Ranking every team in college basketball from Florida A&M (351) to Duke (1)

Our projections system—which has been the most accurate in the country for the past two years—returns to rank every team in Division I college basketball.

We forecast what we can and happily cede the rest to the players and the drama they improvise on the court. Sports Illustrated’s College Basketball Projection System, now in its third year, simulates the season 10,000 times and ranks teams 1–351 according to their average efficiency. Last year in the preseason, we identified North Carolina as a weak No. 1 in a historically wide-open field—and five months later, the Tar Heels led Villanova with 15 minutes left in the national title game. What transpired after that, culminating in Kris Jenkins’s buzzer-beating three, was the greatest finish in the history of the sport. You don’t get Jenkins’s dagger without the exhilarating crapshoot that is the single-elimination NCAA tournament, and you don’t get the nation’s most accurate preseason projections—as ours have been for the past two years—without running 10,000 simulations. 

This project starts from the ground up, assessing every roster, player by player. For offense, the system projects efficiency and shot volume by considering past performance, recruiting rankings and advanced AAU stats, development curves for similar Division I players over the past 14 seasons, the quality of a player’s teammates and his coach’s ability to develop and maximize talent. Those stats are weighted based on the team’s rotation—including scouting intel on who’s expected to play—then used to produce each team’s offensive efficiency projection. (The simulations account for variance in individual performances as well as injury scenarios.) Team defensive efficiency projections are based on players’ projected rebound, steal and block percentages, height (taller frontcourts make for stingier D), experience (veterans have fewer lapses) and coaches’ defensive résumés. For a deeper look at how our model works, read this explainer, and for all of our analytics-driven preview content, click here.

This is how our system ranks all 351 teams heading into 2016­–17:

Rank	Team	Proj. Off. Eff.	Off. Rank	Proj. Def. Eff.	Def. Rank	Proj. Pyth. Win%	Proj. Conf. Rank	Proj. NCAAs seed
1	Duke	125.2	1	94.0	11	0.9641	1st in ACC	1 seed
2	Kansas	118.6	8	91.5	3	0.9519	1st in B12	1 seed
3	Kentucky	119.2	7	92.0	4	0.9515	1st in SEC	1 seed
4	Oregon	120.1	4	93.9	9	0.9447	1st in P12	1 seed
5	Villanova	120.2	3	94.2	13	0.9431	1st in BE	2 seed

While our projections saw no dominant teams in the 2015–16 preseason, this year they view Duke as a juggernaut, ranking first in offensive efficiency by a wide margin and 11th in defense. We went back and examined every preseason No. 1 from the past decade—using beginning-of-season rosters to project performance—to see how these Blue Devils stacked up, and starting with the ‘07–08 preseason, only one team had a stronger projection. That was ‘08–09 North Carolina, which came into that season with a veteran, national player of the year candidate in power forward Tyler Hansbrough; a supporting cast of efficient sidekicks in guards Ty Lawson, Wayne Ellington and Danny Green; and two elite freshmen big men in Ed Davis and Tyler Zeller. 

Davidson's Jack Gibbs leads SI's Top 100 projected scorers this season

If that roster blueprint seems familiar, it’s because it closely resembles what the Blue Devils have now. Junior combo guard Grayson Allen is SI’s projected frontrunner for national player of the year and he’s just the kind of high-volume, high-efficiency scorer that makes an elite offense possible. He has quality veterans around him in guards Matt Jones and Luke Kennard and power forward Amile Jefferson. And Duke added two freshmen who could potentially be the No. 1 pick in the 2017 NBA draft (Jayson Tatum and Harry Giles) and two more who could be first-rounders (Marques Bolden and Frank Jackson). The Blue Devils can give every, meaningful minute to players who were ranked in the top 35 of their recruiting class, and they have depth to withstand injuries. All this adds up to an otherworldly offensive projection; it just needs to work in the real world the same way it did for Carolina in 2009, when the Tar Heels cruised to a national title. If issues arise—if say, Duke’s lack of a true, pass-first point guard is a problem—then Kansas, a team with two veteran floor generals, a crop of talented underclassmen and a strong, No. 2 overall projection, will be right there waiting.

