Body Of Work(+) Rankings - 1/16/2018
Jack DiTrapani
January 16th, 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. Villanova, Virginia)
- Bin 2: Teams that are “solidly ranked.” Not quite elite, but clearly top 25. (e.g. North Carolina, Gonzaga)
- 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. Michigan, 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, VCU)
- Bin -2: Bad, no sniffing the tournament. (e.g. Fordham)
- 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.
1/16: Who Does My System Love/Hate?
As we dive deeper into the season, more and more “bracketologists” are starting to release mock brackets. This gives us a very early glimpse of who may be comfortably in the tournament right now and who may be a bubble team. It also gives me an idea of where the general consensus may be very different from my rankings generated here. There are several teams that for whatever reason my system loves relative to the Joe Lunardi’s of the world, and some teams my system hates. This week I will highlight a few of these teams.
LOVE:
- NC State and Boston College: According to bracketmatrix.com (a really cool site!), these two teams are barely on the bubble right now, if they are on it at all. My question is, why not?? Both teams have 6 losses right now, on par with a generic bubble team. Boston College has two nice wins over Duke and FSU, and 4 of their 6 losses are to ranked teams. The other two losses, albeit not great, are to two not-horrible teams on the road (Providence and Nebraska.) NC State has beaten three ranked teams (Duke, Clemson, and Arizona in the Bahamas) and has avoided ugly losses except for a bad misstep against UNC Greensboro. Sure, these resumes aren’t perfect, but every team near the “bubble” right now has flaws, and I don’t see how these two teams are being viewed so negatively by the experts. Right now in my objective rankings, NC State’s body of work is ranked 34th and BC’s is 36th, good for 9 seeds.
- The Bottom of the Big 12: The Big 12 is stacked this year. It is by far the deepest conference in the country. According to my rankings, if the season ended right now, the conference would get 9 of its 10 teams into the dance. Now obviously that won’t happen as the conference will cannibalize itself, but teams like OK State, Kansas State, Baylor, and Texas have tournament-quality bodies of work right now. OK State and Kansas State in particular are getting overlooked by the consensus. It will all work itself out as the season moves on, but my system really likes the depth of this conference.
- Mississippi State: Miss St played a horrifically weak nonconference schedule, with zero good wins and a loss to the only team they played with a pulse (Cincinnati). Even with a mediocre 1-3 start to SEC play, my rankings still have them (barely) in the tourney, depite not showing up on the radar of any mock brackets online. However, they only have 4 losses (none of which are particularly egregious) and they did pick up a nice win over Arkansas. Will they stay where they are as the season rolls on? Probably not, but you could argue that right this second, their resume is better than, say, Syracuse’s or Maryland’s.
HATE:
- Syracuse: Syracuse’s resume is very similar to NC State’s and Boston College’s. They have 6 losses, mostly to good teams, but they have some iffy losses as well (home to St. Bonaventure, at Wake). However, they don’t have the quality wins that those other two ACC teams have. Their only two decent wins are versus Maryland and Virginia Tech (both at home), both teams that are bubble-worthy at best. How are they in “expert” brackets right now without BC and NC State even being close? Syracuse is 60th in my rankings right now, clearly out of the tourney.
- Providence: For some reason my system hates Providence. Not entirely sure why, but the losses to Minnesota (at home) and UMass aren’t aging well. The Friars fall in at 59th in my rankings.
- USC: USC’s best win is… Middle Tennessee? Utah? New Mexico State? Vanderbilt? Add this lack of wins to a six-loss resume that includes losses to Princeton, Washington (both at home), and Stanford and you have a body of work that shouldn’t be remotely close to the bubble right now.
- The Middle of the SEC: The middle of the SEC is a mess to figure out right now. Teams like Georgia, Missouri, Alabama, and LSU are confusing to say the least. My system actually has been a fan of LSU’s, but looks critically at Missouri, Georgia, and Alabama (especially Alabama) right now. It has all 4 of these teams (barely) out of the tournament, while the consensus is that they all have a decent shot at being in.
