2023 College Basketball Preseason Rankings & Ratings For All 362 Teams

Purdue tops our 2023 college basketball preseason rankings, while several Final Four teams from a year ago are rated lower in our rankings.

November 2, 2023 - by Jason Lisk

Zach Edey and Purdue sit atop our initial college basketball ratings for the 2023-24 season (Melissa Tamez/Icon Sportswire)

Our official 2023-24 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 362 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?”

Purdue at No. 1: Lot of Returning Production

For the first time in awhile, Gonzaga is not atop our preseason rankings. Purdue earns that honor this year. Yes, Purdue was embarrassed last year, becoming the second-ever No. 1 seed to lose to a No. 16 seed. (The only other team to do so, Virginia, won the national title the next year as a No. 1 seed again.)

But what Purdue does have is a lot of returning production and a roster that could see improvement with some of the young players that started a year ago. Not only is National Player of the Year Zach Edey back, but the team had two freshman guards starting, and returns all five starters (and seven of the top nine in minutes played) from a year ago. They lead all teams in returning production this year.

Also, Purdue may be at our No. 1 spot this year, but their 19.2 preseason rating is the lowest for a No. 1 team in our rankings entering the season in the last decade. On average, 2.7 teams have had a higher rating entering the season than Purdue this year. So that’s a trend we saw last year, with the way the NCAA Tournament was wide open. College basketball looks to be in a high parity year, and even the top of Division 1 is a little lower than most years.

That said, Purdue, given how they performed last year and what they have returning, are probably the safest bet to finish near the top again in 2023-24.

What About Defending NCAA Champion Connecticut?

Connecticut had an impressive run in the NCAA Tournament to claim the national title, after entering as a No. 4 seed. They did finish second in our overall ratings after that run, but appear at No. 7 in this year’s preseason ratings.

Last year’s team, at least the version that was healthy entering the NCAA Tournament, was a very deep team powered by lots of size and depth that overwhelmed opponents. They are replacing a lot of production though, as key players like Adama Sanogo, Jordan Hawkins, and Andre Jackson have moved on to professional basketball.

They’ll still be a contender, with center Donovan Clingan taking on a bigger role, but do not look to be as deep as the team that finished last season.

Why So Low on Florida Atlantic?

We have Florida Atlantic at No. 24, coming off their Final Four run, while the human polls have them inside the Top 10. Florida Atlantic has pretty much everyone back from that run, so the natural inclination is to (1) heavily value teams based on a few weeks in March and (2) assume that a team with that much returning production will take a leap.

This year’s Florida Atlantic should look a lot like last year’s, in both good and bad ways. They aren’t likely to get a boost from some younger players coming into the program, like some other ranked schools.

The simplest explanation is that while Florida Atlantic is second behind Purdue in our returning production numbers contributing to the power ratings, they are getting no boost because of recent program performance, or incoming recruits, or transfers.

We took a look at some recent team’s who fit the profile of Florida Atlantic, with a lot of returning production, but no real recent history of program success. St. Bonaventure after the 2020-21 season is the closest, a team that won the Atlantic-10, got a similar seed in the NCAA Tournament (but lost in the first round), and entered the next year ranked in the AP Poll at No. 22. That team had some immediate success (beating Clemson and Marquette in November) but ultimately underperformed expectations and missed the NCAA Tournament.

Other recent teams with a similar overall rating and profile include a Saint Louis team after the 2019-20 season that would have been in the NCAA Tournament but for the COVID pandemic, and just missed the NCAA Tournament (after spending some time in the AP Poll during the season), and a Loyola-Chicago team from the same year, the one that knocked off No. 1 seed Illinois before losing to No. 12 Oregon State in the Sweet 16.

Expanding out, in looking at other teams where we are making projections for programs with lower past ratings but higher returning production, we do not see a systematic reason to believe we are weighting things improperly. Maybe Florida Atlantic will overperform, maybe they will underperform, but expecting them to be a Top 10 team when they were not a year ago, and have no history of consistent success, is perhaps a bit too much.

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

TeamTRKPBTAPCOACHAVGTR DIFF
Purdue111321.60.6
Kansas222111.6-0.4
Duke397234.81.8
Connecticut743655.0-2.0
Houston636765.6-0.4
Michigan St5138446.81.8
Tennessee4859107.23.2
Creighton9124888.2-0.8
Marquette81114579.01.0
Gonzaga1051111129.8-0.2
Arizona13621121112.6-0.4
Arkansas171422141416.2-0.8
USC11219212216.85.8
Texas161616181816.80.8
Baylor19724201717.4-1.6
Kentucky201817161617.4-2.6
Texas A&M232410151918.2-4.8
Alabama151019242418.43.4
N Carolina291713192119.8-9.2
Fla Atlantic24372010920.0-4.0
Villanova262318222021.8-4.2
Illinois121929252622.210.2
San Diego St352923171523.8-12.0
St Marys253812232324.2-0.8
Wisconsin182032262724.66.6
TX Christian223015332925.83.8
Colorado212827273026.65.6
Auburn141526325027.413.4
Maryland272230302827.40.4
UCLA342628282528.2-6.6
Miami434548131332.4-10.6
Kansas St412538353534.81.0
Florida523925413738.8-13.2

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.

