2025-26 College Basketball Rankings & Ratings For All 365 Teams

We have our full rankings for the start of the 2025-2026 college basketball season, plus a breakdown of our Top 25 rated teams.

by Jason Lisk - Oct 30, 2025

Brigham Young Cougars guard Trey Stewart (1) guards Houston Cougars guard Milos Uzan (7) in the first half of a Big 12 tournament semifinal game between the BYU Cougars and Houston Cougars on March 14, 2025 at T-Mobile Center in Kansas City, MO.

Milos Uzan and Houston sit atop our rankings to start the year (Scott Winters/Icon Sportswire)

Our 2025–26 college basketball rankings are live, just in time for opening night on Monday, November 3, 2025.

If you want the nuts and bolts of our process, see our TeamRankings explainer on how we build college basketball preseason ratings.

And yes, debate is part of the fun, but historically, our preseason models have ranked among the most accurate. If you’d rather skip straight to the numbers, jump to the data below.

Here’s what you’ll find:

  • Highlights from this year’s preseason rankings
  • The complete rankings and ratings for all 365 Division I teams
  • The key factors that drove each team’s preseason rating

But first things first, the question that’s on everyone’s mind: who’s No. 1?

Houston at No. 1: Veteran Core Plus Talented Newcomers

Houston, for the second year in a row, stands atop our college basketball rankings heading into the year. Last season, the Cougars earned a No. 1 seed, knocked off Duke in the Final Four, and lost a close game after having a lead in the national title. Relative to Florida, though, Houston has more pieces coming back in 2025-2026.

Houston did lose forward J’Wan Roberts, but Joseph Tugler, already one of the best rebounders and interior defenders in college basketball, should be primed to take on an even bigger role this year. The backcourt of Milos Uzan and Emanuel Sharp returns.

And to that core, Houston is adding one of the best freshman classes in the country, to a situation where they don’t have to start out as the stars, but can contribute to a winning team with established success. Forward Chris Cenac and guards Kingston Flemings and Isiah Harwell are all top 20 national recruits who could provide this team with a boost as the season goes on.

Of course, there’s head coach Kelvin Sampson, who just keeps getting better with age. Houston’s last time finishing outside our Top 4 in end-of-season power ratings was the 2019-2020 season. We’ll bank on that consistent success carrying forward another year.

Where is Last Year’s Champion, Florida?

Florida is ranked No. 5 in our initial rankings, and it will certainly be in the mix to compete for a national title again.

The Florida front court is back and deep. All of the key players on the front line (Alex Condon, Thomas Haugh, Rueben Chinyelu, and Micah Handgloten) are back. The question marks come in the backcourt, where they will be relying on a lot of players new to the program. Gone are All-American Walter Clayton, along with Alijah Martin and Will Richard.

Boogie Fland, who was inconsistent as a freshman at Arkansas last year, has transferred in. The team has also added Xaivian Lee, a guard who has been Princeton’s leading scorer the last two seasons. Two key freshmen, C.J. Ingram and Alex Lloyd, could also play a role.

How quickly the backcourt can come together may decide whether Florida is going to be “pretty good” or compete for a top seed again.

Pretty Balanced Across the Top Conferences

Our top five features teams from five different conferences, and the distribution across the top 25 is also pretty balanced among the top conferences.

Our Top 25 features seven teams from the Big 12, six from each of the Big Ten and SEC, and then six others (3 Big East, 2 ACC, and Gonzaga).

Outside of the Power Five Conferences, though, you have to go fairly far down the list past Gonzaga to find the next tier of teams.

The other top-rated teams (besides Gonzaga) from outside the ACC/Big East/Big Ten/Big 12/SEC are:

  • San Diego State, No. 47
  • VCU, No. 50
  • Utah State, No. 51
  • Boise State, No. 53
  • Saint Mary’s, No. 55
  • Memphis, No. 64

NCAAB Preseason Top 25 Comparison

Let’s run through our complete 2025–26 college basketball Top 25.

We included every team that landed in at least one preseason Top 25 from these sources:

The table below lists each team’s rank in those five systems, the average of those ranks, and a final column showing TR’s difference from the consensus average. A positive value means TR rates the team higher than consensus; a negative value means lower than consensus.

Teams that received no poll votes were assigned a rank of 55. Teams are sorted by lowest (best) average rank. All rankings are as of October 30.

Teams With At Least One Top 25 Preseason Ranking

TeamTRKPBTAPCOACHAVGTR DIFF
Houston111221.40.4
Purdue234112.20.2
Florida525333.6-1.4
Duke372654.61.6
UConn4510445.41.4
Michigan7113777.00.0
Kentucky6414998.42.4
St John's8167568.40.4
UCLA9109121210.41.4
Illinois1068171411.01.0
BYU171868811.4-5.6
Louisville161411111012.4-3.6
Arizona121512131313.01.0
Tennessee11913181713.62.6
Texas Tech141229101115.21.2
Iowa St181315161816.0-2.0
Kansas132117191917.84.8
Alabama152320151617.82.8
Gonzaga19824212018.4-0.6
Arkansas232916141519.4-3.6
Michigan St212522222122.21.2
Auburn223128202224.62.6
Ohio St202719302824.84.8
North Carolina273318252525.6-1.4
Wisconsin302030242425.6-4.4
Creighton254123232327.02.0
Vanderbilt311921363227.8-3.2
USC342226333329.6-4.4
Baylor241736423029.85.8
Missouri282825343530.02.0
Mississippi372443323634.4-2.6

College Basketball Rankings: Top 25 Comparisons

When comparing college basketball rankings across the systems above, a couple of things stand out.

