College Basketball Preseason Rankings & Ratings For 2015-16
November 12, 2015 – by David Hess
We’re finished crunching the numbers, and we’ve loaded our official preseason team ratings for the 2015-2016 college basketball season into our database. These are the ratings that drive our preseason projections, and serve as the Bayesian priors for our predictive ratings as the season progresses.
(Translation: our preseason ratings still impact our team ratings even months into the season, because that has shown to be more predictive than not.)
Just like last season, below you’ll find a preseason top 25 comparison between TeamRankings, Ken Pomeroy, the AP poll, and more. We’ve also posted the full rankings and ratings for all 351 Division I teams.
Using these ratings, we’ve run full season projections, which are live on the site now. Go check’em out! Pages include:
College Basketball Projected Conference Standings. Projected conference records and full regular season records, plus win odds for both the conference regular season title and the postseason tournament.Bracketology Projections. Odds to make the NCAA tournament, plus projected seeding, and lots more details. (One of our faves is the Bracketology By Conference page.)NCAA Tournament Bracket Predictions. Round by round advancement odds, including probability of a team making the Sweet 16, making the Final Four, and winning the championship.
This is all data-driven, and automated, so it will update every day throughout the season.
Ratings Method & Accuracy
Content:
ToggleThe basic idea is that we establish a baseline prediction for a team, given their power ratings from recent years, and assuming an average amount of roster turnover. Then we make some adjustments based on how much value each team is returning on offense and defense, as well as the strength of their recruiting classes from the past few years, and the value of any transfers they’ve added this season.
For a more complete description, check out our blog post from two years ago. The main thing that’s changed since then is simply that we refit the model with another year of data.
Before we get to the rankings themselves, it’s worth noting that Ken Pomeroy has compared our conference win projections with his and a couple other stat-based prognosticators the last three years. In terms of average error, both last year and the year before we finished second best out of four (beating Pomeroy both years, but finishing a hair behind Dan Hanner), and three years ago we finished as the best of three.
We say this not to brag, but to try to preemptively defend ourselves against the inevitable “Team X is WAY too high/low! You don’t know what you’re doing!” comments. While these are by no means perfect rankings, the projections they drive have more than held their own in comparisons with other top projection systems, and we expect them to do so again this season. We’re going to get plenty of individual teams wrong, but that’s inevitable when the challenge is to project 351 teams.
Preseason Top 25 Comparison
Let’s take a look at all the teams that made it into at least one preseason top 25 from among this group:
Our 2015-16 college basketball preseason ratings (TR)Ken Pomeroy’s preseason ratings (KP)Dan Hanner’s preseason rankings, posted at SI.com (DH)AP poll (AP)Coaches poll (Coaches)
The table below lists all such teams, and shows the preseason rank in each system, along with an average rank, and finally a column showing how far TR is from the consensus (positive numbers mean we project a team to rank better than the consensus, and negative is the reverse). Teams are listed in ascending order by average rank.
