2022 College Basketball Preseason Rankings & Ratings For All 363 Teams

Gonzaga tops our 2022 college basketball preseason rankings, while defending NCAA champion Kansas starts in somewhat unfamiliar territory.

November 3, 2022 - by Jason Lisk

Jalen Wilson's number matches our preseason ranking for Kansas (Scott Winters/Icon Sportswire)

Our official 2022-23 college basketball preseason rankings have arrived. If you want to read an in-depth description of how these rankings are created, check out our blog post on TeamRankings about how we make college basketball preseason ratings.

Also, while you may disagree with some (or many) of our preseason rankings this year, just keep in mind that overall, our preseason college basketball ratings have proven to be some of the most accurate in existence. Jump down to the data if you’d like.

Otherwise, read on for:

  • A discussion of preseason NCAAB rankings highlights
  • A full list of rankings and team ratings for all 363 teams in Division I this year
  • The underlying factors that contributed the most to each team’s rating

Let’s start with what everybody asks first: “Who’s your No. 1 team?”

Gonzaga, Still the Regular-Season No. 1

For the third year in a row, the Gonzaga Bulldogs start the season as our No. 1 team. They have never finished in that spot by the end of the NCAA tournament, though.

The Bulldogs entered the NCAA tournament as the No. 1 overall seed last year, justifying our preseason ranking, but they lost to Arkansas in the Sweet 16. However, they are in yearly “reload” territory, and potential National Player of the Year Drew Timme is back yet again. They lost freshman Chet Holmgren and senior Andrew Nembhard, but all of the other contributors to last year’s squad are returning, and they have a deep sophomore class.

One key transfer is Malachi Smith, who averaged nearly 20 points per game for Chattanooga (a No. 13 NCAA tournament seed last year) and shot over 40 percent from three-point range. Gonzaga may not have an impact freshman like they had in Holmgren and Jalen Suggs the last two years (two top-five NBA draft picks), but power forward Braden Huff could be the next in a line of quality college big men at Gonzaga.

Gonzaga is No. 1 in large part because its floor is so high. Thirteen different schools have finished with a predictive rating of 20.0 or higher at least once in the past four seasons. Gonzaga is the only team in NCAA Division I that has done it all four seasons. The only other schools to do it twice are Duke, Kansas, Michigan State, and Houston.

With so much talent returning from last year’s excellent team, we think Gonzaga is likely to add a fifth straight season to that streak of elite performance.

Where Is Defending NCAA Champion Kansas?

Fresh off its national title run, Kansas opens the year at No. 10 in our preseason rankings. If that feels low for Kansas, well, it is. It’s the first time in over a decade that Kansas starts the year lower than No. 7 in our preseason rankings (in the 2011-2012 season they were our preseason No. 14).

The Jayhawks will be without five of the top seven players from their title run: Ochai Agbaji, Christian Braun, Mitch Lightfoot, David McCormack, and Remy Martin. Only Dajuan Harris and Jalen Wilson return as starters, so they’ll have some early-season questions to answer.

Still, it’s not like we’re projecting a huge dropoff for Kansas. The Jayhawks should still contend for a top NCAA seed and are among the favorites in the Big 12 this year.

How Good Is Duke’s Incoming Freshman Class?

We use recruiting info going back to the 1998-99 season to help inform our preseason ratings. Duke’s recruiting class this year is the second-best in that span of over 20 years, based on our metric that transforms recruiting rankings into expected team power rating impact.

The top recruiting class also belonged to Duke four years ago. That class featured Zion Williamson, RJ Barrett, and Cam Reddish.

The teams with the previous 10 best recruiting classes have an extremely strong performance record. Those 10 seasons feature two NCAA champions and two runners-up. The rest were all No.1 or No. 2 NCAA seeds.

So why are the Blue Devils only No. 9 in our preseason ratings? It’s because they are returning very little production from last year’s squad.

The knock on that Zion Williamson team from a few years ago was that it was inexperienced, and this year’s Duke squad features even less returning production than Zion’s squad did.

Here are the most similar recent examples of incredible recruiting classes paired with little returning production:

  • 2018-19 Duke (No. 1 seed, lost in Elite Eight)
  • 2017-18 Duke (No. 2 seed, lost in Elite Eight)
  • 2013-14 Kansas (No. 2 seed, lost in second round)
  • 2013-14 Kentucky (No. 8 seed, lost in title game)

Those are good outcomes, but this year’s Duke team features a bit less returning production than those two historical Duke teams, and a lot less returning production than the Kansas and Kentucky teams.

Oh, and you might have heard that Duke made a coaching change this year. While new head coach Jon Scheyer might be end up being fantastic, it’s an uncertainty at this point. In that context, we’re also applying a slight penalty based on Duke moving from a Hall of Fame coach to someone with no previous head coaching experience.

NCAAB Preseason Top 25 Comparison

Moving on to the rest of our 2022-23 college basketball Top 25, let’s take a look at all of the teams that made it into at least one preseason Top 25 from the following group of college basketball prognosticators:

The table below lists all such teams, along with their preseason ranking in each system. It also shows the average rank for each team, and concludes with a column indicating how far TR is from the consensus.

(In that last column, a positive number means we ranked a team better than the consensus rankings, while a negative number means we ranked a team worse than consensus.)

For teams receiving no votes in the polls, we used a rank of 55. Teams are listed in ascending order by average rank, and all rankings were recorded as of Nov. 1.