  • Miami +20 (No. 13 in both polls, No. 43 in TR)
  • Florida Atlantic +10 (No. 10 in AP Poll, No. 20 in BT)
  • San Diego State +6 (No. 17 in AP Poll, No. 23 in BT)

I think we might be able to spot the theme this year. The human polls love the three teams that went on surprise runs to the Final Four last March. The power rating systems do not have that level of optimism, because they use data from the entire year, and also account for things like program history and how other teams have done with similar outlooks in the past. 

We talked about Florida Atlantic above, but in Miami and San Diego State’s cases, there is also an element that both have lost some key players from last year’s runs.

Miami was not a deep team, and rated worse in power ratings systems all year. Isaiah Wong and Jordan Miller were both 2nd-round picks in the NBA, and the two leading scorers last year on a team that rated near the bottom of Division 1 in bench minutes.

San Diego State was one of the most experienced teams last year, and finished about right where our preseason projections had them. They lost five of their top nine rotation players, including leading scorer Matt Bradley.

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.

  • Auburn -6 (No. 32 in AP, No. 26 in BT) 
  • Alabama -5 (No. 24 in both polls, No. 19 in BT)
  • Texas -2 (No. 18 in both polls, No. 16 in TR/KP/BT)
  • Tennessee -1 (No. 9 in AP Poll, No. 8 in KP)

We’ve got three SEC teams (and a future one) at the top of this list. Alabama lost Brandon Miller, and the polls have them just inside the Top 25, while the power rating systems have them higher. In the last three years with Nate Oats at coach (and different rosters), Alabama has finished No. 1, No. 26, and No. 8, so we’ll project them with significant regression from last year’s No. 1 seed, but less than the polls.

Auburn is a program that had a relative “down” year while finishing last year at No. 21 in our power ratings and with a No. 9 seed in the NCAA Tournament. Neither of the polls have them near the Top 25, but there is a history of recent success here with head coach Bruce Pearl, solid returning production, and a top 10 freshman class joining them.

Correlations With Consensus

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

The rank order of correlation to consensus is:

  • TeamRankings (0.896)
  • AP Poll (0.892)
  • Coaches Poll (0.835)
  • Torvik (0.832)
  • Pomeroy (0.822)

Last year, we were below both polls in correlation to consensus, but are in a virtual tie with the AP Poll for top spot this year, while the others are also very similar to each other vs. overall consensus.

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.

  • Tennessee has underwhelmed in the NCAA Tournament (and had a key late injury) but has finished No. 5 and No. 8 in the last two seasons in our rankings, and enter at No. 4.
  • Illinois has a blend of young players already on roster, returning production, incoming recruits (12th highest rating in that category), and recent program success (No. 15 in 2022 final ratings and No. 3 at end of 2021).
  • Wisconsin’s recent program success and the 3rd-highest returning production has us higher than most on the Badgers.
  • Auburn was discussed above, but again we have a combo of recent program success and young players/recruits and returning production.
  • Colorado has finished just outside the NCAA Tournament the last two years, but has a lot of returning production, along with freshman top prospect Cody Williams and TCU transfer big man Eddie Lampkin, Jr.

Teams Our Rankings Dislike (Relatively)

  • Connecticut was already discussed, but to recap, the Huskies did lose several key players and will probably not be as deep as the title-winning team.
  • North Carolina was a major underperformer a year ago, and is hoping to turn it around with several changes to the roster. t
  • Villanova took a big step back in Kyle Neptune’s first year taking over for Jay Wright, and we have a little less optimism in Year 2 than others.
  • Kentucky will be an entirely new team, loaded with freshman, but only Antonio Reeves is back from last year’s squad, so there’s a lot of question marks and variability in how good Kentucky will be.
  • UCLA is dealing with significant roster turnover, with none of last year’s starters back, including program stalwarts Tyger Campbell and Jaime Jacquez.
  • San Diego State was already discussed above, but have lost several key players from last year’s Final Four run.
  • Florida will try to turn things around with a lot of transfers and a new roster, and we are more cautious than others here, as they finished last year ranked No. 51.