Teams Rated Higher by Human Polls

Last year, the teams favored more heavily by the human polls were general disappointments. Only Mississippi performed up to the poll expectations (a No. 6 seed as preseason No. 25), while Kansas, Baylor, and Arkansas all went from highly ranked in the preseason to middling seeds in the tournament, and Indiana just missed the field.

This year, there’s a little more agreement between the polls and the data-driven rankings, and also some more diversity in the data-driven rankings, which leads to fewer clear discrepancies.

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

Listed are the teams with the largest discrepancies, along with the difference between (a) their lowest human poll ranking and (b) their highest ranking among the data-driven systems.

  • St. John’s +1 (No. 6 in Coaches Poll, No. 7 in BT)
  • Texas Tech +1 (No. 11 in Coaches Poll, No. 12 in KP)
  • Arkansas +1 (No. 15 in Coaches Poll, No. 16 in BT)
  • Purdue +1 (No. 1 in both polls, No. 2 in all of KP, TR, BT)

These barely qualify as disagreements, as Purdue is not seen as the top team in the data-driven systems but is close, and all the others are also near at least one of the data-driven rankings.

Teams Rated Lower by Human Polls

Last year, the data-driven rankings prevailed in the showdown with the human polls. Houston, Duke, and Auburn all finished as No. 1 seeds and were closer to their data-driven ratings in the preseason by the time the season ended.

The only other team to make the list was Texas Tech, which was just outside the Top 25 in the preseason but inside it in all the ratings systems and finished as a No. 3 seed.

Now to this year’s versions, as there are more disagreements here, and teams that are a little lower in the human polls.

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

Listed is the difference between (a) each team’s highest ranking in the human polls and (b) its lowest ranking among the three data-driven systems.

  • Missouri -6 (No. 34 in AP Poll in votes, No. 28 in TR and KP)
  • Tennessee -4 (No. 17 in Coaches Poll,  No. 13 in BT)
  • Illinois -4 (No. 14 in Coaches Poll, No. 10 in TR)
  • UCLA -2 (No. 12 in both polls, No. 10 in KP)

Missouri only made the Top 25 in Bart Torvik’s ratings, but is just outside in ours and Pomeroys, and lower down the list of votes received by the polls. The voters do not have as much belief that Tennessee will stay as a top team, while Illinois and UCLA appear in the Top 10 in all three rankings systems, but outside it in the polls.

Who’s Most In Sync With Consensus?

Among the 31 teams listed in the table above, the Coaches Poll is actually closest to consensus this year, just ahead of TeamRankings, while Torvik is the only one that has a lower correlation to consensus this year compared to last.

The rank order of correlation to consensus is as follows:

  • Coaches Poll (0.970)
  • TeamRankings (0.958)
  • AP Poll (0.936)
  • Pomeroy (0.886)
  • Torvik (0.793)

Compared to the other ranking systems, our rankings tend to have fewer or smaller outliers. This makes sense, as we incorporate market and poll data to adjust for cases where our model rating alone appears as a significant outlier.

Teams We Rate Higher (Relative to Consensus)

Last year, we highlighted teams we were higher than consensus on, and lower than consensus on. Cincinnati ended up missing the tournament, so that was a miss, while being higher on UCLA was a positive, and we were either closer to or in line with where the others we highlighted finished.

Here are the teams we’re most optimistic about entering this season:

  • Baylor: While we are not quite as high as Pomeroy on Baylor, we are still well above the other three, and it’s one of our biggest disagreements with the polls that are largely ignoring Baylor. We have Scott Drew’s squad at No. 24 in the preseason.
  • Ohio State: The Buckeyes just missed the NCAA Tournament a year ago in Jake Diebler’s first year as coach, but we see them contending this year, at No. 20 in our rankings.
  • Kansas: By their lofty standards, Kansas has had a relatively down couple of years, but we have them at No. 13, higher than anyone else. The Jayhawks check in at No. 19 in both polls after being the preseason No. 1 in the polls the last two years. Kansas has not been ranked outside the Top 10 in the preseason AP poll since 2011. That year, they started at No. 13 and ended up losing to Kentucky in the national title game.

Teams We Rate Lower (Relative to Consensus)

  • BYU: We have BYU at No. 17, a team that is generating a lot of buzz and ranked No. 8 in both polls. Adding to that buzz is the fact that freshman sensation A.J. Dybantsa has joined the team.
  • Louisville: We have Louisville at No. 16 coming off their return-to-prominence season a year ago with Pat Kelsey as head coach. The optimism is higher elsewhere, as they rank as high as No. 10 in the Coaches Poll.
  • Wisconsin: We have the Badgers at No. 30, while they are ranked No. 24 in both polls.
  • USC: The Trojans have underperformed and posted consecutive losing seasons against decent expectations recently, but have added nine transfers, including Chad Baker-Mazara from Auburn and Rodney Rice from Maryland. Both of the other rating systems have them higher, but we are starting with them at No. 34.

Full 2025-26 College Basketball Rankings, From No. 1 To No. 365

Our 2025–26 college basketball rankings cover all 365 Division I teams, paired with each program’s preseason predictive rating.

That rating is expressed in points above or below a perfectly average D-I team on a neutral court (positive = better than average, negative = worse).