Teams With At Least One Top 25 Preseason Ranking

TeamTRKPBTAPCPAVGTR DIFF
Gonzaga131221.80.8
N Carolina394113.60.6
Kentucky218443.81.8
Baylor562564.8-0.2
Houston676335.0-1.0
Tennessee44311116.62.6
Kansas10810557.6-2.4
Texas72712128.01.0
Duke9155788.8-0.2
UCLA14119879.8-4.2
Indiana81211131411.63.6
Arkansas151416101013.0-2.0
Arizona121014171313.21.2
Virginia16518181815.0-1.0
Auburn111322151515.24.2
TX Christian181612141615.2-2.8
Villanova132017161716.63.6
Creighton2322239917.2-5.8
San Diego St201913192018.2-1.8
Texas Tech191727252422.43.4
Alabama211840201923.62.6
Illinois373315232326.2-10.8
Dayton222436242526.24.2
Purdue272531292627.60.6
Michigan St253124313028.23.2
Oregon342938212128.6-5.4
Michigan352639222228.8-6.2
Iowa262330363129.23.2
Miami (FL)284221282829.41.4
VA Tech302125403530.20.2
Xavier173820334430.413.4
Texas A&M394519262731.2-7.8
Florida243526384132.88.8

Preseason Top 25 Comparison Highlights

When comparing how teams are ranked across the various systems in the table above, a few highlights stick out.

Teams The Human Polls Love (Relatively)

Even though rankings systems will always have their differences, the human polls are clearly more optimistic about some teams than data-driven systems are.

Below are the teams that are ranked higher in both the preseason AP and Coaches Polls than in any of three leading data-driven rankings systems (TeamRankings, Pomeroy, Torvik).

We list each team below, along with the difference between (a) its WORST human poll ranking and (b) its BEST ranking out of those three data-driven systems.

  • Creighton +13 (No. 9 in both polls, No. 22 in KP)
  • Oregon +8 (No. 21 in both polls, No. 29 in KP)
  • Arkansas +4 (No. 10 in both polls, No. 14 in KP)
  • Michigan +4 (No. 22 in both polls, No. 26 in KP)
  • Houston+3 (No. 3 in both polls, No. 6 in TR and BT)
  • Kansas +3 (No. 5 in both polls, No. 8 in KP)
  • North Carolina +2 (No. 1 in both polls, No. 3 in TR)
  • UCLA +1 (No. 8 in AP, No. 9 in KP)

Why are the pollsters higher on those teams? We can’t say for sure, but it’s a mix of big-name programs and schools with some recent history of tournament success. 

Teams The Human Polls Dislike (Relatively)

The teams below are ranked lower in the preseason AP and Coaches Polls than in any of the data-driven rankings systems.

Here we list the difference between (a) its BEST human poll ranking and (b) its WORST ranking out of the three data-driven systems.

  • Tennessee -7 (No. 11 in both polls, No. 4 in TR and KP) 
  • Texas -5 (No. 12 in both polls, No. 7 in TR and BT)
  • Virginia Tech -5 (No. 35 in Coaches Poll, No. 30 in TR)
  • Florida -3 (No. 38 in AP Poll, No. 35 in KP)
  • Indiana -1 (No. 13 in AP Poll, No. 12 in KP)
  • Iowa -1 (No. 31 in Coaches Poll, No. 30 in BT)

These are all Power Five programs, and they tended to be some of the teams that were power-rated higher than their record or seeding a year ago. Tennessee is a notable case, as a team that was ranked in the Top 10 a year ago but disappointed in the NCAA tournament. Still, the Volunteers return plenty of talent from last year and should be one of the favorites in the SEC.

Texas is moving into Year 2 with Chris Beard at head coach, but the human polls are a little lower on the Longhorns.

Virginia Tech was a divisive team a year ago, as the metrics had the Hokies as a top-40 team, while the “resumé” folks had them well outside the tournament field. Then they went on a run to the ACC tournament title to support the view that they were a tournament-caliber team that just happened to lose too many close games.

Florida was a disappointment a year ago, and just missed out on the NCAA tournament. The Gators hired Todd Golden, who received accolades last year for getting San Francisco to the NCAA tournament for the first time this century, as their new head coach.

Correlations With Consensus

For the 33 teams listed in the table above, the AP Poll has the highest correlation coefficient when comparing each ranking system with the consensus. Torvik’s rankings have the lowest overall correlation with consensus.

The rank order of correlation to consensus is:

  • AP Poll (0.930)
  • Coaches Poll (0.922)
  • TeamRankings (0.901)
  • Pomeroy (0.890)
  • Torvik (0.821)

This is actually the first year when our rankings haven’t had a higher correlation to the consensus than the human polls, but the order is otherwise the same as last year.

Still, compared to the other power rankings systems, our rankings do again seem to have fewer or smaller outliers. That makes sense, because we use market and poll data to adjust for cases where our model rating alone seems to be a big outlier.

Teams Our Rankings Like (Relatively)

There are several teams where we are the most optimistic entering the year.

  • Auburn was one of the teams we were the most above consensus on last year. That worked out, as the Tigers surged to a No. 2 seed, so we hope to duplicate that success.
  • Indiana has a strong young core and returns most of its key players from a year ago.
  • Villanova will be in its first year without head coach Jay Wright. But several of its players have been in the program for a long time, which should help ease the transition.
  • Dayton has a lot of young talent and just missed out on the NCAA tournament a year ago.
  • Xavier surged to the NIT title after hiring former Arizona head coach Sean Miller right after the regular season ended, and it has a veteran core.