2015-16 College Basketball Preseason Rankings Comparison | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Team | TR | KP | DH | AP | Coaches | AVG | TR Diff |
N Carolina | 1 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2.4 | 1.4 |
Kentucky | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2.6 | -2.4 |
Kansas | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3.4 | 1.4 |
Duke | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3.4 | 0.4 |
Virginia | 4 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5.0 | 1.0 |
Villanova | 9 | 5 | 8 | 11 | 9 | 8.4 | -0.6 |
Arizona | 6 | 6 | 11 | 12 | 10 | 9.0 | 3.0 |
Gonzaga | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 9.0 | 1.0 |
Maryland | 10 | 24 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 9.0 | -1.0 |
Wichita St | 7 | 15 | 7 | 10 | 12 | 10.2 | 3.2 |
Oklahoma | 13 | 11 | 12 | 8 | 8 | 10.4 | -2.6 |
Iowa St | 14 | 19 | 10 | 7 | 7 | 11.4 | -2.6 |
Indiana | 11 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 15 | 13.6 | 2.6 |
Michigan St | 12 | 18 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 14.2 | 2.2 |
Utah | 16 | 12 | 16 | 16 | 16 | 15.2 | -0.8 |
Wisconsin | 18 | 9 | 34 | 17 | 17 | 19.0 | 1.0 |
Notre Dame | 25 | 16 | 23 | 19 | 18 | 20.2 | -4.8 |
Baylor | 17 | 10 | 37 | 22 | 21 | 21.4 | 4.4 |
SMU | 21 | 23 | 17 | 27 | — | 22.0 | 1.0 |
California | 22 | 47 | 13 | 14 | 14 | 22.0 | 0.0 |
Purdue | 19 | 22 | 26 | 23 | 25 | 23.0 | 4.0 |
Michigan | 24 | 17 | 27 | 25 | 26 | 23.8 | -0.2 |
Connecticut | 27 | 32 | 19 | 20 | 24 | 24.4 | -2.6 |
Louisville | 20 | 25 | 22 | 32 | 27 | 25.2 | 5.2 |
Vanderbilt | 36 | 20 | 33 | 18 | 20 | 25.4 | -10.6 |
Butler | 23 | 29 | 36 | 24 | 22 | 26.8 | 3.8 |
Cincinnati | 29 | 14 | 31 | 30 | 31 | 27.0 | -2.0 |
Texas | 15 | 34 | 20 | 35 | 34 | 27.6 | 12.6 |
Georgetown | 30 | 27 | 18 | 33 | 30 | 27.6 | -2.4 |
Miami FL | 26 | 21 | 25 | 31 | 37 | 28.0 | 2.0 |
W Virginia | 31 | 28 | 32 | 28 | 23 | 28.4 | -2.6 |
LSU | 32 | 49 | 30 | 21 | 19 | 30.2 | -1.8 |
Xavier | 33 | 31 | 21 | 39 | 36 | 32.0 | -1.0 |
San Diego St | 43 | 40 | 24 | 46 | 38 | 38.2 | -4.8 |
A few points stick out:
We rank North Carolina #1, as do Dan Hanner and the AP Poll. The Coaches Poll has Kentucky #1, and Ken Pomeroy has Duke in the top spot.Compared to the crowd, we’re most pessimistic about Vanderbilt, who we rank 3 to 18 spots lower than other projections. Vandy is returning a large fraction of their production from last year, but they weren’t rated all that highly last season, so that returning production isn’t as much of a boone as it would be to a better team. In addition, they have zero consensus top-100 freshman recruits, and their ratings history from the prior few season sets a low baseline for the program.On the other hand, we’re more optimistic about Texas, who we rank 5 to 20 spots higher than other projections. Despite their mediocre record last year, Texas’s power rating was in the top 20 to end the season. Among teams ranked that high, only 6 had better recruiting classes, only 5 returned a higher fraction of their 2014-15 production, and only 1 (Kansas) did both of those things. (Our ratings don’t “know” that Shaka Smart is taking over as head coach, but that doesn’t seem like a bad thing, either.)We’ve got Kentucky ranked #5, while they’re no lower than #3 in other projections. That may not seem like a big difference, but if you look past the ranking and examine the underlying ratings (posted at the end of this article), we have Kentucky closer to being #13 than to being #1.
Why Don’t We Have Kentucky Higher?
Let’s dig a little deeper on our relatively low Kentucky rating. Kentucky has lost star players and reloaded in the past; why would this year be any different? Several reasons:
Our estimates show this year’s team returning only 12% of its 2014-15 production, which would be the third-lowest value in Calipari’s seven year tenure.In addition, the Wildcats lost four first round draft picks from last year’s team; that’s only the third time so much talent has departed Lexington at once.Finally, based on our analysis of the RSCI recruiting rankings, this is Calipari’s second worst incoming freshman class at Kentucky.
The two past Calipari-at-Kentucky seasons with profiles that most closely match the above bullet points are 2010-11 (when a young Kentucky team earned a #4 seed in the NCAA tournament, then made a run to the Final Four the year before winning it all), and 2012-13 (when Kentucky missed the NCAA tournament entirely).
One thing does set this year’s team apart from those two past examples, though — Kentucky’s 2014-15 power rating was by far the highest in Calipari’s tenure. That high baseline means that even if Kentucky’s rating drops as much as it did in those two past examples, the Wildcats will still be a very good team. That’s what keeps them in our top five.