The table’s last eight columns show how much specific inputs contributed to each team’s rating, plus a final “market adjustment” we apply in certain cases.

Here’s a quick explanation of those factors. For a deeper dive, see our explainer on how we build college basketball 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 a 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 RankTeam25-26 RatingLAST YRPROGRAMRET OFFRET DEFRECRUITTRANSFERCOACHMARKET
1Houston23.811.15.62.10.84.20.00.00.0
2Purdue22.17.14.64.82.63.00.00.00.0
3Duke19.212.24.5-1.1-2.05.60.00.00.0
4UConn18.55.84.52.61.54.00.20.00.0
5Florida18.411.33.11.20.61.50.70.00.0
6Kentucky17.77.44.30.4-0.43.62.30.00.0
7Michigan17.56.82.51.00.52.04.20.00.5
8St John's17.37.33.00.5-0.92.54.90.00.0
9UCLA17.36.64.12.40.81.91.60.00.0
11Tennessee17.19.05.2-0.6-1.33.51.20.00.0
10Illinois17.17.44.21.30.61.80.70.01.0
12Arizona17.18.24.81.1-0.44.30.00.0-1.0
13Kansas17.06.64.5-0.8-1.44.82.30.01.0
14Texas Tech17.08.33.91.1-0.50.03.20.01.0
15Alabama16.99.44.51.0-0.64.10.00.0-1.5
16Louisville16.85.9-0.10.1-0.93.46.50.02.0
17BYU16.86.33.71.50.93.41.10.00.0
18Iowa St16.78.24.11.91.52.40.10.0-1.5
19Gonzaga16.68.64.71.4-0.61.90.70.00.0
20Ohio St16.35.73.33.30.62.91.40.0-1.0
21Michigan St16.28.13.71.30.63.30.30.0-1.0
22Auburn15.811.34.5-0.6-1.73.00.8-1.50.0
23Arkansas15.25.03.11.00.24.31.60.00.0
24Baylor14.96.04.5-1.8-2.44.44.20.00.0
25Creighton14.45.04.10.0-0.62.23.70.00.0
26Mississippi St14.45.53.01.0-1.11.34.70.00.0
27North Carolina14.45.34.2-0.7-1.64.52.60.00.0
28Missouri14.26.41.21.70.73.20.90.00.0
29Texas14.04.44.40.4-0.82.52.60.50.0
30Wisconsin14.07.23.31.00.20.71.70.00.0
31Vanderbilt13.94.11.51.20.60.06.50.00.0
32Iowa13.93.03.8-1.4-2.00.96.52.01.0
33Oregon13.65.92.82.00.61.01.20.00.0
34USC13.63.22.8-1.3-2.03.97.00.00.0
35Georgia13.44.90.50.0-0.33.35.00.00.0
36Maryland13.38.52.8-1.7-2.33.13.4-0.50.0
37Mississippi13.26.11.5-0.4-1.32.74.50.00.0
38Indiana13.03.72.6-1.6-2.12.96.01.50.0
39Marquette12.95.93.91.11.11.90.00.0-1.0
40Villanova12.93.43.7-1.0-1.52.35.01.00.0
41Cincinnati12.64.02.8-0.7-1.53.15.00.00.0
42Clemson12.65.73.0-1.1-1.71.85.00.00.0
43SMU12.43.71.71.20.61.33.90.00.0
44NC State12.2-0.72.3-1.1-1.52.27.52.51.0
45Texas A&M12.06.13.0-1.5-2.10.06.00.50.0
46Providence12.00.23.20.80.91.95.00.00.0
47San Diego St11.82.93.62.61.90.00.70.00.0
48Oklahoma11.74.03.2-0.8-1.62.05.00.00.0
49Washington11.7-0.31.7-0.2-1.02.68.50.00.5
50VCU11.44.22.4-0.7-1.21.25.00.50.0
51Utah St11.33.43.11.71.50.01.60.00.0
52Virginia11.3-0.73.1-1.5-1.72.57.00.52.0
53Boise St11.13.73.21.40.80.02.00.00.0
54TCU10.81.83.60.2-0.41.73.80.00.0
55Saint Mary's10.75.44.11.1-0.20.00.30.00.0
56Nebraska10.63.81.80.20.00.04.70.00.0
57Northwestern9.83.82.91.60.30.01.30.00.0
58Kansas St9.42.13.0-0.9-1.31.45.00.00.0
59Xavier9.34.33.3-1.5-2.10.85.0-0.50.0
60Pittsburgh9.13.32.00.2-1.10.84.00.00.0
61Notre Dame9.10.11.41.90.83.02.00.00.0
62LSU9.11.62.2-0.6-1.42.45.00.00.0
63Wake Forest8.21.52.90.2-0.40.63.50.00.0
64Memphis8.22.72.6-1.8-2.40.86.20.00.0
65Oklahoma St8.20.12.5-1.0-1.42.06.00.00.0
66West Virginia8.04.12.3-1.7-2.20.05.50.00.0
67Dayton7.90.92.80.30.00.04.00.00.0
68Miami7.8-3.13.1-1.3-0.72.96.50.50.0
69San Francisco7.81.72.50.90.50.02.20.00.0