Teams Our Rankings Dislike (Relatively)

  • Kansas we already discussed, but to recap, the Jayhawks have a lot of roster turnover for a top program this year.
  • UCLA made a Final Four run two seasons ago, and public perception seemed a little higher than justified by its performance all of last season as a result.
  • TCU does have most of its production returning from a NCAA tournament team, like some of the teams we are higher on. However, the polls favor TCU even more strongly, for whatever reason.
  • Illinois is a completely different team this year with five new starters, including transfers Matthew Meyer (Baylor) and Terrence Shannon, Jr. (Texas Tech).

Full 2022-23 College Basketball Preseason Rankings, From #1 To #363

The table below shows our 2022-23 preseason ranking of all 363 college basketball teams, along with each team’s associated preseason predictive rating.

The team ratings are expressed as points better (positive rating) or worse (negative rating) than a “perfectly average” college basketball team, when playing on a neutral court.

The final eight columns of the table show the relative contribution of specific factors our preseason ratings model considers, as well as a final “market adjustment” we make for some teams.

Here’s a quick explanation of those factors. For more detail, read our post on how we make college basketball preseason ratings.

  • LAST YEAR: How good a team was last season (based on final predictive rating)
  • PROGRAM: Recent historical performance, excluding last season
  • RET OFF: Returning offensive production, compared to typical
  • RET DEF: Returning defensive production, compared to typical
  • RECRUIT: Value of incoming freshman recruiting class
  • TRANSFER: Value of incoming Division I transfers (JUCO transfers ignored)
  • COACH: Recent coaching changes expected to have positive or negative impact
  • MARKET: Adjustment if our ratings-based projection for a team is far off the betting market or our rankings differ greatly from the AP poll
TR RankTeam22-23 RatingLAST YRPROGRAMRET OFFRET DEFRECRUITTRANSFERCOACHMARKET
1Gonzaga22.010.74.92.11.51.81.10.00.0
2Kentucky18.28.33.90.50.34.70.50.00.0
3N Carolina18.05.63.92.42.13.50.50.00.0
4Tennessee17.88.14.01.51.33.90.00.0-1.0
5Baylor17.48.74.40.5-0.43.90.40.00.0
6Houston15.98.94.40.2-0.32.50.30.00.0
7Texas15.86.13.31.40.74.00.20.00.0
8Indiana15.64.12.83.02.33.50.00.00.0
9Duke15.57.64.4-3.0-3.99.31.2-1.01.0
10Kansas15.58.84.4-1.1-1.64.00.90.00.0
11Auburn15.17.43.20.70.73.20.90.0-1.0
12Arizona15.09.13.5-0.1-0.92.60.90.00.0
13Villanova15.07.64.01.41.42.60.0-2.00.0
14UCLA14.77.42.70.9-0.24.00.00.00.0
15Arkansas14.75.83.5-2.0-2.95.04.41.00.0
16Virginia14.62.24.33.02.41.90.80.00.0
17Xavier14.54.12.62.01.52.01.31.00.0
18TX Christian14.54.52.03.62.80.00.60.01.0
19Texas Tech14.57.84.4-1.2-2.42.23.70.00.0
20San Diego St14.54.33.12.41.70.02.90.00.0
21Alabama14.34.93.3-0.2-0.84.32.80.00.0
22Dayton14.23.52.93.32.51.90.00.00.0
23Creighton13.93.33.71.20.71.33.70.00.0
24Florida13.83.63.50.70.12.53.30.00.0
25Michigan St13.54.34.41.00.43.30.00.00.0
26Iowa13.37.34.20.71.10.00.00.00.0
27Purdue13.07.44.30.0-0.51.40.40.00.0
28Miami (FL)12.63.41.50.20.22.74.60.00.0
29Oklahoma St12.54.32.71.50.31.02.50.00.0
30VA Tech12.45.13.20.70.60.52.30.00.0
31Oklahoma12.34.63.40.60.12.01.60.00.0
32Memphis12.35.13.0-1.2-1.42.14.60.00.0
33Connecticut12.26.02.7-0.7-0.93.02.10.00.0
34Oregon12.12.63.91.00.33.50.80.00.0
35Michigan12.04.84.4-0.4-1.84.21.00.00.0
36Maryland11.82.23.80.30.30.63.61.00.0
37Illinois11.76.13.8-1.6-2.53.42.50.00.0