All of this will work itself out over time. Teams like NC State will either crash and burn and fall in my rankings, or continue to do well and get the attention of the “experts” (wouldn’t it be great to just make mock brackets for a living?). Still, it’s interesting to see where my rankings differ from the consensus.
Note that 47th place in this week’s rankings is the current tournament bubble “cut-off line” for any at-large team. So, according to my rankings, this week Boise State would be the last at-large team to make the tournament. The bubble line has now been added to the conference plots later down on the page as a dotted red line.
This includes all games through Monday, January 15th:
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | Prev Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oklahoma | 8.5 | 14-2 | (4-1) | 4 |
| 2 | Virginia | 7.75 | 16-1 | (5-0) | 2 |
| 3 | Texas Tech | 7.5 | 15-2 | (4-1) | 3 |
| 4 | Villanova | 7 | 16-1 | (4-1) | 5 |
| 5 | Purdue | 7 | 17-2 | (6-0) | 8 |
| 6 | Kansas | 6 | 15-3 | (5-1) | 12 |
| 7 | West Virginia | 5.25 | 15-3 | (4-2) | 1 |
| 8 | Xavier | 4.75 | 16-3 | (4-2) | 11 |
| 9 | Duke | 4.25 | 16-2 | (4-2) | 9 |
| 10 | Clemson | 3.5 | 15-2 | (4-1) | 10 |
| 11 | Wichita St | 3.25 | 15-2 | (5-0) | 13 |
| 12 | North Carolina | 3.25 | 14-4 | (3-2) | 22 |
| 13 | Auburn | 3 | 16-1 | (4-0) | 19 |
| 14 | Tennessee | 2.75 | 12-4 | (3-2) | 26 |
| T15 | Michigan State | 2.25 | 16-3 | (4-2) | 6 |
| T15 | Gonzaga | 2.25 | 16-3 | (6-0) | 16 |
| 17 | Kentucky | 2.25 | 14-3 | (4-1) | 21 |
| 18 | Arizona St | 2 | 14-3 | (2-3) | 7 |
| 19 | Seton Hall | 1.75 | 15-3 | (4-1) | 14 |
| 20 | Michigan | 1.75 | 16-4 | (5-2) | 35 |
| 21 | Cincinnati | 1.5 | 16-2 | (5-0) | 17 |
| 22 | Ohio State | 1.25 | 15-4 | (6-0) | 28 |
| 23 | TCU | 0.25 | 13-4 | (1-4) | 15 |
| 24 | Creighton | 0 | 14-4 | (4-2) | T23 |
| 25 | Rhode Island | 0 | 13-3 | (5-0) | 32 |
| 26 | Arizona | -0.5 | 14-4 | (4-1) | 25 |
| 27 | Louisville | -1 | 13-4 | (3-1) | 39 |
| 28 | Marquette | -1.5 | 13-6 | (4-3) | 36 |
| 29 | Miami | -2.25 | 13-4 | (2-3) | 27 |
| 30 | Nevada | -2.25 | 15-3 | (4-0) | 40 |
| 31 | Florida | -2.25 | 12-5 | (4-1) | 18 |
| 32 | St Marys | -2.5 | 17-2 | (6-0) | 46 |
| 33 | Houston | -3 | 14-3 | (4-1) | 42 |
| 34 | NC State | -3 | 12-6 | (2-3) | 50 |
| 35 | Butler | -3 | 13-7 | (3-4) | 33 |
| 36 | Boston College | -3.25 | 13-6 | (3-3) | 44 |
| 37 | Baylor | -3.25 | 12-6 | (2-4) | T29 |