70Syracuse7.6-1.01.80.1-0.62.84.40.00.0
71Butler7.21.61.7-0.5-1.71.25.00.00.0
72UCF7.22.12.3-1.6-2.10.06.50.00.0
73Utah7.02.32.4-0.6-1.50.05.0-0.50.0
74Minnesota6.90.81.1-1.0-1.40.05.02.50.0
75South Carolina6.91.61.2-1.4-1.82.45.00.00.0
76Colorado6.91.32.90.70.01.81.10.0-1.0
77Virginia Tech6.7-2.32.91.31.10.62.50.00.5
78Arizona St6.61.91.8-1.4-2.11.35.00.00.0
79New Mexico6.54.42.2-1.5-2.10.04.0-0.50.0
80Yale6.41.11.52.31.50.00.00.00.0
81Saint Louis6.2-1.41.11.31.30.03.90.00.0
82DePaul6.0-0.60.11.10.50.05.00.00.0
83Rutgers5.81.92.5-1.2-1.53.71.30.0-1.0
84G Washington5.7-2.0-0.72.41.00.05.00.00.0
85Georgia Tech5.5-0.30.50.30.02.41.70.01.0
86Georgetown5.50.8-0.2-0.4-0.90.74.60.01.0
87Colorado St5.53.72.6-0.7-1.50.03.4-2.00.0
88Penn St5.43.72.5-1.0-1.71.70.80.0-0.5
89Liberty5.10.81.02.00.90.00.40.00.0
90N Texas5.10.72.5-1.5-2.00.05.50.00.0
91Santa Clara5.03.21.80.3-0.40.00.10.00.0
92Oregon St4.91.1-0.2-0.3-0.70.05.00.00.0
93Grand Canyon4.9-0.62.0-0.6-0.90.05.00.00.0
94Bradley4.80.32.00.40.00.02.20.00.0
95Stanford4.80.91.70.50.80.90.10.00.0
96George Mason4.70.61.0-0.6-1.20.05.00.00.0
97California4.6-0.70.1-0.10.30.05.00.00.0
98UNLV4.6-0.22.0-1.2-1.40.06.0-0.50.0
99Nevada4.41.32.3-1.0-1.30.03.10.00.0
100Akron4.4-0.61.02.00.70.01.40.00.0
101N Iowa4.2-0.20.72.01.60.00.10.00.0
102Florida St4.10.81.1-1.3-1.60.75.0-0.50.0
103Duquesne4.0-2.50.30.90.70.04.60.00.0
104UC Irvine3.41.61.40.2-0.10.00.40.00.0
105NC Wilmington3.1-1.00.40.0-0.30.04.00.00.0
106UAB2.7-0.62.3-1.6-1.70.04.20.00.0
107Tulane2.7-2.31.22.10.90.00.70.00.0
108Chattanooga2.5-1.00.7-0.2-0.30.03.30.00.0
109Illinois St2.4-1.8-0.82.91.20.01.00.00.0
111High Point2.30.3-1.0-0.7-0.80.05.5-1.00.0
110Seton Hall2.3-3.82.7-1.4-1.10.06.00.00.0
112Belmont2.1-1.81.31.20.60.00.90.00.0
113Saint Joseph's2.10.40.50.40.60.00.10.00.0
114Furman1.8-1.91.31.21.10.00.00.00.0
115Boston College1.7-3.81.01.10.60.02.70.00.0
116Loyola Chi1.7-1.21.20.1-0.10.01.70.00.0
117St Bonaventure1.6-1.41.1-1.0-1.10.04.00.00.0
118Towson1.6-3.10.91.50.00.02.20.00.0
119McNeese1.62.0-1.20.8-0.40.01.4-1.50.5
120Ohio1.5-3.70.60.70.40.03.40.00.0
121S Florida1.5-4.10.3-0.5-0.20.05.50.50.0
122Murray St1.4-2.10.8-1.5-1.30.04.61.00.0
123Wichita St1.4-2.01.2-1.5-1.20.05.00.00.0
124Seattle1.3-2.60.81.00.70.01.50.00.0
126Kent St1.3-1.50.90.50.40.01.10.00.0
125Hawai'i1.3-4.90.20.80.30.05.00.00.0
127Drake1.32.02.4-1.5-2.10.03.0-2.50.0
128Washington St1.3-0.93.0-0.6-0.80.01.60.0-1.0
129UCSD1.34.2-1.0-0.9-1.70.01.6-1.00.0
130Charleston1.2-2.61.3-1.4-1.00.05.00.00.0
131Loyola Mymt1.2-2.70.20.30.40.03.00.00.0
132Temple1.2-3.20.5-0.7-0.40.05.00.00.0
133J Madison1.1-3.71.2-1.0-0.30.05.00.00.0
134Troy1.1-0.80.31.00.60.00.00.00.0
135Utah Valley0.8-1.11.10.20.00.00.70.00.0
136S Dakota St0.7-1.20.81.50.60.00.00.0-1.0
137Miami OH0.7-2.6-1.62.81.60.00.50.00.0
138E Tennessee St0.6-2.8-0.7-0.7-0.20.05.00.00.0
139W Kentucky0.6-3.20.5-1.1-0.50.04.90.00.0
140New Mexico St0.6-2.1-0.1-1.3-0.90.05.00.00.0
141Kennesaw St0.5-2.6-0.61.80.80.01.10.00.0
142Middle Tenn0.3-1.70.1-0.2-0.10.02.20.00.0
143Davidson0.3-2.71.3-0.9-0.10.02.70.00.0
144Florida Atlantic0.1-1.12.6-0.9-0.90.00.40.00.0
145Louisiana Tech0.1-2.01.0-0.40.20.01.30.00.0
146Jacksonville St0.1-1.6-0.6-1.0-1.00.04.20.00.0