38LSU11.46.33.8-2.4-3.03.34.3-1.00.0
39Texas A&M11.23.91.01.51.31.32.10.00.0
40Cincinnati11.01.32.52.21.11.82.00.00.0
41BYU11.02.93.30.10.21.43.10.00.0
42Mississippi11.01.02.50.4-0.12.64.60.00.0
43Ohio State11.04.84.1-2.2-3.12.64.60.00.0
44Utah State10.93.23.10.50.80.03.30.00.0
45Seton Hall10.94.23.10.80.70.51.60.00.0
46Iowa State10.83.72.1-0.5-0.31.24.60.00.0
47Rutgers10.82.23.10.71.30.62.90.00.0
48USC10.73.93.30.4-0.23.30.00.00.0
49Stanford10.70.72.42.51.61.81.70.00.0
50Florida St10.71.14.20.2-0.33.52.00.00.0
51Saint Louis9.92.92.12.31.60.01.00.00.0
52North Texas9.92.81.51.20.50.03.90.00.0
53St Marys9.95.42.70.41.10.00.30.00.0
54St Johns9.83.62.21.21.20.01.60.00.0
55Notre Dame9.83.62.10.60.61.71.30.00.0
56Wisconsin9.44.24.2-0.10.10.00.90.00.0
57Colorado9.32.43.6-0.70.00.93.20.00.0
58Missouri9.2-1.02.30.0-0.41.37.00.00.0
59Miss State9.13.73.00.00.20.52.7-1.00.0
60UAB9.03.40.61.50.90.02.50.00.0
61Penn State8.72.33.40.80.50.01.70.00.0
62Arizona St8.61.42.3-0.80.02.73.10.00.0
63Wyoming8.33.0-1.23.02.10.01.50.00.0
64W Virginia8.22.73.3-2.1-2.30.56.00.00.0
65Vanderbilt8.13.20.90.70.91.31.10.00.0
66Marquette8.03.33.10.20.21.20.00.00.0
67Boise State7.94.02.01.10.70.00.20.00.0
68Syracuse7.82.63.1-0.4-0.32.70.10.00.0
69Loyola-Chi7.84.72.1-0.2-1.00.02.20.00.0
70Wash State7.53.90.9-0.1-0.11.91.10.00.0
71DePaul7.41.61.2-0.8-0.31.83.90.00.0
72Toledo7.41.81.51.71.20.01.10.00.0
73San Francisco7.35.32.00.1-0.50.01.4-1.00.0
74Furman7.21.92.11.71.50.00.00.00.0
75NC State7.2-0.52.9-0.2-0.21.33.90.00.0
76Kansas St7.13.01.9-0.9-1.50.04.60.00.0
77Clemson7.12.52.90.80.20.60.20.00.0
78Providence6.94.42.5-0.8-1.60.02.50.00.0
79Fresno St6.72.20.70.50.91.31.10.00.0
80Tulane6.71.3-0.43.42.20.00.30.00.0
81Richmond6.51.91.5-0.3-0.40.03.80.00.0
82Northwestern6.32.21.90.70.80.00.70.00.0
83Drake6.31.71.22.11.20.00.10.00.0
84Wake Forest6.24.30.7-1.2-2.10.04.60.00.0
85GA Tech5.9-1.32.4-0.40.10.64.60.00.0
86Utah5.80.22.11.20.90.50.80.00.0
87Colorado St5.53.71.20.2-0.40.00.80.00.0
88Butler5.50.12.3-0.3-0.50.53.40.00.0
89VCU5.43.22.7-0.7-0.80.01.00.00.0
90Grd Canyon5.31.40.40.80.70.01.90.00.0
91Temple5.10.11.41.60.80.01.20.00.0
92Davidson5.03.32.0-0.2-0.60.01.5-1.00.0
93Bradley4.91.20.71.20.80.01.00.00.0
94Towson4.92.1-1.42.11.50.00.60.00.0
95W Kentucky4.70.11.21.00.80.60.90.00.0
96Liberty4.7-0.91.52.51.70.00.00.00.0
97S Dakota St4.72.11.10.60.80.00.00.00.0
98Washington4.50.02.1-1.3-0.50.53.60.00.0
99Minnesota4.40.73.2-1.0-1.70.03.10.00.0
100Louisville4.3-0.23.6-0.6-1.12.20.40.00.0
101Fla Atlantic4.3-0.40.22.41.40.00.70.00.0
102Nebraska4.3-1.11.8-0.5-0.80.74.10.00.0
103UCSB4.3-0.80.81.30.90.02.00.00.0
104Vermont4.22.91.4-0.5-0.60.01.00.00.0
105Wichita St4.21.62.5-1.3-1.70.03.20.00.0
106Belmont4.12.31.8-0.7-1.40.02.10.00.0
107Boston Col4.1-0.30.52.11.40.00.40.00.0
108LA Tech4.00.71.50.50.60.00.70.00.0
109Georgia3.9-2.91.51.00.30.54.6-1.00.0
110Colgate3.9-0.51.71.51.20.00.00.00.0
111Akron3.8-0.61.31.40.90.00.90.00.0
112UNLV3.71.40.7-1.0-0.50.62.50.00.0
113Santa Clara3.62.40.0-0.20.60.00.80.00.0
114Central FL3.50.92.0-0.9-1.21.31.40.00.0
115Geo Mason3.50.30.31.30.80.00.80.00.0
116S Carolina3.51.31.7-2.0-1.90.53.90.00.0
117New Mexico3.4-1.5-0.62.41.10.02.00.00.0
118S Methodist3.43.22.0-1.7-1.70.02.6-1.00.0
119Georgetown3.4-1.52.1-1.4-1.20.84.60.00.0
120Chattanooga3.32.1-0.4-1.6-1.40.04.60.00.0
121S Illinois3.1-0.4-0.11.00.90.01.70.00.0
122Nevada3.1-0.12.5-0.70.20.01.30.00.0
123NC-Grnsboro3.0-2.61.51.00.80.02.30.00.0
124UC Irvine2.6-0.71.40.70.50.00.70.00.0
125Oral Roberts2.5-1.2-0.12.01.00.00.80.00.0