Full Rankings, From #1 To #351
Here’s the full list.
Keep in mind that sometimes teams can be separated by several ranking spots, but have nearly identical ratings. On the flip side of the coin, two teams can be ranked adjacent to each other, but can have a big ratings gap.
This is important at the top of the rankings this season. #1 North Carolina, #2 Kansas, and #3 Duke are separated by less than half a ratings point total. But #4 Virginia is a full 1.4 ratings points behind Duke. So our preseason ratings essentially see a triumvirate of “best teams in the land.”
[UPDATE: After posting these ratings, it was announced that David Collette is leaving Utah State. We’ve the ratings in this post to account for that.]
Rank | Team | Rating |
---|---|---|
1 | N Carolina | 19.7 |
2 | Kansas | 19.6 |
3 | Duke | 19.4 |
4 | Virginia | 18.0 |
5 | Kentucky | 17.7 |
6 | Arizona | 17.0 |
7 | Wichita St | 16.6 |
8 | Gonzaga | 16.5 |
9 | Villanova | 16.4 |
10 | Maryland | 16.3 |
11 | Indiana | 15.9 |
12 | Michigan St | 15.8 |
13 | Oklahoma | 15.3 |
14 | Iowa State | 14.6 |
15 | Texas | 13.8 |
16 | Utah | 13.5 |
17 | Baylor | 13.4 |
18 | Wisconsin | 13.3 |
19 | Purdue | 13.3 |
20 | Louisville | 13.3 |
21 | S Methodist | 13.2 |
22 | California | 13.1 |
23 | Butler | 13.1 |
24 | Michigan | 13.0 |
25 | Notre Dame | 12.8 |
26 | Miami (FL) | 12.8 |
27 | Connecticut | 12.7 |
28 | Ohio State | 12.6 |
29 | Cincinnati | 12.3 |
30 | Georgetown | 12.2 |
31 | W Virginia | 11.9 |
32 | LSU | 11.9 |
33 | Xavier | 11.8 |
34 | Florida | 11.8 |
35 | Pittsburgh | 11.6 |
36 | Vanderbilt | 11.0 |
37 | VCU | 11.0 |
38 | Illinois | 11.0 |
39 | Syracuse | 10.9 |
40 | Davidson | 10.8 |
41 | Oregon | 10.7 |
42 | Iowa | 10.5 |
43 | San Diego St | 10.4 |
44 | Geo Wshgtn | 10.4 |
45 | NC State | 10.4 |
46 | Oklahoma St | 10.3 |
47 | Texas A&M | 10.2 |
48 | Valparaiso | 10.2 |
49 | UCLA | 10.2 |
50 | Rhode Island | 9.8 |
51 | Tulsa | 9.6 |
52 | Florida St | 9.3 |
53 | BYU | 9.2 |
54 | GA Tech | 8.9 |
55 | Clemson | 8.9 |
56 | S Carolina | 8.7 |
57 | Dayton | 8.6 |
58 | Ste F Austin | 8.6 |
59 | Richmond | 8.4 |
60 | Memphis | 8.3 |
61 | Stony Brook | 8.0 |
62 | Oregon St | 8.0 |
63 | Georgia | 7.9 |
64 | UNLV | 7.8 |
65 | Creighton | 7.6 |
66 | Boise State | 7.5 |
67 | Providence | 7.4 |
68 | Iona | 7.0 |
69 | Marquette | 6.8 |
70 | Illinois St | 6.6 |
71 | Minnesota | 6.6 |
72 | Colorado | 6.5 |
73 | N Iowa | 6.5 |
74 | Northwestern | 6.4 |
75 | Mississippi | 6.4 |
76 | Seton Hall | 6.4 |
77 | Evansville | 6.3 |
78 | USC | 6.1 |
79 | Central Mich | 6.1 |
80 | Old Dominion | 6.1 |
81 | New Mexico | 6.0 |
82 | UAB | 5.9 |
83 | Arkansas | 5.9 |
84 | Temple | 5.8 |
85 | Tennessee | 5.8 |
86 | Pepperdine | 5.8 |
87 | Stanford | 5.7 |
88 | Arizona St | 5.6 |
89 | Wake Forest | 5.5 |
90 | LA Lafayette | 5.5 |