147UTEP0.0-3.1-0.2-1.1-0.60.05.00.00.0
148Tulsa-0.1-6.0-0.9-1.10.00.08.00.00.0
149St Thomas-0.1-1.4-0.81.11.00.00.10.00.0
150Richmond-0.2-5.91.30.60.90.02.90.00.0
151Cornell-0.2-1.40.51.30.30.00.60.0-1.5
152Winthrop-0.2-2.9-0.5-1.0-0.20.04.50.00.0
153UCSB-0.2-2.50.20.00.10.02.00.00.0
154Arkansas St-0.30.4-0.7-1.5-1.90.05.0-1.50.0
155S Illinois-0.3-4.00.8-0.10.40.01.90.00.5
156San Jose St-0.4-3.4-0.5-0.9-0.60.05.00.00.0
157Wyoming-0.4-3.61.0-1.0-0.40.03.60.00.0
158Rice-0.4-4.3-0.70.50.30.03.70.00.0
159NC Asheville-0.4-4.4-0.20.80.40.03.00.00.0
160Toledo-0.4-4.91.5-0.20.70.02.50.00.0
161Illinois Chicago-0.5-2.9-1.5-0.5-0.60.05.00.00.0
162Rhode Island-0.5-2.8-0.4-1.4-0.90.05.00.00.0
163E Carolina-0.7-3.7-0.30.30.90.02.00.00.0
164Radford-0.8-3.4-1.0-1.1-0.80.05.00.50.0
165S Alabama-0.8-1.70.10.00.30.00.40.00.0
166Cal Baptist-0.9-3.3-0.41.1-0.10.01.80.00.0
167Wright St-1.1-4.7-0.20.10.00.03.70.00.0
168Harvard-1.1-6.0-0.63.01.41.20.00.00.0
169E Kentucky-1.2-4.2-0.70.40.40.02.80.00.0
170Princeton-1.3-3.81.50.50.50.00.00.00.0
171Indiana St-1.3-4.11.30.10.10.01.40.00.0
172N Colorado-1.3-1.0-1.00.4-0.10.01.30.0-1.0
173Missouri St-1.4-4.81.00.30.30.01.80.00.0
174Youngstown St-1.5-3.9-0.1-0.4-0.10.03.00.00.0
175Iona-1.5-6.41.0-1.2-0.10.04.60.50.0
176Hofstra-1.5-4.61.10.90.40.00.60.00.0
177Samford-1.7-1.30.6-1.5-1.40.03.3-1.50.0
178Fordham-1.8-5.30.0-1.5-0.40.05.00.50.0
179Charlotte-1.8-5.80.6-0.9-0.20.04.50.00.0
180Purdue FW-1.8-2.6-0.7-0.3-0.40.02.20.00.0
181Texas St-1.8-4.3-0.1-0.6-0.30.03.40.00.0
182Southern-1.9-4.8-1.32.11.00.01.20.00.0
183CS Northridge-1.9-1.2-2.4-0.1-0.20.02.00.00.0
184Brown-2.0-4.9-0.41.31.10.00.00.01.0
185Sam Houston-2.0-3.80.9-1.4-0.60.02.90.00.0
186Oakland-2.0-4.1-0.40.1-0.20.02.50.00.0
187UTSA-2.0-4.0-1.9-1.3-0.60.04.80.01.0
188Incarnate Word-2.0-5.2-3.71.30.80.04.80.00.0
189Lipscomb-2.0-0.2-0.7-0.5-0.20.00.0-0.50.0
190App State-2.1-3.90.6-0.7-0.10.02.00.00.0
191UMass-2.2-4.70.4-0.50.10.02.60.00.0
192San Diego-2.2-7.5-1.0-0.90.20.06.00.01.0
193N Alabama-2.3-1.7-1.80.60.60.00.00.00.0
194SF Austin-2.3-6.20.5-0.40.30.02.51.00.0
195N Dakota St-2.4-1.5-0.8-0.60.20.00.80.0-0.5
196Old Dominion-2.4-7.7-0.60.60.40.03.90.01.0
197Campbell-2.5-4.4-1.5-1.1-0.50.05.00.00.0
198Abl Christian-2.5-5.2-0.20.70.50.01.20.00.5
199Vermont-2.5-5.91.40.70.10.01.20.00.0
200Marshall-2.5-3.7-0.1-0.3-0.20.01.80.00.0
201La Salle-2.5-4.8-0.7-1.4-0.60.05.00.00.0
202Montana-2.5-3.0-0.40.20.20.00.50.00.0
203Omaha-2.6-2.9-2.71.41.20.00.50.00.0
204FGCU-2.7-3.9-0.70.20.70.00.50.00.5
205Longwood-2.8-4.20.00.70.30.01.3-1.00.0
207Colgate-2.9-6.00.71.31.00.00.20.00.0
206CS Bakersfield-2.9-4.8-1.6-0.10.30.03.8-0.50.0
208UT Arlington-2.9-5.0-0.4-0.70.00.03.10.00.0
209Wofford-3.0-2.0-0.2-0.9-0.70.01.3-0.50.0
210Navy-3.1-6.9-1.13.41.50.00.00.00.0
211Little Rock-3.1-5.5-2.01.20.50.01.70.01.0
212Portland St-3.1-4.1-1.41.30.80.00.20.00.0
213Quinnipiac-3.2-4.9-0.60.80.30.01.20.00.0
214NC Greensboro-3.2-2.60.3-1.5-1.10.01.60.00.0
215Fresno St-3.3-6.10.6-0.20.10.02.20.00.0
216Montana St-3.4-3.40.0-0.1-0.10.00.20.00.0
217Norfolk St-3.5-3.7-0.6-1.3-0.60.02.80.00.0
218Idaho-3.5-6.0-2.82.31.20.01.70.00.0
219Robert Morris-3.5-2.3-2.1-0.9-1.00.02.80.00.0
220Pacific-3.5-6.7-2.30.00.50.05.00.00.0