126Kent State2.5-1.20.71.40.60.00.80.00.0
127Pittsburgh2.3-2.31.70.4-0.10.52.10.00.0
128San Diego2.3-3.2-0.10.6-0.20.04.21.00.0
129St Bonavent2.32.21.7-2.6-3.50.04.40.00.0
130Hofstra2.20.00.7-0.1-0.60.02.20.00.0
131Utah Val St1.9-0.2-0.30.40.50.01.50.00.0
132Middle Tenn1.70.9-1.91.21.50.00.00.00.0
133Missouri St1.72.50.7-1.8-2.00.02.30.00.0
134Yale1.6-1.31.80.40.80.00.00.00.0
135Abl Christian1.6-0.40.20.80.40.00.50.00.0
136U Penn1.3-3.10.52.51.30.00.00.00.0
137Iona1.21.6-0.6-0.3-0.20.00.80.00.0
138U Mass1.1-2.40.2-0.6-0.80.03.71.00.0
139La Salle1.1-3.6-0.6-0.1-0.10.03.52.00.0
140N Iowa1.11.20.7-0.6-0.20.00.00.00.0
141Murray St1.14.11.1-2.1-2.80.01.7-1.00.0
142Seattle1.0-0.8-0.51.00.70.00.60.00.0
143James Mad1.0-3.1-1.21.91.30.02.00.00.0
144Marshall0.9-4.00.81.91.00.01.20.00.0
145Indiana St0.9-3.70.31.81.10.01.40.00.0
146Hawaii0.8-1.8-0.30.90.70.01.40.00.0
147S Alabama0.8-0.8-0.4-1.5-1.20.04.60.00.0
148Princeton0.60.00.10.40.10.00.00.00.0
149Portland0.6-2.4-2.52.81.60.01.10.00.0
150Illinois St0.6-2.2-0.7-1.4-0.60.04.51.00.0
151Loyola Mymt0.5-2.80.6-0.10.50.02.30.00.0
152S Florida0.5-3.90.80.80.30.52.00.00.0
153Rhode Island0.5-0.41.5-0.6-0.70.00.80.00.0
154Col Charlestn0.4-1.00.0-0.1-0.20.01.70.00.0
155Norfolk St0.4-2.1-1.42.21.70.00.00.00.0
156Texas State0.2-0.80.50.20.10.00.10.00.0
157Tulsa0.2-1.61.3-0.8-0.61.30.50.00.0
158Cal Baptist0.1-3.6-0.6-0.1-0.20.04.60.00.0
159N Mex State0.11.91.4-2.0-2.60.02.4-1.00.0
160Samford0.0-3.1-1.42.40.80.50.90.00.0
161Jacksonville0.0-2.4-1.71.60.90.01.60.00.0
162Ste F Austin-0.1-0.5-0.20.40.20.00.10.00.0
163Charlotte-0.1-2.5-0.9-0.7-0.60.04.60.00.0
164California-0.1-0.60.2-0.40.20.00.50.00.0
165Wofford-0.2-0.21.7-0.8-1.60.00.70.00.0
166Delaware-0.2-1.1-0.9-0.1-0.10.02.00.00.0
167Montana St-0.2-1.5-1.20.70.20.01.60.00.0
168E Washingtn-0.2-3.70.40.20.30.02.60.00.0
169Sam Hous St-0.2-1.2-0.3-0.20.40.01.10.00.0
170LA Lafayette-0.2-2.3-0.61.70.60.00.50.00.0
171Longwood-0.3-1.3-2.11.71.20.00.30.00.0
172NC-Asheville-0.5-2.6-2.80.90.80.03.20.00.0
173South Dakota-0.5-3.0-0.41.20.10.01.60.00.0
174NC-Wilmgton-0.6-1.4-1.7-0.6-0.30.03.40.00.0
175Coastal Car-0.7-1.30.2-0.7-0.50.01.60.00.0
176N Kentucky-0.7-3.30.11.70.90.00.00.00.0
177Duquesne-0.8-5.20.8-0.6-0.40.04.60.00.0
178IPFW-0.8-4.2-1.42.11.40.01.30.00.0
179S Utah-0.8-2.0-0.20.50.10.00.80.00.0
180Nicholls St-0.9-3.0-1.2-0.10.20.03.20.00.0
181Winthrop-1.0-2.30.5-0.10.10.00.90.00.0
182Georgia St-1.0-1.70.7-1.9-1.20.03.00.00.0
183App State-1.2-1.7-0.3-0.3-0.50.01.60.00.0
184Ohio-1.2-0.60.5-1.6-1.10.01.50.00.0
185UC Riverside-1.3-2.1-0.50.70.00.00.70.00.0
186Bryant-1.3-3.0-1.4-0.9-0.70.04.60.00.0
187Morehead St-1.3-0.5-1.3-1.7-1.50.03.70.00.0
188Wright State-1.3-2.41.0-0.50.00.00.60.00.0
189Buffalo-1.4-0.32.1-2.3-1.90.00.90.00.0
190Old Dominion-1.5-1.90.9-1.1-0.30.00.90.00.0
191Fla Gulf Cst-1.5-2.8-1.8-0.20.10.02.11.00.0
192Jksnville St-1.6-1.1-0.4-1.2-1.40.02.50.00.0
193Mercer-1.6-2.9-0.1-0.3-0.10.01.80.00.0
194Montana-1.6-4.40.30.10.10.02.30.00.0
195Weber State-1.7-2.3-0.3-0.9-0.20.02.10.00.0
196GA Southern-1.9-4.60.10.2-0.10.02.50.00.0
197St Josephs-1.9-1.7-0.90.30.20.00.10.00.0
198Lg Beach St-1.9-2.2-1.50.80.20.00.80.00.0
199Oakland-2.0-2.1-1.20.50.30.00.50.00.0
200N Florida-2.0-4.7-0.92.20.90.00.60.00.0
201Northeastrn-2.1-4.40.60.2-0.10.01.70.00.0
202St Peters-2.10.5-1.4-1.9-1.70.03.3-1.00.0
203Valparaiso-2.1-2.7-0.4-0.2-0.30.01.50.00.0
204Youngs St-2.2-4.8-1.70.2-0.20.04.20.00.0
205Harvard-2.3-3.50.70.10.40.00.00.00.0
206TX El Paso-2.3-1.6-0.6-2.1-1.50.03.30.00.0
207Gard-Webb-2.4-2.3-0.6-0.70.00.01.20.00.0