91 | Columbia | 5.4 |
92 | S Dakota St | 5.3 |
93 | Belmont | 5.3 |
94 | Alabama | 5.3 |
95 | Vermont | 5.1 |
96 | Hofstra | 4.9 |
97 | Akron | 4.7 |
98 | LA Tech | 4.7 |
99 | Miss State | 4.5 |
100 | St Josephs | 4.5 |
101 | Georgia St | 4.2 |
102 | Coastal Car | 3.8 |
103 | Colorado St | 3.7 |
104 | Utah State | 3.7 |
105 | St Bonavent | 3.7 |
106 | UCSB | 3.6 |
107 | U Mass | 3.6 |
108 | Hawaii | 3.5 |
109 | La Salle | 3.4 |
110 | Princeton | 3.4 |
111 | VA Tech | 3.3 |
112 | UC Irvine | 3.3 |
113 | Yale | 3.2 |
114 | Wm & Mary | 3.1 |
115 | Auburn | 3.0 |
116 | Middle Tenn | 3.0 |
117 | Cal Poly | 3.0 |
118 | Nebraska | 2.9 |
119 | Texas Tech | 2.9 |
120 | Kent State | 2.8 |
121 | Buffalo | 2.7 |
122 | Penn State | 2.7 |
123 | Kansas St | 2.5 |
124 | Northeastrn | 2.4 |
125 | N Florida | 2.3 |
126 | Loyola-Chi | 2.2 |
127 | Lehigh | 2.2 |
128 | St Marys | 2.2 |
129 | Wash State | 2.1 |
130 | N Mex State | 2.1 |
131 | Murray St | 2.0 |
132 | DePaul | 1.9 |
133 | TX Christian | 1.9 |
134 | Indiana St | 1.7 |
135 | Fresno St | 1.7 |
136 | Boston U | 1.7 |
137 | WI-Grn Bay | 1.5 |
138 | North Dakota State | 1.4 |
139 | Albany | 1.4 |
140 | Wofford | 1.3 |
141 | Lg Beach St | 1.1 |
142 | Bucknell | 1.0 |
143 | James Mad | 0.8 |
144 | Toledo | 0.8 |
145 | Washington | 0.8 |
146 | Duquesne | 0.7 |
147 | NC Central | 0.6 |
148 | Missouri | 0.5 |
149 | Chattanooga | 0.5 |
150 | Rider | 0.4 |
151 | TX El Paso | 0.4 |
152 | Saint Louis | 0.3 |
153 | New Jersey Tech | 0.2 |
154 | Montana | 0.1 |
155 | High Point | 0.1 |
156 | Harvard | -0.1 |
157 | W Michigan | -0.2 |
158 | St Johns | -0.2 |
159 | Detroit | -0.2 |
160 | Geo Mason | -0.3 |
161 | NW State | -0.3 |
162 | San Diego | -0.4 |
163 | Houston | -0.4 |
164 | Ball State | -0.5 |
165 | E Michigan | -0.5 |
166 | Miami (OH) | -0.6 |
167 | Oakland | -0.6 |
168 | Weber State | -0.6 |
169 | Wyoming | -0.8 |
170 | N Hampshire | -0.9 |
171 | Wright State | -0.9 |
172 | Monmouth | -1.0 |
173 | Manhattan | -1.1 |
174 | San Fransco | -1.1 |
175 | Pacific | -1.1 |
176 | Portland | -1.1 |
177 | Sam Hous St | -1.1 |
178 | Army | -1.2 |
179 | Mercer | -1.2 |
180 | E Washingtn | -1.4 |
181 | Canisius | -1.5 |
182 | Nevada | -1.5 |
183 | Delaware | -1.6 |
184 | Boston Col | -1.7 |
185 | Bowling Grn | -1.7 |
186 | E Carolina | -1.7 |
187 | W Kentucky | -1.8 |
188 | LA Monroe | -2.0 |
189 | Cleveland St | -2.0 |
190 | Fordham | -2.0 |
191 | NC-Wilmgton | -2.0 |
192 | Missouri St | -2.0 |
193 | Drexel | -2.1 |
194 | UC Riverside | -2.1 |
195 | American | -2.2 |
196 | TX A&M-CC | -2.3 |
197 | Santa Clara | -2.3 |
198 | E Kentucky | -2.3 |
199 | S Illinois | -2.4 |
200 | Oral Roberts | -2.4 |
201 | WI-Milwkee | -2.5 |
202 | Fairfield | -2.6 |
203 | LIU-Brooklyn | -2.6 |
204 | U Penn | -2.6 |
205 | S Florida | -2.7 |
206 | Morehead St | -2.7 |