Full 2023-24 College Basketball Preseason Rankings, From No. 1 To No. 362

The table below shows our 2023-24 preseason ranking of all 362 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 RankTeam23-24 RatingLAST YRPROGRAMRET OFFRET DEFRECRUITTRANSFERCOACHMARKET
1Purdue19.27.14.24.12.92.00.00.0-1.0
2Kansas18.17.64.40.0-0.23.52.90.00.0
3Duke17.75.64.42.01.05.70.0-1.00.0
4Tennessee17.58.44.01.51.33.20.00.0-1.0
5Michigan St17.35.03.72.52.14.00.00.00.0
6Houston16.69.24.40.50.32.10.10.00.0
7Connecticut16.19.63.6-0.2-0.43.20.30.00.0
8Marquette15.96.52.93.42.70.50.00.00.0
9Creighton15.86.93.72.31.80.70.50.00.0
10Gonzaga15.77.65.7-0.6-1.02.31.60.00.0
11USC15.64.23.71.51.05.50.10.0-0.5
12Illinois15.35.24.41.81.43.30.20.0-1.0
13Arizona15.37.44.40.5-0.22.60.50.00.0
14Auburn15.35.03.71.91.43.50.30.0-0.5
15Alabama15.29.63.7-1.1-2.53.12.30.00.0
16Texas15.18.13.50.1-0.22.51.70.0-0.5
17Arkansas14.95.73.9-1.1-1.73.14.10.01.0
18Wisconsin14.53.23.83.62.61.20.10.00.0
19Baylor14.46.45.0-0.6-0.64.11.10.0-1.0
20Kentucky13.85.04.0-1.8-3.26.40.90.02.5
21Colorado13.83.03.63.01.32.80.20.00.0
22TX Christian13.75.62.11.00.60.04.40.00.0
23Texas A&M13.74.71.53.22.10.71.40.00.0
24Fla Atlantic13.65.40.54.33.40.00.00.00.0
25St Marys13.66.53.02.41.60.00.10.00.0
26Villanova13.53.24.40.60.11.74.0-0.50.0
27Maryland13.55.23.31.61.12.10.20.00.0
28Oregon13.54.43.60.90.14.30.20.00.0
29N Carolina13.44.23.30.9-0.53.42.10.00.0
30Texas Tech13.24.04.4-0.8-1.30.94.91.00.0
31BYU13.02.43.71.81.70.82.60.00.0
32Miss State12.73.42.73.12.10.01.40.00.0
33Northwestern12.44.71.92.01.10.02.70.00.0
34UCLA12.39.04.0-2.0-2.73.20.80.00.0
35San Diego St12.35.64.10.80.40.01.40.00.0
36Iowa St12.25.41.6-0.5-0.32.53.40.00.0
37Iowa12.05.04.40.2-0.30.02.70.00.0
38Clemson12.02.92.61.20.90.04.30.00.0
39Ohio St11.94.24.3-0.1-0.23.40.30.00.0
40Xavier11.85.93.0-1.0-1.62.13.40.00.0
41Kansas St11.85.71.6-1.2-1.51.44.91.00.0
42Virginia11.84.43.0-0.7-0.92.63.40.00.0
43Miami11.75.82.20.70.80.90.40.01.0
44Stanford11.62.42.42.31.52.40.60.00.0
45Mississippi11.50.42.00.3-0.92.64.92.00.0
46Oklahoma11.23.13.4-0.9-1.32.74.20.00.0
47Providence11.24.33.00.60.41.31.70.00.0
48Cincinnati11.13.71.9-0.8-0.72.04.90.00.0
49Rutgers11.15.12.70.70.31.31.00.00.0
50Memphis11.15.13.4-2.0-2.92.64.90.00.0
51Missouri11.03.42.1-0.3-1.01.94.90.00.0
52St Johns10.91.92.6-0.8-1.91.24.93.00.0
53Florida10.83.13.3-0.3-1.51.34.90.00.0
54Michigan10.73.84.4-1.5-0.81.53.20.00.0
55Indiana10.65.43.3-1.6-2.33.02.70.00.0
56Utah10.23.32.11.81.30.01.70.00.0
57Washington10.00.81.50.90.01.94.90.00.0
58Boise St9.94.12.71.71.00.00.50.00.0
59NC State9.94.02.00.0-0.30.73.40.00.0
60VA Tech9.92.32.90.70.50.03.50.00.0
61LSU9.8-1.04.2-0.50.11.95.20.00.0