| 38 | Florida State | -3.5 | 13-5 | (2-4) | 20 |
| T39 | Arkansas | -3.5 | 12-5 | (2-3) | 37 |
| T39 | Kansas State | -3.5 | 12-5 | (2-3) | 43 |
| 41 | Notre Dame | -3.75 | 13-5 | (3-2) | T23 |
| 42 | Texas | -3.75 | 11-6 | (2-3) | 48 |
| 43 | Texas AM | -4.25 | 11-6 | (0-5) | 31 |
| 44 | OK State | -4.5 | 12-6 | (2-4) | T29 |
| 45 | Mississippi St | -4.5 | 13-4 | (1-3) | 34 |
| 46 | New Mexico St | -4.75 | 15-3 | (3-0) | 60 |
| 47 | Boise St | -5 | 15-3 | (5-1) | 59 |
| 48 | UCLA | -5 | 13-5 | (4-2) | 47 |
| 49 | LSU | -5.75 | 11-5 | (2-2) | 52 |
| 50 | Mid Tennessee | -5.75 | 13-4 | (5-0) | 62 |
| 51 | Virginia Tech | -6 | 13-5 | (2-3) | 53 |
| 52 | Georgia | -6 | 11-5 | (2-3) | 41 |
| 53 | Maryland | -6.25 | 14-6 | (3-4) | 38 |
| 54 | Missouri | -6.5 | 12-5 | (2-2) | 45 |
| 55 | Alabama | -6.5 | 11-6 | (3-2) | 65 |
| 56 | ETSU | -6.75 | 14-4 | (5-0) | NA |
| 57 | Oregon | -7 | 12-6 | (2-3) | 77 |
| 58 | St Bonaventure | -7 | 12-5 | (2-3) | 57 |
| 59 | Providence | -7.25 | 13-6 | (4-2) | 66 |
| 60 | Syracuse | -7.25 | 12-6 | (1-4) | 55 |
| T61 | Washington | -7.25 | 13-5 | (3-2) | 56 |
| T61 | W Kentucky | -7.25 | 13-5 | (5-0) | NA |
| 63 | SMU | -7.25 | 12-6 | (2-3) | 49 |
| 64 | BYU | -8 | 15-4 | (4-2) | 71 |
| 65 | Uconn | -8 | 10-7 | (3-2) | 73 |
| 66 | UCF | -8.25 | 12-5 | (3-2) | 51 |
| 67 | San Diego St | -8.25 | 11-5 | (3-2) | 64 |
| 68 | Nebraska | -8.25 | 13-7 | (3-3) | 58 |
| 69 | UNLV | -8.25 | 13-4 | (2-2) | 67 |
| 70 | Georgetown | -8.5 | 12-5 | (2-4) | 72 |
| 71 | Old Dominion | -9 | 13-4 | (4-1) | 63 |
| 72 | Minnesota | -9 | 14-6 | (3-4) | 54 |
| 73 | Utah | -9 | 10-7 | (2-4) | 61 |
| 74 | Northwestern | -9.25 | 11-8 | (2-4) | 69 |
| 75 | Vermont | -9.25 | 14-5 | (4-0) | 80 |
| 76 | South Carolina | -9.5 | 11-6 | (2-3) | 74 |
| 77 | Loy Chic | -9.5 | 14-4 | (4-2) | 75 |
| 78 | USC | -9.75 | 13-6 | (4-2) | 84 |
| 79 | Iowa State | -9.75 | 10-6 | (1-4) | 79 |
| 80 | Indiana | -10.5 | 11-7 | (4-2) | 85 |
| 81 | Colorado | -10.75 | 11-7 | (3-3) | 83 |
| 82 | Memphis | -11 | 12-6 | (3-2) | 89 |
| 83 | VCU | -11.25 | 11-7 | (3-2) | 78 |
| 84 | Davidson | -11.5 | 9-7 | (4-1) | 96 |
| 85 | St Johns | -11.5 | 10-8 | (0-6) | 70 |
| 86 | Ole Miss | -12.25 | 10-7 | (3-2) | 91 |
| 87 | Missouri St | -12.5 | 14-5 | (4-2) | 86 |
| 88 | Tulane | -12.5 | 11-6 | (2-3) | 68 |
| 89 | Fresno St | -12.75 | 13-6 | (3-3) | 88 |
| 90 | Temple | -13 | 8-9 | (1-5) | 87 |
| 91 | Wisconsin | -13.25 | 9-9 | (2-3) | 92 |