207 | Mt St Marys | -2.8 |
208 | Marshall | -2.9 |
209 | Denver | -2.9 |
210 | Rutgers | -2.9 |
211 | Norfolk St | -2.9 |
212 | Rob Morris | -3.0 |
213 | UC Davis | -3.0 |
214 | Grand Canyon | -3.0 |
215 | Central FL | -3.1 |
216 | Dartmouth | -3.2 |
217 | Rice | -3.2 |
218 | Towson | -3.2 |
219 | AR Lit Rock | -3.2 |
220 | Tulane | -3.3 |
221 | TX-Arlington | -3.4 |
222 | South Carolina Upstate | -3.5 |
223 | Loyola-MD | -3.5 |
224 | Drake | -3.5 |
225 | Texas State | -3.5 |
226 | N Illinois | -3.5 |
227 | St Fran (NY) | -3.6 |
228 | TX Southern | -3.6 |
229 | Fla Gulf Cst | -3.6 |
230 | TN Martin | -3.7 |
231 | Charlotte | -3.7 |
232 | Air Force | -3.8 |
233 | Ohio | -3.9 |
234 | NC-Grnsboro | -4.1 |
235 | Hampton | -4.1 |
236 | W Carolina | -4.1 |
237 | S Alabama | -4.2 |
238 | IPFW | -4.3 |
239 | Arkansas St | -4.3 |
240 | Fla Atlantic | -4.5 |
241 | SE Missouri | -4.7 |
242 | Furman | -4.7 |
243 | N Arizona | -4.8 |
244 | E Tenn St | -4.8 |
245 | Winthrop | -4.8 |
246 | VA Military | -4.9 |
247 | CS Fullerton | -4.9 |
248 | Col Charlestn | -4.9 |
249 | Brown | -5.0 |
250 | CS Bakersfld | -5.0 |
251 | Bryant | -5.0 |
252 | Lafayette | -5.1 |
253 | TN State | -5.1 |
254 | Elon | -5.2 |
255 | Sacred Hrt | -5.2 |
256 | Holy Cross | -5.2 |
257 | Incarnate Word | -5.3 |
258 | App State | -5.3 |
259 | Lamar | -5.4 |
260 | Idaho | -5.4 |
261 | TN Tech | -5.5 |
262 | Quinnipiac | -5.5 |
263 | Siena | -5.6 |
264 | Portland St | -5.6 |
265 | NC-Asheville | -5.7 |
266 | IUPUI | -5.7 |
267 | W Illinois | -5.8 |
268 | St Peters | -5.8 |
269 | Gard-Webb | -5.9 |
270 | GA Southern | -6.0 |
271 | Wagner | -6.0 |
272 | Nebraska Omaha | -6.0 |
273 | TX-San Ant | -6.1 |
274 | St Fran (PA) | -6.1 |
275 | UMKC | -6.1 |
276 | Sac State | -6.1 |
277 | Lipscomb | -6.3 |
278 | S Mississippi | -6.4 |
279 | Florida Intl | -6.4 |
280 | South Dakota | -6.5 |
281 | Northern Kentucky | -6.5 |
282 | Hartford | -6.6 |
283 | SE Louisiana | -6.6 |
284 | Loyola Mymt | -6.7 |
285 | Howard | -6.7 |
286 | Colgate | -6.7 |
287 | Youngs St | -6.8 |
288 | Radford | -6.8 |
289 | Cornell | -6.8 |
290 | Navy | -6.9 |
291 | E Illinois | -6.9 |
292 | Jackson St | -6.9 |
293 | Southern | -7.1 |
294 | Seattle | -7.3 |
295 | S Utah | -7.3 |
296 | Cal St Nrdge | -7.4 |
297 | Charl South | -7.4 |
298 | NC A&T | -7.5 |
299 | IL-Chicago | -7.5 |
300 | North Texas | -7.6 |
301 | Maryland ES | -7.6 |
302 | Austin Peay | -7.8 |
303 | Samford | -7.9 |
304 | N Colorado | -8.0 |
305 | Troy | -8.0 |
306 | Campbell | -8.1 |
307 | Jacksonville | -8.1 |
308 | Binghamton | -8.3 |
309 | Utah Val St | -8.3 |
310 | Bradley | -8.4 |
311 | Houston Bap | -8.6 |
312 | Massachusetts Lowell | -8.7 |
313 | New Orleans | -8.7 |
314 | Alabama St | -8.8 |
315 | Niagara | -8.9 |
316 | Marist | -8.9 |
317 | Morgan St | -8.9 |
318 | Longwood | -8.9 |