221Texas A&M-CC-3.5-2.8-0.8-0.7-0.40.01.20.00.0
222Nicholls-3.6-3.2-1.2-0.40.20.01.00.00.0
223Monmouth-3.6-6.0-1.30.81.20.01.70.00.0
224Florida Intl-3.7-6.2-1.4-1.10.00.05.00.00.0
225William & Mary-3.7-5.2-2.70.20.30.03.70.00.0
226Dartmouth-3.7-4.6-1.81.90.80.00.00.00.0
227Milwaukee-3.8-2.0-1.8-0.5-0.40.00.80.00.0
228Drexel-3.8-3.80.2-0.20.40.00.20.0-0.5
229E Washington-3.8-6.70.01.40.20.01.20.00.0
230Marist-4.0-6.5-1.21.51.20.01.00.00.0
231Pepperdine-4.0-4.3-1.0-1.2-0.50.62.50.00.0
232Elon-4.0-4.3-2.4-1.3-0.40.04.40.00.0
233SE Missouri St-4.1-4.2-2.41.61.00.00.00.00.0
234Siena-4.2-5.8-2.22.70.80.00.30.00.0
235Bethune-4.2-7.1-3.50.50.40.05.50.00.0
236SE Louisiana-4.2-4.0-2.0-0.40.20.02.00.00.0
237Louisiana-4.4-8.40.5-0.50.41.22.40.00.0
238Lamar-4.4-3.5-3.00.40.70.00.00.01.0
239Northeastern-4.4-4.5-1.70.60.30.00.80.00.0
240Sacramento St-4.5-8.8-2.1-1.40.40.06.90.50.0
241Tennessee St-4.5-5.6-2.00.90.70.00.51.00.0
242Bowling Green-4.5-7.1-1.7-0.10.40.02.90.01.0
243Jackson St-4.5-6.3-2.31.70.70.01.60.00.0
244Merrimack-4.6-4.3-1.9-1.2-0.40.03.20.00.0
245Hampton-4.6-4.6-3.50.00.30.03.10.00.0
246SIU Edward-4.6-4.8-1.80.70.60.00.70.00.0
247UC Davis-4.7-5.5-0.40.60.40.00.70.0-0.5
248Ball St-4.7-6.2-1.0-1.40.00.03.90.00.0
249Cleveland St-4.8-2.8-0.5-1.5-1.10.00.60.50.0
250NW State-4.9-5.3-2.60.80.40.01.80.00.0
251UT Rio Grande-4.9-5.5-2.3-0.70.20.03.50.00.0
252Portland-5.0-6.6-0.8-1.00.60.02.70.00.0
253Columbia-5.1-7.1-3.02.10.80.00.51.00.5
254S Utah-5.2-7.80.1-1.40.30.03.70.00.0
255Georgia So-5.2-6.3-1.3-0.70.00.03.20.00.0
256Mercer-5.2-5.8-0.7-1.10.00.02.30.00.0
257Stony Brook-5.2-9.2-1.6-0.80.50.05.90.00.0
258Delaware-5.3-5.3-0.3-0.50.10.00.60.00.0
259Queens-5.4-4.9-1.90.70.10.00.70.00.0
260Sacred Heart-5.4-6.3-2.61.20.50.01.80.00.0
261Valparaiso-5.4-4.1-1.5-1.3-0.50.02.10.00.0
262S Indiana-5.4-8.8-2.8-1.40.20.07.40.00.0
263Cal Poly-5.4-3.5-2.60.50.10.00.00.00.0
264UC Riverside-5.5-3.3-0.2-1.4-0.70.01.6-1.50.0
265Long Beach St-5.5-7.8-0.1-1.30.50.03.20.00.0
266Bryant-5.6-2.5-0.5-1.0-0.80.00.2-1.00.0
267Evansville-5.6-5.6-2.5-0.20.40.01.80.00.5
268N Kentucky-5.6-4.8-0.5-0.6-0.10.00.80.0-0.5
269Mt St Mary's-5.7-5.8-1.5-0.60.30.01.90.00.0
270Boston U-5.7-7.6-1.52.41.00.00.00.00.0
271Texas So-5.7-6.7-1.41.90.60.00.00.00.0
272Weber St-5.8-6.2-0.10.10.10.00.70.0-0.5
273Idaho St-5.8-3.8-2.1-0.10.30.00.50.0-0.5
274Manhattan-5.8-5.8-2.51.70.70.00.10.00.0
275Utah Tech-5.9-7.9-1.1-0.50.50.02.10.01.0
276Jacksonville-5.9-4.7-1.2-0.90.00.01.00.00.0
277Presbyterian-5.9-5.4-2.30.30.70.00.80.00.0
278UMass Lowell-6.0-5.5-0.1-1.5-0.40.01.60.00.0
279Tarleton St-6.1-7.60.1-0.30.40.01.30.00.0
280Penn-6.1-7.7-0.30.90.50.00.00.50.0
281Coastal Car-6.1-8.6-1.4-0.40.40.02.90.01.0
282N Arizona-6.1-5.2-2.3-0.50.00.01.90.00.0
283New Orleans-6.2-10.0-3.0-0.51.70.05.70.00.0
284Bucknell-6.2-4.9-2.40.30.50.00.30.00.0
285Grambling-6.3-7.7-1.7-1.40.20.04.9-0.50.0
286E Michigan-6.3-6.8-2.8-1.40.00.04.70.00.0
287South Dakota-6.3-5.0-1.90.4-0.60.00.80.00.0
288Hou Christian-6.4-6.7-4.30.50.50.03.60.00.0
289Austin Peay-6.5-6.8-2.00.30.60.01.40.00.0
290Morehead St-6.5-8.70.0-0.70.40.02.40.00.0
291Saint Peter's-6.6-7.1-0.60.40.30.00.40.00.0
292Georgia St-6.6-6.5-0.8-0.10.70.00.00.00.0
293C Michigan-6.7-4.5-2.6-1.5-0.70.02.10.50.0