Rank	Team	Proj. Off. Eff.	Off. Rank	Proj. Def. Eff.	Def. Rank	Proj. Pyth. Win%	Proj. Conf. Rank	Proj. NCAAs seed
6	North Carolina	121.8	2	95.8	27	0.9406	2nd in ACC	2 seed
7	Virginia	115.0	25	90.6	2	0.9393	3rd in ACC	2 seed
8	Wisconsin	114.8	27	90.6	1	0.9385	1st in B10	2 seed
9	Gonzaga	116.3	14	94.5	16	0.9157	1st in WCC	3 seed
10	Arizona	115.3	23	93.8	8	0.9147	2nd in P12	3 seed

In 2009–10, when Butler made the first of its back-to-back runs to the national championship game, it had more than just wunderkind coach Brad Stevens and future NBA draft picks Gordon Hayward and Shelvin Mack on its side. The Bulldogs also had a remarkable level of roster continuity, bringing back every rotation player from a team that finished 38th in efficiency the previous season. They allocated a nation-high 93.2% of their minutes to the same players from ‘08–09, made substantial improvements—and came within a halfcourt heave of upsetting Duke in the title game. Wisconsin, which finished 38th in efficiency last season—just like ‘08–09 Butler—brings back 99% of its minutes played, and our projections think the Badgers can improve enough to chase their third Final Four in four years.

Big Ten preview: Wisconsin's stable of returners makes it a favorite

Wisconsin’s defense, which was already elite last season, projects to be the nation’s best, but its offense, which we forecast to jump from 90th in efficiency to 27th, is its prime area for growth. The Badgers gave 28% of their minutes to freshmen last season, many of whom committed turnovers at an uncharacteristically high rate for the program, which has a history of ranking among the nation’s best at ball-control. Sophomores Ethan Happ (a TO rate of 19.0% last season), Khalil Iverson (28.7%) and Alex Illikainen (15.9%) are expected to become more sure-handed with experience, and they should benefit from running the same offense, under the same head coach, all of this season, too. Bo Ryan’s midseason retirement, and the switch to longtime assistant Greg Gard—who subsequently implemented a classic version of the swing offense—made for an abnormal season.

Rank	Team	Proj. Off. Eff.	Off. Rank	Proj. Def. Eff.	Def. Rank	Proj. Pyth. Win%	Proj. Conf. Rank	Proj. NCAAs seed
11	Purdue	117.8	9	97.2	37	0.9014	2nd in B10	3 seed
12	Xavier	115.6	19	95.4	24	0.9013	2nd in BE	3 seed
13	Louisville	112.3	49	92.7	5	0.9005	4th in ACC	4 seed
14	Syracuse	113.6	33	93.9	10	0.8999	5th in ACC	4 seed
15	Indiana	119.6	5	99.4	79	0.8936	3rd in B10	4 seed
16	UCLA	116.7	12	98.2	50	0.8789	3rd in P12	4 seed
17	California	111.7	53	94.3	14	0.8760	4th in P12	5 seed
18	NC State	117.6	10	99.4	80	0.8742	6th in ACC	5 seed
19	West Virginia	111.8	52	94.5	15	0.8736	2nd in B12	5 seed
20	Connecticut	112.5	46	95.6	25	0.8663	1st in Amer	5 seed
21	Creighton	114.6	29	97.9	46	0.8587	3rd in BE	6 seed
22	Saint Mary's	116.2	16	99.5	83	0.8560	2nd in WCC	6 seed
23	Michigan	115.5	20	99.0	67	0.8554	4th in B10	6 seed
24	Baylor	117.0	11	100.3	102	0.8544	3rd in B12	6 seed
25	Texas	112.5	45	96.6	31	0.8528	4th in B12	7 seed

The player data we’ve gathered from the past 14 seasons gives us a unique window into how much can be realistically expected out of highly ranked recruits. Players outside the top 20 of the Recruiting Services Consensus Index tend to take until Year 2 to break out, and those second-tier recruits tend to make the biggest freshman-to-sophomore offensive leaps of any players in D-I. That bodes well for Louisville, which lost key seniors Damion Lee and Trey Lewis, but has two former top-40 recruits ready to take over in sophomore combo guard Donovan Mitchell and wing Deng Adel. Both of them flashed breakout-star potential during their appearance at the adidas Nations camp in Garden Grove, Calif., this summer, and they’re a big reason why the Cardinals are ranked 13th and projected to finish fourth in a loaded ACC.