62Dayton9.52.23.10.60.01.02.60.00.0
63Nevada8.83.01.52.01.20.01.20.00.0
64Seton Hall8.83.23.40.4-0.80.62.00.00.0
65New Mexico8.83.1-0.41.00.20.04.90.00.0
66W Virginia8.65.73.6-1.9-2.80.04.9-1.00.0
67Nebraska8.61.20.80.90.00.74.90.00.0
68Pittsburgh8.52.91.10.00.01.33.20.00.0
69Oklahoma St8.54.13.2-0.7-1.41.51.90.00.0
70Arizona St8.33.62.1-1.2-1.31.23.80.00.0
71Drake8.02.81.50.50.20.03.00.00.0
72St Bonavent7.7-2.92.23.11.50.03.80.00.0
73Florida St7.5-2.93.40.5-0.12.93.80.00.0
74UNLV6.91.41.2-0.4-0.80.64.90.00.0
75Yale6.82.7-0.12.41.70.00.10.00.0
76Penn St6.84.43.2-2.5-3.20.04.90.00.0
77Vanderbilt6.82.21.60.5-0.60.62.50.00.0
78Wash State6.23.02.1-1.4-1.41.13.00.00.0
79Wake Forest6.11.71.70.80.80.01.00.00.0
80Utah St6.05.03.0-2.6-3.40.03.90.00.0
81Liberty5.92.31.10.81.10.00.50.00.0
82UCF5.93.31.4-1.9-2.60.64.90.00.0
83GA Tech5.5-1.42.00.8-0.30.62.81.00.0
84Duquesne5.4-0.70.30.90.80.04.10.00.0
85Colorado St5.30.52.31.40.30.00.90.00.0
86Loyola-Chi5.3-5.02.91.70.70.04.90.00.0
87San Francisco5.20.42.0-0.50.10.03.20.00.0
88Col Charlestn5.22.7-0.10.2-1.10.03.40.00.0
89Georgia5.1-1.61.0-0.2-0.51.64.90.00.0
90Furman4.91.42.00.70.90.00.00.00.0
91Kent St4.92.70.70.50.30.00.80.00.0
92Wichita St4.80.62.5-1.4-1.50.03.71.00.0
93Hofstra4.80.90.60.90.70.01.80.00.0
94S Carolina4.7-3.61.70.00.01.74.90.00.0
95Bradley4.61.71.20.50.70.00.40.00.0
96Colgate4.5-0.21.71.71.10.00.20.00.0
97Loyola Mymt4.50.20.3-0.10.40.03.70.00.0
98Tulane4.40.50.71.30.90.01.00.00.0
99Syracuse4.40.22.90.80.61.60.4-2.00.0
100James Mad4.41.3-0.80.60.10.03.10.00.0
101S Methodist4.3-2.52.50.60.70.03.10.00.0
102Indiana St4.30.80.2-0.1-0.50.03.90.00.0
103UAB4.23.71.5-0.8-1.20.01.00.00.0
104VCU4.22.82.6-2.2-2.70.03.70.00.0
105Akron4.10.41.20.80.90.00.90.00.0
106Ste F Austin3.9-0.50.81.60.80.01.30.00.0
107Grd Canyon3.70.80.60.9-0.10.01.50.00.0
108North Texas3.53.52.2-0.9-0.40.00.9-2.00.0
109Minnesota3.4-2.92.71.40.20.02.00.00.0
110UC Irvine3.40.51.20.61.10.00.00.00.0
111Marshall3.42.20.2-0.8-0.30.02.00.00.0
112Sam Hous St3.22.6-0.10.2-0.40.01.00.00.0
113Butler3.20.42.0-2.0-2.10.04.90.00.0
114Saint Louis3.10.62.5-0.4-0.80.01.10.00.0
115Vermont3.1-0.71.5-0.3-0.40.03.00.00.0
116Richmond3.1-1.82.4-0.1-0.50.03.10.00.0
117Georgetown3.0-3.11.8-1.4-1.20.74.32.00.0
118Ohio2.9-0.60.91.41.10.00.20.00.0
119N Iowa2.7-3.31.32.81.70.00.20.00.0
120LA Tech2.7-1.21.8-0.20.00.02.30.00.0
121Fresno St2.5-0.90.70.20.10.61.90.00.0
122Seattle2.2-0.8-0.21.91.30.00.00.00.0
123NC-Grnsboro2.2-0.20.90.60.20.00.70.00.0
124Drexel2.2-2.8-0.22.61.70.01.00.00.0
125Santa Clara2.21.80.9-1.8-2.10.03.40.00.0
126S Florida1.9-1.50.0-1.1-0.50.04.90.00.0
127DePaul1.8-0.91.4-1.2-0.81.22.10.00.0
