.25 | 12-1 | (0-0) | 32 |
| 6 | Auburn | -1.5 | 12-1 | (0-0) | 33 |
| 7 | Florida | -2.5 | 9-4 | (1-0) | 45 |
| 8 | Missouri | -2.75 | 10-3 | (0-0) | 49 |
| 9 | Georgia | -3 | 9-3 | (0-1) | 51 |
| 10 | Alabama | -3 | 9-4 | (1-0) | 52 |
| 11 | LSU | -5.25 | 9-3 | (0-0) | 62 |
| 12 | South Carolina | -7 | 9-4 | (0-1) | 75 |
| 13 | Ole Miss | -10.75 | 8-5 | (1-0) | 94 |
| 14 | Vanderbilt | -12.75 | 5-8 | (0-1) | 101 |
Big 12
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oklahoma | 7 | 11-1 | (1-0) | 1 |
| 2 | West Virginia | 5.25 | 13-1 | (2-0) | 6 |
| 3 | Texas Tech | 4.25 | 12-1 | (1-0) | 8 |
| 4 | Kansas | 3 | 11-2 | (1-0) | T12 |
| 5 | TCU | 2.75 | 12-1 | (0-1) | 14 |
| 6 | Baylor | 0.25 | 10-3 | (0-1) | 27 |
| 7 | OK State | -0.5 | 10-3 | (0-1) | 30 |
| 8 | Texas | -1.75 | 10-4 | (1-1) | 40 |
| 9 | Kansas State | -2.25 | 11-3 | (1-1) | 42 |
| 10 | Iowa State | -8.25 | 9-4 | (0-2) | 83 |
Pac 12
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Arizona St | 6.75 | 12-1 | (0-1) | 2 |
| 2 | Arizona | 1.75 | 11-3 | (1-0) | 19 |
| 3 | UCLA | -1.25 | 11-3 | (2-0) | 31 |
| 4 | Utah | -3.75 | 10-3 | (2-0) | 55 |
| 5 | Washington | -5 | 11-4 | (1-1) | 58 |
| 6 | Oregon | -6.5 | 11-4 | (1-1) | 71 |
| 7 | USC | -7.25 | 10-5 | (1-1) | T77 |
| 8 | Oregon State | -12.25 | 9-5 | (1-1) | 99 |
| 9 | Colorado | -13 | 8-6 | (0-2) | 103 |
| 10 | Washington St | -13.25 | 8-6 | (0-2) | 105 |
| 11 | California | -15.75 | 7-7 | (1-0) | 109 |
| 12 | Stanford | -17 | 6-8 | (0-1) | 111 |
American
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wichita St | 3 | 11-2 | (1-0) | T12 |
| 2 | Cincinnati | 1.25 | 12-2 | (1-0) | 21 |
| 3 | SMU | -1.5 | 12-3 | (2-0) | 35 |
| 4 | Houston | -1.75 | 12-2 | (2-0) | 37 |
| 5 | UCF | -5.25 | 10-4 | (1-1) | T63 |
| 6 | Uconn | -6.5 | 7-6 | (0-1) | 73 |
| 7 | Tulane | -7.5 | 10-4 | (1-1) | 81 |
| 8 | Temple | -8.25 | 7-6 | (0-2) | 84 |
| 9 | Memphis | -10.25 | 9-5 | (0-1) | 93 |
| 10 | Tulsa | -11 | 9-5 | (2-0) | 95 |
| 11 | E Carolina | -22 | 6-7 | (0-2) | 115 |
| 12 | S Florida | -22.5 | 7-8 | (0-2) | 116 |
Big East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Xavier | 5.5 | 14-1 | (2-0) | 5 |
| 2 | Villanova | 4.5 | 13-1 | (1-1) | 7 |
| 3 | Seton Hall | 2 | 13-2 | (2-0) | 17 |
| 4 | Creighton | 0.75 | 11-3 | (1-1) | 25 |
| 5 | Butler | 0.25 | 12-3 | (2-0) | 28 |
| 6 | Marquette | -2.5 | 10-4 | (1-1) | 44 |
| 7 | St Johns | -5 | 10-4 | (0-2) | 59 |
| 8 | Georgetown | -5.75 | 10-3 | (0-2) | 65 |
| 9 | Providence | -7.25 | 10-5 | (1-1) | T77 |
| 10 | DePaul | -8.5 | 7-7 | (0-2) | 86 |
A10
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | St Bonaventure | -0.5 | 11-2 | (1-0) | 29 |
| 2 | Rhode Island | -1.75 | 9-3 | (1-0) | 39 |
| 3 | VCU | -7.25 | 9-5 | (1-0) | 79 |
| 4 | G Washington | -9.25 | 8-6 | (1-0) | 90 |
| 5 | La Salle | -11.5 | 7-7 | (1-0) | 97 |
| 6 | Davidson | -13 | 5-7 | (0-1) | 102 |
| 7 | Duquense | -13 | 10-4 | (1-0) | 104 |
| 8 | St Josephs | -14 | 5-7 | (0-1) | 106 |
| 9 | Umass | -14.75 | 7-7 | (0-1) | 107 |
| 10 | Dayton | -15.75 | 6-7 | (0-1) | 110 |
| 11 | Saint Louis | -17.25 | 7-7 | (0-1) | 112 |
| 12 | G Mason | -18 | 6-8 | (0-1) | 113 |
| 13 | Fordham | -18 | 5-8 | (0-1) | 114 |
| 14 | Richmond | -24.75 | 3-10 | (1-0) | 117 |
Other
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gonzaga | 1 | 12-3 | (2-0) | 23 |
| 2 | Boise St | -2.75 | 12-2 | (2-0) | 46 |
| 3 | Nevada | -2.75 | 13-3 | (2-0) | 47 |
| 4 | St Marys | -3.5 | 13-2 | (2-0) | 53 |
| 5 | UNLV | -4.25 | 11-3 | (0-1) | 57 |
| 6 | New Mexico St | -5 | 12-3 | (0-0) | 60 |
| 7 | Coll Charl | -5.75 | 10-3 | (1-0) | 67 |
| 8 | BYU | -6 | 12-3 | (1-1) | 68 |
| T9 | San Diego St | -6.25 | 9-4 | (1-1) | T69 |
| T9 | Mid Tennessee | -6.25 | 9-4 | (1-0) | T69 |
| 11 | Old Dominion | -6.5 | 10-3 | (1-0) | 72 |
| 12 | Loy Chic | -6.75 | 11-3 | (1-1) | 74 |
| 13 | N Iowa | -7 | 8-6 | (0-2) | 76 |
| 14 | Fresno St | -8 | 11-4 | (1-1) | 82 |
| 15 | Missouri St | -8.25 | 12-3 | (2-0) | 85 |
| 16 | Vermont | -9 | 8-5 | (0-0) | 88 |