Here We Go, 'Zo: Can Lonzo Ball bring UCLA back to the top?

Three teams appear in SI’s projected top 25 that were left out of the popular human polls. NC State (No. 16) has added as much key talent as anyone in the nation save for Kentucky and Duke, in freshman point guard Dennis Smith Jr. and power forward Omer Yurtseven, and back-from-injury senior shooting guard Terry Henderson. Our projections see Michigan (23)—and especially senior wing Zak Irvin—set up for a bounce-back year after an injury-plagued ‘15–16 sunk the Wolverines to eighth in the Big Ten. And Baylor (24), despite losing stars Taurean Prince (to the NBA draft) and Rico Gathers (to the NFL draft), still has enough offensive firepower to be the third-best team in the Big 12.

Rank	Team	Proj. Off. Eff.	Off. Rank	Proj. Def. Eff.	Def. Rank	Proj. Pyth. Win%	Proj. Conf. Rank	Proj. NCAAs seed
26	Wichita St.	110.3	70	94.7	18	0.8526	1st in MVC	7 seed
27	Cincinnati	110.4	67	94.8	20	0.8520	2nd in Amer	7 seed
28	Michigan St.	115.2	24	99.0	69	0.8513	5th in B10	7 seed
29	Butler	116.2	15	99.9	93	0.8512	4th in BE	8 seed
30	VCU	110.7	60	95.2	23	0.8503	1st in A10	8 seed
31	Florida	110.6	62	95.1	22	0.8500	2nd in SEC	8 seed
32	Rhode Island	112.6	44	96.8	33	0.8496	2nd in A10	8 seed
33	Miami FL	115.3	22	99.2	77	0.8495	7th in ACC	9 seed
34	Clemson	112.6	43	96.9	34	0.8489	8th in ACC	9 seed
35	San Diego St.	107.9	112	92.9	6	0.8481	1st in MWC	9 seed
36	Maryland	112.4	47	97.0	36	0.8447	6th in B10	9 seed
37	Texas A&M	109.0	88	94.1	12	0.8440	3rd in SEC	10 seed
38	Virginia Tech	115.4	21	99.7	90	0.8423	9th in ACC	10 seed
39	Iowa St.	115.6	18	99.9	95	0.8422	5th in B12	10 seed
40	Oklahoma	111.2	54	96.2	28	0.8418	6th in B12	10 seed
41	Notre Dame	119.5	6	103.4	172	0.8413	10th in ACC	11 seed
42	Dayton	109.5	79	94.7	19	0.8412	3rd in A10	11 seed
43	Seton Hall	108.0	108	93.5	7	0.8410	5th in BE	11 seed
44	Florida St.	114.3	30	99.0	68	0.8402	11th in ACC	Play In
45	BYU	114.7	28	99.3	78	0.8397	3rd in WCC	Play In
46	Georgetown	112.7	42	97.6	40	0.8395	6th in BE	Play In
47	Princeton	114.9	26	99.5	84	0.8391	1st in Ivy	12 seed
48	Ohio St.	110.5	64	95.8	26	0.8389	7th in B10	Play In
49	Pittsburgh	113.5	35	98.4	55	0.8385	12th in ACC
50	USC	112.9	39	98.4	54	0.8298	5th in P12

Some of our system’s most contrarian positions appear in this section, starting with it having Michigan State—a team some human rankings have in the top 10—all the way down at 28. The model believes that the Spartans’ loss of valuable frontcourt players Matt Costello and Deyonta Davis to the pros, plus early season injuries to Ben Carter and Gavin Schilling, creates a rebounding-and-rim-protection void that drags their defense down to 69th overall in efficiency. The model sees similar issues occurring at Maryland (21st in the Coaches’ Poll, 36th here) and Iowa State (27th in Coaches, 39th here).