| 92 | Oregon State | -13.25 | 10-7 | (2-3) | 93 |
| 93 | Penn State | -13.75 | 13-7 | (3-4) | 76 |
| 94 | Rutgers | -13.75 | 11-8 | (1-5) | 81 |
| 95 | Georgia Tech | -14.5 | 10-7 | (3-1) | 101 |
| 96 | Duquense | -14.5 | 13-5 | (4-1) | 94 |
| 97 | Stanford | -15 | 10-8 | (4-1) | 104 |
| 98 | Tulsa | -15.25 | 10-8 | (3-3) | 97 |
| 99 | Wake Forest | -15.25 | 8-9 | (1-4) | 98 |
| 100 | Vanderbilt | -15.25 | 6-11 | (1-4) | 99 |
| 101 | Dayton | -16 | 9-8 | (3-2) | 108 |
| 102 | DePaul | -16.25 | 8-10 | (1-5) | 90 |
| 103 | Illinois | -17 | 10-9 | (0-7) | 95 |
| 104 | Iowa | -17.25 | 10-9 | (1-5) | 107 |
| 105 | Umass | -18 | 10-8 | (3-2) | 109 |
| 106 | Washington St | -18 | 9-8 | (1-4) | 106 |
| 107 | Pittsburgh | -19.25 | 8-10 | (0-5) | T102 |
| 108 | St Josephs | -19.75 | 7-9 | (2-3) | 100 |
| 109 | G Mason | -19.75 | 9-9 | (3-2) | 112 |
| 110 | La Salle | -21 | 7-11 | (1-3) | 105 |
| 111 | G Washington | -21 | 8-10 | (1-4) | T102 |
| 112 | Saint Louis | -23.75 | 8-10 | (1-3) | 110 |
| 113 | California | -25 | 7-11 | (1-4) | 111 |
| 114 | E Carolina | -26.75 | 7-10 | (1-5) | 114 |
| 115 | Fordham | -27.25 | 6-11 | (1-4) | 113 |
| 116 | S Florida | -28.5 | 7-11 | (0-5) | 115 |
| 117 | Richmond | -31.5 | 4-13 | (2-3) | 116 |
Conference Ranks
| Rank | Conf | Avg |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Big 12 | 0.275 |
| 2 | Big East | -3.45 |
| 3 | ACC | -4.0167 |
| 4 | SEC | -4.875 |
| 5 | Other | -6.8438 |
| 6 | Big 10 | -7.5714 |
| 7 | Pac 12 | -9.875 |
| 8 | Amer | -10.7292 |
| 9 | A10 | -17.3036 |
Next are the rankings within every conference, as well as each team’s national ranking:
ACC
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Virginia | 7.75 | 16-1 | (5-0) | 2 |
| 2 | Duke | 4.25 | 16-2 | (4-2) | 9 |
| 3 | Clemson | 3.5 | 15-2 | (4-1) | 10 |
| 4 | North Carolina | 3.25 | 14-4 | (3-2) | 12 |
| 5 | Louisville | -1 | 13-4 | (3-1) | 27 |
| 6 | Miami | -2.25 | 13-4 | (2-3) | 29 |
| 7 | NC State | -3 | 12-6 | (2-3) | 34 |
| 8 | Boston College | -3.25 | 13-6 | (3-3) | 36 |
| 9 | Florida State | -3.5 | 13-5 | (2-4) | 38 |
| 10 | Notre Dame | -3.75 | 13-5 | (3-2) | 41 |
| 11 | Virginia Tech | -6 | 13-5 | (2-3) | 51 |
| 12 | Syracuse | -7.25 | 12-6 | (1-4) | 60 |
| 13 | Georgia Tech | -14.5 | 10-7 | (3-1) | 95 |
| 14 | Wake Forest | -15.25 | 8-9 | (1-4) | 99 |
| 15 | Pittsburgh | -19.25 | 8-10 | (0-5) | 107 |
Big 10
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Purdue | 7 | 17-2 | (6-0) | 5 |