208Mass Lowell-2.4-4.3-1.41.20.70.01.40.00.0
209Southern-2.6-3.0-2.71.50.40.01.30.00.0
210Brown-2.6-2.8-0.30.30.20.00.00.00.0
211Fordham-2.7-2.2-1.80.20.50.00.50.00.0
212N Colorado-2.7-3.70.10.8-0.20.00.30.00.0
213Tarleton State-2.7-3.3-1.00.20.30.01.10.00.0
214Cornell-2.8-2.7-1.20.60.50.00.00.00.0
215Pepperdine-2.9-5.50.91.7-0.10.00.10.00.0
216CS Fullerton-2.9-1.6-1.2-0.7-0.10.00.70.00.0
217Rider-2.9-3.9-1.31.70.50.00.00.00.0
218Bellarmine-3.0-3.0-0.1-0.50.40.00.20.00.0
219Geo Wshgtn-3.0-3.7-1.40.40.70.00.90.00.0
220Lipscomb-3.0-5.4-0.11.00.70.00.80.00.0
221E Tenn St-3.1-2.61.6-1.0-1.10.00.00.00.0
222UC Davis-3.1-4.0-1.00.30.30.01.30.00.0
223TX Southern-3.2-2.3-1.20.10.30.00.00.00.0
224Rice-3.3-2.9-0.90.20.30.00.00.00.0
225TX A&M-CC-3.3-4.4-2.22.01.30.00.00.00.0
226Ball State-3.4-5.40.71.00.00.00.30.00.0
227Drexel-3.4-1.3-0.9-0.7-0.50.00.00.00.0
228Florida Intl-3.4-4.9-0.9-0.3-0.20.02.80.00.0
229Oregon St-3.7-3.32.4-1.7-1.40.00.40.00.0
230Troy-3.7-2.7-1.8-0.5-0.20.01.50.00.0
231Fairfield-3.7-3.0-2.20.80.50.00.20.00.0
232Austin Peay-3.8-5.6-0.21.10.20.00.70.00.0
233Campbell-3.8-3.4-1.2-0.2-0.20.01.20.00.0
234N Dakota St-3.8-2.00.1-1.2-0.70.00.00.00.0
235Boston U-3.8-3.4-0.6-0.30.50.00.00.00.0
236Wagner-3.9-1.0-2.2-1.1-0.40.00.80.00.0
237Navy-4.0-2.5-1.0-0.50.00.00.00.00.0
238Quinnipiac-4.1-3.9-1.60.90.30.00.20.00.0
239Kennesaw St-4.2-3.5-4.01.91.40.00.00.00.0
240Dartmouth-4.4-2.8-0.6-0.6-0.40.00.00.00.0
241Sac State-4.5-7.6-1.0-1.4-0.20.04.61.00.0
242Stony Brook-4.5-4.4-0.4-1.6-0.90.02.70.00.0
243Niagara-4.5-2.4-2.1-1.1-0.60.01.70.00.0
244Portland St-4.6-5.0-1.1-2.4-0.80.04.60.00.0
245TN Martin-4.7-6.3-3.40.90.60.03.50.00.0
246Mt St Marys-4.7-4.6-2.00.60.40.00.80.00.0
247Alabama St-4.7-6.7-4.0-1.5-0.30.05.82.00.0
248Air Force-4.8-4.6-1.50.60.60.00.00.00.0
249Queens*-4.90.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
250E Carolina-4.9-2.1-0.6-1.7-1.00.00.50.00.0
251Pacific-4.9-5.80.4-1.0-0.60.02.10.00.0
252E Kentucky-4.9-4.2-1.20.2-0.10.00.40.00.0
253TN State-4.9-5.3-2.4-0.6-0.30.03.70.00.0
254UC San Diego-5.0-5.1-1.60.70.00.01.00.00.0
255Siena-5.1-4.2-0.7-0.30.00.00.00.00.0
256Arkansas St-5.2-2.6-1.1-0.9-0.50.00.00.00.0
257Maryland BC-5.3-4.1-0.9-1.4-0.70.01.90.00.0
258Detroit-5.3-3.9-1.4-0.3-1.00.01.40.00.0
259LA Monroe-5.4-5.2-1.0-0.6-0.10.01.50.00.0
260Loyola-MD-5.4-5.0-1.30.30.60.00.00.00.0
261San Jose St-5.6-5.1-3.51.30.60.01.20.00.0
262Monmouth-5.6-0.9-1.4-1.9-1.40.00.00.00.0
263Army-5.7-6.2-1.01.20.30.00.00.00.0
264Miami (OH)-5.7-4.5-0.3-1.1-0.70.01.00.00.0
265Howard-5.8-3.8-3.6-0.50.00.71.40.00.0
266Bowling Grn-5.8-5.70.6-1.2-0.50.01.10.00.0
267Merrimack-5.8-6.2-0.90.90.20.00.20.00.0
268W Michigan-5.9-8.1-1.80.70.50.01.71.00.0
269VA Military-6.0-2.6-1.3-1.5-0.60.00.00.00.0
270TX-Arlington-6.0-3.5-0.1-1.7-0.90.00.20.00.0
271Cleveland St-6.0-2.5-1.8-0.8-0.60.00.7-1.00.0
272S Indiana*-6.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
273High Point-6.1-4.5-2.40.90.90.00.0-1.00.0
274Cal Poly-6.1-6.7-2.71.70.70.00.80.00.0
275Canisius-6.1-4.8-1.7-0.2-0.30.00.90.00.0
276Prairie View-6.2-6.0-1.2-0.6-0.40.02.10.00.0
277Radford-6.2-5.6-0.4-1.0-0.50.01.30.00.0
278NC A&T-6.4-6.2-2.30.3-0.20.02.10.00.0
279Dixie State-6.4-5.3-3.10.70.60.00.70.00.0
280Albany-6.5-5.8-1.5-1.9-0.40.03.10.00.0
281TX-San Ant-6.6-6.6-0.10.2-0.20.00.10.00.0
282CS Bakersfld-6.8-5.3-0.7-0.6-0.20.00.00.00.0
283New Orleans-6.8-5.2-2.3-0.7-0.10.01.40.00.0
284SIU Edward-6.8-5.9-3.30.70.40.01.30.00.0
285Presbyterian-6.9-5.2-2.40.50.30.00.00.00.0
286Binghamton-6.9-5.9-3.00.50.40.01.20.00.0