Josh Hart, Grayson Allen lead SI's player of the year projections

Meanwhile, in the Atlantic 10, Dayton (No. 42) and Rhode Island (32) were picked 1–2 in the league’s preseason poll of coaches and media, but our projections actually view VCU (30) as its best team. We’re also forecasting the Ivy League to have an at-large bid-worthy team in Princeton (47), which brings back 96% of its minutes from last season and adds talented senior power forward Hans Brase, who missed last season with an injury.

Rank	Team	Proj. Off. Eff.	Off. Rank	Proj. Def. Eff.	Def. Rank	Proj. Pyth. Win%	Proj. Conf. Rank	Proj. NCAAs seed
51	Marquette	113.2	36	98.8	63	0.8263	7th in BE
52	Texas Tech	112.9	40	98.6	58	0.8259	7th in B12
53	SMU	113.0	38	98.7	60	0.8251	3rd in Amer
54	Vanderbilt	113.1	37	98.8	65	0.8250	4th in SEC
55	Utah	112.7	41	98.7	59	0.8225	6th in P12
56	Northwestern	111.2	55	98.8	64	0.7945	8th in B10
57	Colorado	108.5	95	96.6	30	0.7917	7th in P12
58	Georgia	108.5	97	96.7	32	0.7882	5th in SEC
59	Houston	115.8	17	103.9	188	0.7770	4th in Amer
60	Illinois	109.0	90	97.8	44	0.7758	9th in B10
61	Arkansas	110.3	68	99.1	71	0.7746	6th in SEC
62	Mississippi	110.8	58	99.8	91	0.7692	7th in SEC
63	Washington	110.3	69	99.4	81	0.7682	8th in P12
64	UNC Wilmington	111.0	56	100.1	99	0.7665	1st in CAA	12 seed
65	Monmouth	108.7	92	98.0	48	0.7658	1st in MAAC	12 seed
66	Providence	108.5	96	97.9	45	0.7652	8th in BE
67	Iowa	110.7	59	100.1	100	0.7613	10th in B10
68	Mississippi St.	108.4	100	98.1	49	0.7588	8th in SEC
69	Oregon St.	109.4	83	99.1	72	0.7563	9th in P12
70	Stanford	109.3	85	99.2	75	0.7527	10th in P12
71	Davidson	113.7	32	103.2	166	0.7526	4th in A10
72	UT Arlington	109.8	76	99.7	88	0.7525	1st in SB	13 seed
73	Oklahoma St.	109.7	78	99.9	94	0.7462	8th in B12
74	UAB	111.9	50	102.0	135	0.7443	1st in CUSA	13 seed
75	Arizona St.	109.4	82	99.8	92	0.7422	11th in P12
76	Kansas St.	107.1	123	97.8	43	0.7401	9th in B12
77	South Carolina	107.7	116	98.4	53	0.7388	9th in SEC
78	Wake Forest	110.5	65	101.2	119	0.7339	13th in ACC
79	Auburn	108.8	91	99.7	87	0.7325	10th in SEC
80	Ohio	113.9	31	104.4	201	0.7321	1st in MAC	13 seed
81	Western Kentucky	109.9	74	100.8	110	0.7307	2nd in CUSA
82	Nevada	106.5	136	97.7	42	0.7287	2nd in MWC
83	New Mexico	109.8	75	100.8	112	0.7276	3rd in MWC
84	Harvard	106.7	130	98.0	47	0.7271	2nd in Ivy
85	Temple	107.2	121	98.5	57	0.7260	5th in Amer
86	Valparaiso	103.2	209	94.8	21	0.7258	1st in Horz	13 seed
87	Alabama	106.1	143	97.5	39	0.7255	11th in SEC
88	Richmond	112.3	48	103.2	165	0.7251	5th in A10
89	Penn St.	107.4	118	98.7	62	0.7248	11th in B10
90	TCU	104.9	168	96.5	29	0.7231	10th in B12
91	Long Beach St.	109.9	73	101.2	120	0.7211	1st in BW	14 seed
92	Nebraska	106.9	126	98.5	56	0.7199	12th in B10
93	Belmont	116.4	13	107.4	257	0.7161	1st in OVC	14 seed
94	George Washington	108.3	102	100.2	101	0.7102	6th in A10
95	Toledo	110.6	63	102.5	147	0.7044	2nd in MAC
96	East Tennessee St.	109.4	81	102.1	139	0.6897	1st in SC	14 seed
97	Minnesota	106.1	144	99.1	70	0.6866	13th in B10
98	South Dakota St.	106.3	140	99.4	82	0.6846	1st in Sum	14 seed
99	Tennessee	109.2	87	102.1	140	0.6843	12th in SEC
100	Old Dominion	104.1	185	97.6	41	0.6785	3rd in CUSA