319 | Alab A&M | -9.2 |
320 | SIU Edward | -9.7 |
321 | McNeese St | -9.9 |
322 | Maine | -10.0 |
323 | F Dickinson | -10.0 |
324 | Montana St | -10.1 |
325 | Stetson | -10.1 |
326 | Savannah St | -10.4 |
327 | North Dakota | -10.5 |
328 | Beth-Cook | -10.5 |
329 | Presbyterian | -10.7 |
330 | Delaware St | -10.9 |
331 | Chicago St | -11.0 |
332 | Jksnville St | -11.1 |
333 | Nicholls St | -11.2 |
334 | S Car State | -11.3 |
335 | Prairie View | -11.4 |
336 | Idaho State | -11.7 |
337 | TX-Pan Am | -11.7 |
338 | Abilene Christian | -12.1 |
339 | Central Conn | -12.2 |
340 | San Jose St | -12.2 |
341 | Ark Pine Bl | -12.2 |
342 | Maryland BC | -12.5 |
343 | Citadel | -12.9 |
344 | Liberty | -13.1 |
345 | Kennesaw St | -14.0 |
346 | Alcorn State | -14.3 |
347 | Central Ark | -14.8 |
348 | Coppin State | -17.4 |
349 | Florida A&M | -17.7 |
350 | Miss Val St | -20.0 |
351 | Grambling St | -23.3 |
As a final reminder, be sure to check out the season projections we create using these ratings. There’s a ton to see:
College Basketball Projected Conference Standings. Projected conference records and full regular season records, plus win odds for both the conference regular season title and the postseason tournament.Bracketology Projections. Odds to make the NCAA tournament, plus projected seeding, and lots more details.NCAA Tournament Bracket Predictions. Round by round advancement odds, including probability of a team making the Sweet 16, making the Final Four, and winning the championship.
If you liked this post, please share it. Thank you! Twitter Facebook
NFL Football Pool Picks NFL Survivor Pool Picks NCAA Bracket Picks College Bowl Pool Picks College Football Pool Picks NFL Picks NBA Picks MLB Picks College Football Picks College Basketball Picks NFL Predictions NBA Predictions MLB Predictions College Football Predictions College Basketball Predictions NFL Spread Picks NBA Spread Picks MLB Spread Picks College Football Spread Picks College Basketball Spread Picks NFL Rankings NBA Rankings MLB Rankings College Football Rankings College Basketball Rankings NFL Stats NBA Stats MLB Stats College Football Stats College Basketball Stats NFL Odds NBA Odds MLB Odds College Football Odds College Basketball Odds A product ofTeamRankings BlogAboutTeamJobsContact
© 2005-2024 Team Rankings, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Statistical data provided by Gracenote.
TeamRankings.com is not affiliated with the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA®) or March Madness Athletic Association, neither of which has supplied, reviewed, approved or endorsed the material on this site. TeamRankings.com is solely responsible for this site but makes no guarantee about the accuracy or completeness of the information herein.
Terms of ServicePrivacy Policy