128Toledo1.71.51.2-1.2-0.70.00.90.00.0
129NC-Wilmgton1.7-2.0-1.02.11.00.01.60.00.0
130Murray St1.7-3.71.31.10.50.02.60.00.0
131Missouri St1.7-1.41.61.10.40.00.10.00.0
132E Carolina1.6-2.5-0.22.11.30.00.90.00.0
133Princeton1.60.9-0.70.60.80.00.00.00.0
134UCSB1.5-0.31.10.60.00.00.20.00.0
135Davidson1.5-1.22.4-0.10.20.00.10.00.0
136Wright St1.5-2.80.92.10.90.00.40.00.0
137Louisville1.5-5.62.6-0.5-0.43.71.60.00.0
138Lg Beach St1.4-2.1-1.32.31.30.01.10.00.0
139S Dakota St1.4-2.41.31.50.90.00.20.00.0
140Boston Col1.3-2.10.40.90.40.01.60.00.0
141Cleveland St1.3-2.8-1.33.22.20.00.00.00.0
142Temple1.3-0.11.1-1.4-1.00.01.71.00.0
143E Kentucky1.3-2.1-1.12.51.30.00.60.00.0
144W Kentucky1.1-2.21.3-1.4-1.10.63.90.00.0
145Cornell1.1-1.0-1.72.21.60.00.00.00.0
146Geo Mason1.0-1.40.6-1.0-1.10.04.9-1.00.0
147Iona1.02.50.2-2.0-2.50.03.8-1.00.0
148St Josephs1.0-2.6-0.72.61.70.00.00.00.0
149S Mississippi0.90.4-1.80.10.40.01.80.00.0
150App State0.9-2.1-0.21.91.20.00.10.00.0
151Arkansas St0.9-5.9-0.81.30.30.04.91.00.0
152Oregon St0.8-2.71.61.20.70.00.00.00.0
153Belmont0.7-0.61.7-0.2-0.20.00.00.00.0
154E Washingtn0.7-0.70.50.20.30.00.40.00.0
155Hawaii0.7-0.9-0.21.20.50.00.10.00.0
156Samford0.7-1.1-1.80.40.60.62.10.00.0
157Weber St0.6-2.7-0.22.31.10.00.00.00.0
158N Mex State0.5-2.11.2-2.5-2.00.04.91.00.0
159Charlotte0.50.3-0.3-0.10.40.00.30.00.0
160Middle Tenn0.5-0.3-0.90.40.00.01.30.00.0
161UC Davis0.4-1.9-0.91.81.40.00.00.00.0
162Rice0.3-2.9-0.61.50.80.01.50.00.0
163Winthrop0.3-4.90.61.20.70.02.80.00.0
164S Alabama0.30.30.0-0.9-0.80.01.70.00.0
165Oral Roberts0.32.70.5-0.3-0.70.00.1-2.00.0
166California0.2-4.70.8-0.6-0.20.04.90.00.0
167NC-Asheville0.1-2.2-1.41.41.20.01.20.00.0
168Youngs St0.1-0.6-1.6-1.3-1.40.04.90.00.0
169CS Fullerton0.0-0.7-0.90.70.50.00.40.00.0
170TX El Paso-0.1-2.40.20.80.20.01.10.00.0
171Fla Gulf Cst-0.2-2.8-1.72.21.00.01.20.00.0
172Texas St-0.2-2.80.4-0.40.20.02.40.00.0
173S Illinois-0.2-0.70.1-0.5-0.30.01.30.00.0
174Mass Lowell-0.2-0.7-1.31.00.80.00.00.00.0
175Utah Valley-0.33.0-0.3-2.3-3.00.03.4-1.00.0
176Radford-0.3-2.1-1.21.10.40.01.60.00.0
177Air Force-0.4-1.3-1.00.81.00.00.00.00.0
178Montana-0.4-1.9-0.41.20.50.00.30.00.0
179Towson-0.5-1.2-0.1-1.0-0.50.02.30.00.0
180Louisiana-0.50.9-0.7-0.6-0.20.00.00.00.0
181Fordham-0.6-1.3-1.3-0.50.70.01.90.00.0
182Old Dominion-0.6-1.90.1-0.2-0.20.01.50.00.0
183U Mass-0.6-2.90.5-1.3-0.80.03.80.00.0
184Pepperdine-0.7-2.60.2-0.10.21.20.40.00.0
185W Carolina-0.8-3.7-1.11.50.90.01.70.00.0
186Notre Dame-0.9-1.72.5-2.5-2.12.41.6-1.00.0
187Lipscomb-0.9-2.2-1.61.50.30.01.00.00.0
188Abl Christian-0.9-2.90.60.70.30.00.30.00.0
189Portland-0.9-1.5-1.20.0-0.40.02.30.00.0