294Maine-6.7-4.8-2.5-0.7-0.10.01.40.00.0
295Alabama St-6.8-6.5-3.1-0.40.20.03.00.00.0
296Oral Roberts-6.8-8.10.4-1.40.70.01.70.00.0
297VMI-6.9-7.5-3.12.51.30.00.00.00.0
298UMBC-7.0-7.4-1.40.20.40.01.20.00.0
299LIU-7.0-7.4-3.82.00.50.00.60.01.0
300W Carolina-7.1-9.9-0.81.60.30.01.20.00.5
301W Michigan-7.1-7.1-2.6-0.90.20.02.80.00.5
302Kansas City-7.1-5.0-1.4-0.5-0.10.00.80.0-1.0
303Southern Miss-7.2-7.7-1.2-1.40.20.02.80.00.0
304Air Force-7.3-7.3-0.80.50.40.00.00.00.0
305American-7.4-5.9-2.30.40.50.00.00.00.0
306S Carolina St-7.4-3.9-3.51.40.50.00.00.0-2.0
307C Connecticut-7.4-4.1-2.9-0.8-0.30.00.60.00.0
308Lafayette-7.5-7.0-2.41.10.70.00.00.00.0
309Detroit Mercy-7.6-8.9-1.92.20.60.00.00.00.5
310Gardner-Webb-7.7-6.1-0.5-1.4-0.10.00.40.00.0
311Lehigh-7.7-7.4-1.91.00.60.00.00.00.0
312W Georgia-7.7-9.8-3.41.70.40.03.40.00.0
313Alabama A&M-8.0-11.7-2.9-1.01.00.06.20.50.0
314Fairfield-8.0-9.3-0.8-0.10.50.01.70.00.0
315Howard-8.0-7.5-1.3-1.20.20.01.90.00.0
316Delaware St-8.0-7.2-3.9-0.60.20.03.50.00.0
317Loyola MD-8.0-7.8-2.71.30.80.00.40.00.0
318Rider-8.1-7.9-0.9-0.20.30.00.60.00.0
319NC Central-8.2-7.2-1.3-1.10.30.02.10.0-1.0
320Albany-8.2-6.7-2.3-0.90.10.01.60.00.0
321North Dakota-8.2-6.0-2.3-0.60.60.00.00.00.0
322N Illinois-8.3-10.4-1.9-1.50.80.04.70.00.0
323Lindenwood-8.5-8.2-3.81.20.40.01.80.00.0
324UT Martin-8.6-6.6-1.7-0.30.40.00.10.0-0.5
325Binghamton-8.7-8.3-2.2-1.00.40.02.30.00.0
326Alcorn St-8.8-8.7-1.9-0.80.50.02.7-0.50.0
327Florida A&M-9.0-8.4-3.5-0.90.40.03.40.00.0
328Denver-9.0-7.6-2.0-1.20.30.01.40.00.0
329Green Bay-9.1-8.9-3.30.70.40.02.00.00.0
330Charleston So-9.1-8.0-3.0-1.20.50.02.60.00.0
331Tenn Tech-9.2-7.4-2.4-0.60.20.01.00.00.0
332Buffalo-9.2-9.8-1.20.30.50.01.00.00.0
333E Illinois-9.3-8.3-3.70.90.40.01.50.00.0
334Bellarmine-9.4-10.2-1.60.90.40.00.10.50.5
335N Florida-9.4-6.4-1.4-1.20.70.00.4-0.5-1.0
336W Illinois-9.5-9.7-1.6-1.5-0.30.03.70.00.0
337CS Fullerton-9.6-10.9-0.1-1.40.90.01.90.00.0
338Canisius-9.6-11.7-1.6-1.60.60.04.60.00.0
339Niagara-9.7-8.2-1.2-1.10.40.00.40.00.0
340Chicago St-9.9-12.4-2.6-1.31.10.04.31.00.0
341Army-9.9-8.2-2.40.20.40.00.00.00.0
342E Texas A&M-10.0-8.7-3.0-0.30.50.01.10.00.5
343Stonehill-10.0-8.5-3.70.00.50.01.60.00.0
344Morgan St-10.0-8.6-2.8-1.10.50.02.00.00.0
345SC Upstate-10.2-10.2-1.70.80.60.00.30.00.0
346St Francis PA-10.2-7.9-3.5-1.00.30.02.00.00.0
347NC A&T-10.3-8.8-3.0-0.40.40.01.50.00.0
348UL Monroe-10.3-10.5-2.1-1.20.90.02.10.50.0
349Prairie View-10.4-11.6-2.5-1.61.70.03.20.00.5
350New Hampshire-10.5-11.7-1.4-0.31.00.02.00.00.0
351The Citadel-10.5-11.8-1.70.31.40.00.20.01.0
352Le Moyne-10.7-10.7-3.0-0.70.50.02.70.00.5
353F Dickinson-10.7-7.8-3.1-1.40.20.01.40.00.0
354Holy Cross-10.7-8.2-3.70.80.40.00.00.00.0
355Stetson-11.0-10.7-1.0-0.70.50.00.90.00.0
356Wagner-11.5-9.6-1.4-1.10.60.00.00.00.0
357NJIT-12.1-10.9-3.30.10.40.01.50.00.0
358Mercyhurst-12.3-9.5-3.40.10.50.00.00.00.0
359New Haven-12.4
360IU Indy-12.7-7.5-4.3-1.60.70.00.00.00.0
361C Arkansas-13.5-9.9-3.3-1.00.70.00.00.00.0
362Maryland ES-13.7-12.1-2.80.40.30.00.50.00.0
363AR-Pine Bluff-14.9-14.2-3.7-1.40.50.03.90.00.0
364Coppin St-15.9-12.7-3.7-0.60.90.00.10.00.0
365Miss Valley St-24.8-19.6-4.3-0.7-0.10.00.00.00.0