| 2 | Michigan State | 2.25 | 16-3 | (4-2) | T15 |
| 3 | Michigan | 1.75 | 16-4 | (5-2) | 20 |
| 4 | Ohio State | 1.25 | 15-4 | (6-0) | 22 |
| 5 | Maryland | -6.25 | 14-6 | (3-4) | 53 |
| 6 | Nebraska | -8.25 | 13-7 | (3-3) | 68 |
| 7 | Minnesota | -9 | 14-6 | (3-4) | 72 |
| 8 | Northwestern | -9.25 | 11-8 | (2-4) | 74 |
| 9 | Indiana | -10.5 | 11-7 | (4-2) | 80 |
| 10 | Wisconsin | -13.25 | 9-9 | (2-3) | 91 |
| 11 | Penn State | -13.75 | 13-7 | (3-4) | 93 |
| 12 | Rutgers | -13.75 | 11-8 | (1-5) | 94 |
| 13 | Illinois | -17 | 10-9 | (0-7) | 103 |
| 14 | Iowa | -17.25 | 10-9 | (1-5) | 104 |
SEC
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Auburn | 3 | 16-1 | (4-0) | 13 |
| 2 | Tennessee | 2.75 | 12-4 | (3-2) | 14 |
| 3 | Kentucky | 2.25 | 14-3 | (4-1) | 17 |
| 4 | Florida | -2.25 | 12-5 | (4-1) | 31 |
| 5 | Arkansas | -3.5 | 12-5 | (2-3) | T39 |
| 6 | Texas AM | -4.25 | 11-6 | (0-5) | 43 |
| 7 | Mississippi St | -4.5 | 13-4 | (1-3) | 45 |
| 8 | LSU | -5.75 | 11-5 | (2-2) | 49 |
| 9 | Georgia | -6 | 11-5 | (2-3) | 52 |
| T10 | Missouri | -6.5 | 12-5 | (2-2) | 54 |
| T10 | Alabama | -6.5 | 11-6 | (3-2) | 55 |
| 12 | South Carolina | -9.5 | 11-6 | (2-3) | 76 |
| 13 | Ole Miss | -12.25 | 10-7 | (3-2) | 86 |
| 14 | Vanderbilt | -15.25 | 6-11 | (1-4) | 100 |
Big 12
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Oklahoma | 8.5 | 14-2 | (4-1) | 1 |
| 2 | Texas Tech | 7.5 | 15-2 | (4-1) | 3 |
| 3 | Kansas | 6 | 15-3 | (5-1) | 6 |
| 4 | West Virginia | 5.25 | 15-3 | (4-2) | 7 |
| 5 | TCU | 0.25 | 13-4 | (1-4) | 23 |
| 6 | Baylor | -3.25 | 12-6 | (2-4) | 37 |
| 7 | Kansas State | -3.5 | 12-5 | (2-3) | T39 |
| 8 | Texas | -3.75 | 11-6 | (2-3) | 42 |
| 9 | OK State | -4.5 | 12-6 | (2-4) | 44 |
| 10 | Iowa State | -9.75 | 10-6 | (1-4) | 79 |
Pac 12
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Arizona St | 2 | 14-3 | (2-3) | 18 |
| 2 | Arizona | -0.5 | 14-4 | (4-1) | 26 |
| 3 | UCLA | -5 | 13-5 | (4-2) | 48 |
| 4 | Oregon | -7 | 12-6 | (2-3) | 57 |
| 5 | Washington | -7.25 | 13-5 | (3-2) | T61 |
| 6 | Utah | -9 | 10-7 | (2-4) | 73 |
| 7 | USC | -9.75 | 13-6 | (4-2) | 78 |
| 8 | Colorado | -10.75 | 11-7 | (3-3) | 81 |
| 9 | Oregon State | -13.25 | 10-7 | (2-3) | 92 |
| 10 | Stanford | -15 | 10-8 | (4-1) | 97 |
| 11 | Washington St | -18 | 9-8 | (1-4) | 106 |
| 12 | California | -25 | 7-11 | (1-4) | 113 |
American
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Wichita St | 3.25 | 15-2 | (5-0) | 11 |