190Cal Baptist-0.9-1.4-0.5-0.9-0.80.02.60.00.0
191Bryant-1.0-3.2-0.50.90.70.01.10.00.0
192Delaware-1.2-4.4-0.20.0-0.30.03.70.00.0
193N Kentucky-1.2-2.3-0.61.10.00.00.60.00.0
194Pacific-1.3-2.70.00.30.90.00.30.00.0
195Florida Intl-1.3-3.4-1.00.90.90.01.30.00.0
196Georgia St-1.4-5.90.50.4-0.10.03.70.00.0
197N Dakota St-1.4-3.90.31.30.80.00.00.00.0
198TX-Arlington-1.7-4.1-0.4-0.3-0.70.02.81.00.0
199Chattanooga-1.7-2.20.8-1.4-0.90.02.00.00.0
200San Jose St-1.70.4-2.60.30.00.00.20.00.0
201Gard-Webb-1.9-2.9-0.70.80.50.00.30.00.0
202WI-Milwkee-2.0-4.1-2.11.00.20.92.00.00.0
203UC Riverside-2.1-0.90.0-1.2-0.30.00.40.00.0
204Brown-2.3-2.6-1.40.80.90.00.00.00.0
205Bowling Grn-2.4-6.0-0.4-1.7-0.20.04.91.00.0
206Rhode Island-2.4-4.61.5-2.0-0.90.03.60.00.0
207Illinois St-2.6-5.6-0.60.90.40.02.30.00.0
208Bellarmine-2.7-4.8-1.12.00.80.00.40.00.0
209U Penn-2.9-1.1-1.0-0.5-0.30.00.00.00.0
210La Salle-3.1-3.6-0.50.70.30.00.00.00.0
211Stetson-3.2-2.5-1.91.20.00.00.10.00.0
212Wyoming-3.2-1.20.5-1.7-1.50.00.70.00.0
213E Tenn St-3.3-4.41.0-1.40.00.01.60.00.0
214Ball St-3.3-2.0-0.2-1.5-1.10.01.50.00.0
215Quinnipiac-3.4-2.6-1.5-0.3-0.20.00.21.00.0
216Austin Peay-3.4-8.0-1.0-2.1-0.20.04.93.00.0
217Troy-3.5-0.6-1.6-0.5-0.80.00.00.00.0
218Portland St-3.5-4.3-1.00.50.70.00.40.00.0
219Norfolk St-3.6-3.2-0.9-1.1-0.40.02.10.00.0
220Northeastrn-3.6-6.9-0.2-0.30.80.02.90.00.0
221N Alabama-3.7-5.6-2.01.30.60.02.10.00.0
222Harvard-3.7-2.0-0.9-0.6-0.10.00.00.00.0
223Rider-3.7-3.3-1.30.0-0.20.01.10.00.0
224GA Southern-3.8-3.4-0.8-0.8-0.60.00.81.00.0
225Longwood-3.8-2.3-1.5-0.5-0.30.00.70.00.0
226Tarleton St-3.9-1.3-1.7-0.5-0.70.00.30.00.0
227Wofford-3.9-3.50.7-1.0-0.20.00.10.00.0
228American-4.0-5.4-1.71.50.70.00.01.00.0
229Buffalo-4.0-3.31.1-1.3-0.60.01.2-1.00.0
230TX Southern-4.1-6.6-1.1-0.60.00.04.10.00.0
231Mercer-4.1-3.5-0.4-0.1-0.50.00.40.00.0
232St. Thomas-4.2-2.8-2.80.50.90.00.00.00.0
233Tulsa-4.2-6.91.1-2.4-0.40.63.70.00.0
234Morehead St-4.2-5.3-0.50.3-0.10.01.40.00.0
235N Colorado-4.3-4.4-0.1-1.40.00.01.60.00.0
236Queens-4.3-3.2-2.10.70.30.00.00.00.0
237N Arizona-4.3-3.4-2.3-0.10.40.01.10.00.0
238Kennesaw St-4.3-0.9-3.10.2-0.30.00.7-1.00.0
239Montana St-4.4-0.1-0.8-1.7-1.20.00.5-1.00.0
240Miami (OH)-4.6-5.9-0.80.50.50.01.20.00.0
241S Utah-4.60.70.1-2.5-2.90.01.0-1.00.0
242Sac State-4.7-3.8-1.4-1.1-0.40.02.00.00.0
243Jksnville St-4.8-4.8-0.5-1.1-0.40.02.00.00.0
244Geo Wshgtn-4.9-3.4-1.1-0.1-0.90.00.60.00.0
245Siena-4.9-3.3-0.5-1.5-0.90.01.30.00.0
246Stony Brook-4.9-8.0-0.80.2-0.20.03.80.00.0
247N Illinois-4.9-4.4-2.21.00.30.00.40.00.0
248Grambling St-5.0-2.8-2.6-0.3-0.10.00.90.00.0
249Maryland BC-5.0-4.5-0.8-2.0-0.90.03.30.00.0
250Howard-5.0-3.7-3.10.50.10.01.20.00.0