What Do We Use These Ratings For?

Our preseason ratings power all preseason projections and act as Bayesian priors for our in-season predictive ratings. In plain English: they continue to inform team strength months into the year because they’ve proved predictive, but their weight fades as new game data rolls in.

Based on these ratings, we’ve run full-season projections, including:

With the 2025–26 preseason ratings published, all of these pages are fully automated and update every morning throughout the season.

Ratings Accuracy

Several respected analysts, such as Ken Pomeroy, Dan Hanner, and Bart Torvik, have evaluated our preseason ratings and projections against other stat-based systems in prior years, and we’ve consistently performed well.

We also reference John Wobus’s multi-season comparison for a more recent look. A few notes on his tables:

  • “Week0” reflects preseason rating accuracy.

  • “Overall” blends performance across ratings released throughout the season; we ranked No. 1 in 2022–23 on this metric.

  • We exclude the “Consensus” aggregator when tallying our placement.

Wobus’s site only tracked through the 2022–23 season, and we haven’t found a comparable preseason accuracy resource for more current seasons.  If you know of one, please let us know!

For the years we do have comparison data for, here is how we fared:

  • 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 these results, we feel confident that our system has ranked among the most accurate over the long term. While Dan Hanner’s player-based projections consistently edged us out when he was active, he stopped after the 2017-18 season. More recently, the INCC system is the only one that has regularly outperformed ours, though it doesn’t have as extensive a historical track record. Kudos as well to Evan Miya for an outstanding 2023!

We also use preseason ratings to guide our Bracketology predictions for the NCAA Tournament. Last year, before any games had started, we correctly projected 40 of the 68 teams (59%) that eventually made the 2025 NCAA Tournament. We correctly projected three of the four No. 1 seeds (and our fourth was a No. 2 seed). Twenty-six of the 28 teams on our projected top seven seed lines actually made the NCAA Tournament.

We share these results not to boast but to address the inevitable “Team X is WAY too high/low in your rankings!” comments. While our rankings are certainly not flawless, they have consistently held their own against other top-tier projection systems, and we expect them to do so again this season.

Final Advice On Interpreting College Basketball Rankings

Rankings are a starting point, not gospel. Use them to frame expectations and spot value, but keep these in mind:

  • Predictive vs. results: Our ratings estimate future performance on a neutral court; they’re not a resume or power poll.
  • Tiers > exact ranks: Small gaps mean teams are effectively peers—don’t overreact to being 12th vs. 15th.
  • Priors fade: Preseason inputs carry weight early, then diminish as game data accumulates. Early swings aren’t always “real.”
  • Context matters: Injuries, suspensions, transfers gaining eligibility, and travel spots can move the needle faster than models update.
  • Strength of schedule: Records can deceive; ratings adjust for opponent quality and game location (home/away/neutral).
  • Uncertainty is real: Close projections are coin flips. Treat 1–2 point edges as modest, not locks.
  • Human vs. model gaps: Polls reflect perception; models reflect projected strength. Disagreements can signal opportunity or missing info.
  • Look at components: If a team’s rating rides on one factor (e.g., returning minutes), it’s more fragile than a balanced profile.
  • Update cadence: Pages refresh daily in-season; check back after major injuries or high-leverage games.
  • Decision support: Combine ratings with matchup specifics (tempo, shot profile, foul rates) before making picks or bets.

Bottom line: think in probabilities and tiers, not absolutes. Let the numbers guide you, then layer in fresh context to make smarter calls.

Look at Ratings, Not Just Rankings

Rankings are handy, but the rating tells you more.

Example: One team may be ranked No. 25 in our preseason list, yet its rating is less than one point behind the No. 15-ranked team. This represents a large cluster of similarly rated teams through this stretch.

Takeaway: don’t fixate on the exact rank. Use the rating to identify a team’s performance tier.

Free 3-Day Premium Trial

Premium Sports Picks

Betting - Survivor - Pick’em

Start Free TrialGet The Season