| 2 | Cincinnati | 1.5 | 16-2 | (5-0) | 21 |
| 3 | Houston | -3 | 14-3 | (4-1) | 33 |
| 4 | SMU | -7.25 | 12-6 | (2-3) | 63 |
| 5 | Uconn | -8 | 10-7 | (3-2) | 65 |
| 6 | UCF | -8.25 | 12-5 | (3-2) | 66 |
| 7 | Memphis | -11 | 12-6 | (3-2) | 82 |
| 8 | Tulane | -12.5 | 11-6 | (2-3) | 88 |
| 9 | Temple | -13 | 8-9 | (1-5) | 90 |
| 10 | Tulsa | -15.25 | 10-8 | (3-3) | 98 |
| 11 | E Carolina | -26.75 | 7-10 | (1-5) | 114 |
| 12 | S Florida | -28.5 | 7-11 | (0-5) | 116 |
Big East
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Villanova | 7 | 16-1 | (4-1) | 4 |
| 2 | Xavier | 4.75 | 16-3 | (4-2) | 8 |
| 3 | Seton Hall | 1.75 | 15-3 | (4-1) | 19 |
| 4 | Creighton | 0 | 14-4 | (4-2) | 24 |
| 5 | Marquette | -1.5 | 13-6 | (4-3) | 28 |
| 6 | Butler | -3 | 13-7 | (3-4) | 35 |
| 7 | Providence | -7.25 | 13-6 | (4-2) | 59 |
| 8 | Georgetown | -8.5 | 12-5 | (2-4) | 70 |
| 9 | St Johns | -11.5 | 10-8 | (0-6) | 85 |
| 10 | DePaul | -16.25 | 8-10 | (1-5) | 102 |
A10
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rhode Island | 0 | 13-3 | (5-0) | 25 |
| 2 | St Bonaventure | -7 | 12-5 | (2-3) | 58 |
| 3 | VCU | -11.25 | 11-7 | (3-2) | 83 |
| 4 | Davidson | -11.5 | 9-7 | (4-1) | 84 |
| 5 | Duquense | -14.5 | 13-5 | (4-1) | 96 |
| 6 | Dayton | -16 | 9-8 | (3-2) | 101 |
| 7 | Umass | -18 | 10-8 | (3-2) | 105 |
| 8 | St Josephs | -19.75 | 7-9 | (2-3) | 108 |
| 9 | G Mason | -19.75 | 9-9 | (3-2) | 109 |
| 10 | La Salle | -21 | 7-11 | (1-3) | 110 |
| 11 | G Washington | -21 | 8-10 | (1-4) | 111 |
| 12 | Saint Louis | -23.75 | 8-10 | (1-3) | 112 |
| 13 | Fordham | -27.25 | 6-11 | (1-4) | 115 |
| 14 | Richmond | -31.5 | 4-13 | (2-3) | 117 |
Other
| Rank | Team | Score | Record | Conf | NatlRank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gonzaga | 2.25 | 16-3 | (6-0) | T15 |
| 2 | Nevada | -2.25 | 15-3 | (4-0) | 30 |
| 3 | St Marys | -2.5 | 17-2 | (6-0) | 32 |
| 4 | New Mexico St | -4.75 | 15-3 | (3-0) | 46 |
| 5 | Boise St | -5 | 15-3 | (5-1) | 47 |
| 6 | Mid Tennessee | -5.75 | 13-4 | (5-0) | 50 |
| 7 | ETSU | -6.75 | 14-4 | (5-0) | 56 |
| 8 | W Kentucky | -7.25 | 13-5 | (5-0) | T61 |
| 9 | BYU | -8 | 15-4 | (4-2) | 64 |
| 10 | San Diego St | -8.25 | 11-5 | (3-2) | 67 |
| 11 | UNLV | -8.25 | 13-4 | (2-2) | 69 |
| 12 | Old Dominion | -9 | 13-4 | (4-1) | 71 |
| 13 | Vermont | -9.25 | 14-5 | (4-0) | 75 |
| 14 | Loy Chic | -9.5 | 14-4 | (4-2) | 77 |
| 15 | Missouri St | -12.5 | 14-5 | (4-2) | 87 |
| 16 | Fresno St | -12.75 | 13-6 | (3-3) | 89 |