251Jackson St-5.1-6.8-2.11.20.90.01.70.00.0
252Jacksonville-5.1-4.7-1.3-1.3-0.80.03.20.00.0
253UCSD-5.1-5.8-1.61.40.80.00.00.00.0
254CS Bakersfld-5.2-5.9-0.9-0.5-0.10.02.30.00.0
255North Dakota-5.3-5.4-2.40.90.60.01.00.00.0
256Utah Tech-5.3-1.5-2.7-1.2-0.90.00.90.00.0
257Dartmouth-5.5-5.5-1.30.80.60.00.00.00.0
258SIU Edward-5.5-4.9-2.91.70.60.00.00.00.0
259Niagara-5.5-5.0-1.3-1.5-0.10.02.40.00.0
260IL-Chicago-5.8-6.2-1.8-0.40.20.02.40.00.0
261UTSA-5.8-5.9-0.9-2.0-0.60.03.70.00.0
262TX-Pan Am-5.8-4.5-1.9-0.70.40.00.80.00.0
263Canisius-5.9-5.1-1.50.20.40.00.20.00.0
264TN Martin-6.0-5.2-3.30.20.10.02.20.00.0
265Oakland-6.0-5.6-1.10.00.20.00.60.00.0
266Navy-6.1-2.6-0.7-1.6-1.00.0-0.30.00.0
267SE Louisiana-6.1-5.5-3.10.90.70.00.80.00.0
268N Florida-6.1-4.7-1.2-1.3-0.40.01.60.00.0
269McNeese St-6.2-8.5-2.4-0.6-0.20.04.41.00.0
270Maine-6.2-6.3-3.30.91.00.01.60.00.0
271SC Upstate-6.2-5.0-2.70.80.20.00.40.00.0
272Mt St Marys-6.3-5.6-0.9-0.40.10.00.50.00.0
273TN State-6.4-6.4-2.2-0.7-0.20.03.10.00.0
274Lehigh-6.4-5.7-2.51.30.50.00.00.00.0
275Wagner-6.5-7.2-1.20.00.00.02.00.00.0
276Detroit-6.5-3.1-1.3-1.8-1.20.00.90.00.0
277Rob Morris-6.5-4.6-2.2-1.00.00.01.20.00.0
278Campbell-6.5-4.1-1.5-1.2-0.50.00.70.00.0
279NC Central-6.5-2.5-2.5-1.8-1.40.01.70.00.0
280IPFW-6.6-4.2-1.9-1.2-0.60.01.20.00.0
281AR Lit Rock-6.6-7.8-0.7-0.70.00.02.60.00.0
282Nicholls-6.7-5.4-0.5-1.5-0.80.01.60.00.0
283St Peters-6.9-6.5-0.1-1.30.00.01.00.00.0
284Coastal Car-6.9-5.60.2-1.5-0.80.00.90.00.0
285Fairfield-6.9-5.0-1.5-0.9-0.10.00.60.00.0
286Marist-7.0-6.0-1.7-0.30.40.00.70.00.0
287Kansas City-7.0-6.9-1.1-0.60.40.01.10.00.0
288Army-7.0-4.9-1.2-1.00.00.00.00.00.0
289Idaho St-7.2-4.5-2.4-0.30.00.00.00.00.0
290Sacred Hrt-7.2-7.8-1.91.50.60.00.30.00.0
291N Hampshire-7.2-6.1-1.30.10.10.00.00.00.0
292San Diego-7.3-3.5-0.9-1.3-1.60.00.00.00.0
293Lafayette-7.4-5.2-1.6-0.80.20.00.00.00.0
294Loyola-MD-7.4-7.4-1.20.80.40.00.00.00.0
295Boston U-7.4-5.3-0.5-1.3-0.30.00.00.00.0
296High Point-7.5-6.3-2.5-1.1-0.60.02.01.00.0
297TX A&M-Com-7.6-6.8-1.7-0.20.40.00.60.00.0
298Neb Omaha-7.6-7.0-2.61.70.30.00.00.00.0
299South Dakota-7.7-6.6-0.2-1.6-0.20.00.90.00.0
300UL Monroe-7.8-5.9-1.8-0.5-0.10.00.50.00.0
301Binghamton-7.9-6.8-2.7-0.3-0.10.02.10.00.0
302TX A&M-CC-7.9-3.0-2.5-2.1-1.50.02.3-1.00.0
303W Illinois-7.9-5.3-2.4-0.90.10.00.50.00.0
304Alcorn St-8.0-5.4-2.9-0.1-0.10.00.40.00.0
305Columbia-8.1-8.4-2.61.31.50.00.00.00.0
306E Illinois-8.1-8.6-2.8-1.50.10.04.80.00.0
307SE Missouri-8.1-5.0-2.3-1.00.10.00.00.00.0
308Southern-8.2-5.3-2.0-1.5-0.70.01.30.00.0
309E Michigan-8.2-7.3-2.1-0.11.20.00.00.00.0
310Valparaiso-8.4-6.1-0.3-2.2-0.50.00.60.00.0