287S Mississippi-6.9-8.7-0.7-1.9-0.10.04.40.00.0
288AR Lit Rock-7.0-6.8-0.40.30.00.00.00.00.0
289Denver-7.0-6.2-2.9-0.5-0.30.02.90.00.0
290Citadel-7.0-4.6-1.9-0.80.00.00.30.00.0
291W Carolina-7.1-6.6-1.0-0.6-0.30.01.40.00.0
292WI-Milwkee-7.1-8.0-1.8-2.3-0.31.23.11.00.0
293N Arizona-7.2-8.3-1.91.60.20.01.30.00.0
294Manhattan-7.2-4.9-2.4-1.40.40.01.20.00.0
295TN Tech-7.3-4.4-3.2-1.8-1.00.03.10.00.0
296Evansville-7.3-7.1-1.2-1.4-0.40.01.81.00.0
297Beth-Cook-7.4-8.0-2.31.80.00.01.00.00.0
298Grambling St-7.5-6.7-2.51.3-0.20.00.50.00.0
299Alcorn State-7.5-5.0-3.90.10.00.01.20.00.0
300N Illinois-7.6-6.4-1.20.1-0.10.00.00.00.0
301LIU-7.6-4.2-1.0-2.2-0.70.00.50.00.0
302Marist-7.6-3.3-2.1-2.1-1.10.01.00.00.0
303Cal St Nrdge-7.6-8.3-1.50.8-0.40.00.91.00.0
304Lehigh-7.8-6.5-1.80.20.30.00.00.00.0
305Rob Morris-7.8-7.3-1.80.60.40.00.40.00.0
306E Michigan-7.8-6.8-1.2-0.8-0.30.01.30.00.0
307UMKC-7.9-3.6-1.3-1.3-0.70.00.0-1.00.0
308Bucknell-7.9-8.1-0.90.80.00.00.30.00.0
309St. Thomas (MN)-8.0-6.4-2.20.2-0.20.00.60.00.0
310American-8.0-8.3-0.90.80.30.00.00.00.0
311St Fran (PA)-8.0-7.7-1.31.1-0.20.00.00.00.0
312Elon-8.1-4.9-1.9-1.4-0.70.00.80.00.0
313Stetson-8.2-6.0-2.4-0.30.10.00.50.00.0
314IL-Chicago-8.2-5.5-1.4-1.8-0.70.01.20.00.0
315Coppin State-8.2-6.6-3.3-0.4-0.10.02.20.00.0
316Wm & Mary-8.2-8.0-1.2-0.2-0.40.01.60.00.0
317Hampton-8.3-7.8-2.10.1-0.20.01.70.00.0
318Sacred Hrt-8.4-7.1-1.5-0.70.10.00.90.00.0
319N Hampshire-8.4-4.0-2.7-2.2-1.30.01.80.00.0
320N Alabama-8.4-6.2-2.0-0.4-0.10.00.30.00.0
321Maryland ES-8.4-6.9-4.00.70.80.01.00.00.0
322NC Central-8.5-5.6-2.6-0.3-0.10.00.00.00.0
323SE Missouri-8.5-4.6-2.7-0.9-0.60.00.20.00.0
324W Illinois-8.5-4.3-2.7-1.4-0.60.00.40.00.0
325Central Mich-8.5-7.5-0.7-0.6-0.30.00.60.00.0
326SC Upstate-8.6-5.0-3.3-0.30.10.00.00.00.0
327Morgan St-8.6-6.5-2.6-0.3-0.20.00.90.00.0
328SE Louisiana-8.7-5.5-2.9-1.7-0.50.02.10.00.0
329Lafayette-8.7-7.4-1.5-0.40.10.00.40.00.0
330Hartford-8.8-5.6-0.8-1.9-0.60.00.00.00.0
331TX-Pan Am-8.9-6.4-1.5-1.5-0.70.01.20.00.0
332TX A&M-Com*-9.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
333NW State-9.0-8.6-2.9-1.6-0.10.04.20.00.0
334NJIT-9.1-8.3-1.5-0.2-0.20.01.10.00.0
335McNeese St-9.6-6.9-2.5-0.1-0.20.00.20.00.0
336Alab A&M-9.7-7.7-4.0-0.80.30.01.61.00.0
337St Fran (NY)-9.7-7.2-2.10.0-0.30.00.00.00.0
338Idaho State-9.8-8.7-2.1-0.6-0.20.01.80.00.0
339Jackson St-9.9-5.6-2.5-1.2-0.60.01.1-1.00.0
340Hsn Christian-10.5-9.3-3.21.00.10.00.80.00.0
341Charl South-10.6-9.2-2.50.7-0.20.00.60.00.0
342Central Ark-10.9-7.5-2.5-0.4-0.40.00.00.00.0
343WI-Grn Bay-10.9-8.4-1.2-1.1-0.20.00.00.00.0
344Chicago St-10.9-8.6-4.0-0.8-0.20.02.70.00.0
345Neb Omaha-11.1-9.9-1.3-0.5-0.40.00.01.00.0
346Maine-11.1-9.9-3.1-0.7-0.20.01.81.00.0
347North Dakota-11.2-9.5-1.70.10.00.00.00.00.0
348Holy Cross-11.3-9.2-2.2-0.1-0.20.00.40.00.0
349Florida A&M-11.7-6.7-2.6-2.3-0.50.00.40.00.0
350Columbia-12.2-10.1-2.00.3-0.50.00.00.00.0
351Central Conn-12.2-9.2-3.60.4-0.40.00.70.00.0
352Ark Pine Bl-12.4-10.2-4.0-1.80.40.03.10.00.0
353Lindenwood*-12.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
353Stonehill*-12.50.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
355F Dickinson-12.6-9.6-1.7-2.30.10.01.00.00.0
356Lamar-12.7-9.1-1.5-2.00.00.00.00.00.0
357Incar Word-13.4-9.6-4.0-0.60.00.00.80.00.0
358Idaho-13.5-8.7-3.8-1.9-0.10.00.90.00.0
359E Illinois-13.7-11.7-2.00.5-0.50.00.00.00.0
360S Car State-14.4-7.4-4.0-1.6-0.30.00.0-1.00.0
361IUPUI-16.0-13.1-2.2-2.50.90.00.80.00.0
362Delaware St-16.7-11.6-4.0-2.40.40.00.90.00.0
363Miss Val St-17.3-11.9-4.0-1.70.20.00.10.00.0