311TN Tech-8.5-6.4-2.5-0.6-0.10.01.10.00.0
312Elon-8.5-8.0-1.50.3-0.10.00.70.00.0
313Wm & Mary-8.7-6.7-1.9-0.40.10.00.20.00.0
314Denver-8.8-6.4-2.8-0.2-0.30.01.00.00.0
315Chicago St-9.0-6.5-4.01.00.40.00.20.00.0
316Central Conn-9.1-8.3-3.90.90.10.02.10.00.0
317W Michigan-9.4-7.0-2.5-0.8-0.60.01.50.00.0
318Prairie View-9.4-6.0-1.6-2.1-0.60.00.90.00.0
319New Orleans-9.4-9.1-2.21.30.00.00.70.00.0
320Cal St Nrdge-9.4-7.3-2.1-0.6-0.20.00.80.00.0
321Albany-9.5-9.1-1.5-0.70.00.01.70.00.0
322Bucknell-9.5-6.4-2.1-1.10.10.00.00.00.0
323Presbyterian-9.6-8.8-2.60.40.20.01.20.00.0
324Citadel-9.6-7.5-1.9-1.60.00.01.20.00.0
325Stonehill-9.8-7.7-3.1-0.6-0.10.01.70.00.0
326Charl South-9.8-6.4-3.6-0.80.60.00.40.00.0
327Merrimack-9.9-7.1-1.7-1.60.00.00.50.00.0
328Hampton-9.9-9.5-3.0-0.20.80.02.00.00.0
329Manhattan-9.9-6.9-2.0-2.2-0.30.01.50.00.0
330F Dickinson-9.9-6.0-2.60.20.50.00.0-2.00.0
331NW State-10.0-3.6-2.7-2.4-1.40.01.2-1.00.0
332Morgan St-10.0-6.5-2.1-1.2-0.30.00.10.00.0
333NJIT-10.0-8.0-2.4-0.6-0.20.00.21.00.0
334Ark Pine Bl-10.1-8.5-4.0-0.60.00.03.00.00.0
335Central Mich-10.2-8.0-1.9-0.7-0.10.00.50.00.0
336Holy Cross-10.2-8.7-3.00.60.00.00.01.00.0
337Cal Poly-10.3-5.9-2.5-2.2-0.40.00.70.00.0
338Maryland ES-10.4-5.3-3.5-1.3-0.50.00.30.00.0
339Monmouth-10.4-9.8-0.4-0.30.00.00.10.00.0
340VMI-10.6-9.5-0.6-2.01.60.00.00.00.0
341WI-Grn Bay-10.6-12.1-2.2-0.90.90.01.72.00.0
342IUPUI-10.6-11.3-3.71.60.80.02.00.00.0
343Alab A&M-10.7-6.8-3.8-0.1-0.10.00.00.00.0
344Central Ark-10.8-8.6-2.7-0.10.40.00.10.00.0
345S Indiana-10.9-6.0-3.1-2.1-0.30.00.60.00.0
346Incar Word-10.9-9.0-4.0-1.60.00.02.71.00.0
347Evansville-10.9-9.6-1.80.0-0.20.00.60.00.0
348Florida A&M-11.2-10.6-2.51.0-0.30.01.20.00.0
349Idaho-11.6-6.2-3.5-2.4-0.70.00.21.00.0
350Delaware St-11.7-10.2-4.01.51.10.00.00.00.0
351Lindenwood-11.7-8.6-3.1-0.9-0.10.01.00.00.0
352St Fran (PA)-11.8-8.2-1.7-2.10.10.00.10.00.0
353Lamar-11.9-10.4-2.60.20.80.00.00.00.0
354Coppin St-12.1-8.7-2.7-2.20.00.00.61.00.0
355NC A&T-12.2-7.3-2.3-2.3-0.40.00.10.00.0
356S Car State-12.3-9.7-4.00.41.10.00.00.00.0
357Beth-Cook-13.2-9.7-2.7-0.7-0.10.00.00.00.0
358Le Moyne*-13.7-11.5-4.0-1.00.00.02.80.00.0
359Alabama St-14.3-9.5-3.8-0.8-0.10.00.00.00.0
360LIU-14.7-13.7-1.4-1.60.40.01.70.00.0
361Hsn Christian-15.8-11.0-3.8-1.1-0.10.00.30.00.0
362Miss Val St-16.3-10.6-4.0-1.80.20.00.00.00.0

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.

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.)

  • 2022-23: 3rd of 22 (behind Evan Miya, Pomeroy)
  • 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. Also, congratulations to Evan Miya for an excellent 2023!

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