What Do We Use These Ratings For?

These preseason ratings drive our preseason projections, and they serve as the Bayesian priors for our predictive ratings as the season progresses. (Nerd translation: Our preseason ratings still impact our team ratings even months into the season, because they have demonstrated lasting predictive value even in later stages of the season. Their influence on our team ratings does diminish as the season goes on, though.)

Using these ratings, we’ve run full-season projections, which are live on the site now. Key pages include:

Now that we’ve published our preseason ratings for the 2022-23 season, all of these projections are now data-driven and automated, and numbers will update every morning throughout the college basketball season.

NOTE: We are still in the process of calibrating our bracketology projections and NCAA tournament predictions for this season. The values on those pages will change over the next day or two, but will be finalized by Saturday, November 5.

Ratings Accuracy

It’s worth noting that Ken Pomeroy, Dan Hanner and Bart Torvik have compared our preseason ratings and/or projections with other stat-based prognosticators in past years. In short, our finish was consistently good.

We also found this comparison from John Wobus for the most recent seasons. (Note: The “Week0” column is the one that ranks preseason rating accuracy. The “Overall” column, which the page is sorted by when you load it and where we ranked No. 1 last year, is based on a blend of the performance of the ratings released over the course of the whole season. Also, we are ignoring the “Consensus” system when tallying ranks on John’s page.)

  • 2021-22: 3rd of 23 (behind INCC, Sagarin)
  • 2020-21: 3rd of 21 (behind Lefevre, INCC)
  • 2019-20: 5th of 20 (behind Lefevre, INCC, Sagarin, Pomeroy)
  • 2018-19: 4th of 18 (behind Torvik, Gasaway, Pomeroy)
  • 2017-18: 2nd of 7 (behind Hanner)
  • 2016-17: 4th of 7 (behind Torvik, Hanner, Gasaway)
  • 2015-16: 2nd of 7 (behind Hanner)
  • 2014-15: 2nd of 4 (behind Hanner)
  • 2013-14: 2nd of 4 (behind Hanner)
  • 2012-13: 1st of 3

Based on those results, we feel we can objectively say that we’ve been among the most accurate systems over the long term. We were consistently a bit behind Dan Hanner’s player-based projections while he was doing them, but he unfortunately stopped after the 2017-18 season. More recently, INCC is the only system that has consistently topped us, but it doesn’t have as long of a historical record of accuracy.

We post all this not to brag, but to try to preemptively deflect the inevitable “Team X is WAY too high/low in your rankings! You guys have no idea what you’re doing!” comments. While our rankings are by no means perfect, the projections they drive have more than held their own in comparison to other widely recognized top-tier projection systems. We expect them to do so again this season.

Some Final Advice On Interpreting Preseason College Basketball Rankings

Some people get quite worked up about preseason college basketball rankings—especially when our approach thinks their favorite team is going to be worse than the prevailing consensus.

Differences are to be expected, though. No one else ranks teams exactly like we do, and our approach often discounts things that media analysts and other basketball “experts” believe to be important, because we haven’t found any hard data to back up their supposed value.

Just remember, we’re going to get plenty of individual teams wrong this year, and some teams very wrong, for a variety of reasons. But that’s inevitable when the challenge is to project 363 different teams. If we’re down on your team, just hope that we’re wrong! No system is perfect, and just like the rest of them, ours has its strengths and weaknesses.

We also have very specific goals for our preseason college basketball team ratings, which include predicting both the margins of victory of future college basketball games and the end-of-season ratings of all 363 teams, in a way that minimizes error over the entire universe of games and teams. Other rankings-makers may not be chasing those same goals.

Look at Ratings, Not Just Rankings

Finally, please remember to look at our team ratings and not just rankings, because ratings tell a much more precise story.

For example, Dayton is our No. 22 team in our preseason rankings this year. However, their rating is less than one point lower than No. 11 Auburn’s rating, meaning that there’s a cluster of 12 teams all rated within one point of one another, a very slim difference.

So, don’t overreact to a team’s ranking number. Look at the rating as well, and you’ll be able to tell which tier of expected performance a team is in.

Golf Pool Picks

Get an edge in your PGA Majors and One And Done pools

Learn MoreGet Picks Now