This tier includes two former Duke assistant coaches trying to break through to the NCAA tournament in their relatively new jobs—but to earn at-large bids, Steve Wojciechowski’s Marquette team (whom we rank 51st) and Chris Collins’s Northwestern team (56th) will need to outperform their projections by a few wins apiece. Slightly lower, at Nos. 64 and 65, respectively, are two teams that project to be formidable 12-seeds: UNC-Wilmington, which led Duke at halftime of a 4–13, first-round tourney game in March, and Monmouth, one of the best mid-majors that didn’t make the Big Dance last season. 

The top six mid-major contenders this season

Rank	Team	Proj. Off. Eff.	Off. Rank	Proj. Def. Eff.	Def. Rank	Proj. Pyth. Win%	Proj. Conf. Rank	Proj. NCAAs seed
101	Memphis	107.0	124	100.5	104	0.6742	6th in Amer
102	Georgia St.	104.5	179	98.2	51	0.6718	2nd in SB
103	St. John's	105.4	158	99.1	74	0.6696	9th in BE
104	LSU	107.8	113	101.4	125	0.6680	13th in SEC
105	Middle Tennessee	105.3	162	99.1	73	0.6676	4th in CUSA
106	College of Charleston	100.5	274	94.7	17	0.6647	2nd in CAA
107	St. Bonaventure	110.9	57	104.5	204	0.6646	7th in A10
108	Boise St.	106.3	139	100.3	103	0.6611	4th in MWC
109	Yale	106.5	134	100.5	106	0.6594	3rd in Ivy
110	Northern Iowa	104.1	186	98.3	52	0.6589	2nd in MVC
111	Arkansas Little Rock	103.2	211	97.5	38	0.6585	3rd in SB
112	Siena	109.3	84	103.3	167	0.6583	2nd in MAAC
113	James Madison	104.7	176	98.9	66	0.6581	3rd in CAA
114	Akron	108.3	103	102.3	143	0.6574	3rd in MAC
115	Vermont	110.0	72	104.0	193	0.6558	1st in AE	15 seed
116	Iona	110.1	71	104.2	198	0.6533	3rd in MAAC
117	UCF	105.3	163	99.7	89	0.6516	7th in Amer
118	Eastern Michigan	108.0	110	102.3	141	0.6505	4th in MAC
119	Illinois St.	105.1	164	99.7	86	0.6488	3rd in MVC
120	Buffalo	106.6	131	101.2	121	0.6441	5th in MAC
121	Fresno St.	107.7	115	102.7	151	0.6341	5th in MWC
122	Lehigh	107.8	114	102.9	156	0.6305	1st in Pat	15 seed
123	North Dakota St.	104.7	175	100.0	98	0.6303	2nd in Sum
124	William & Mary	110.7	61	105.7	230	0.6296	4th in CAA
125	Oakland	113.6	34	108.5	273	0.6290	2nd in Horz
126	Saint Joseph's	107.5	117	102.9	157	0.6242	8th in A10
127	New Mexico St.	101.1	259	96.9	35	0.6189	1st in WAC	15 seed
128	Green Bay	108.2	104	103.8	183	0.6164	3rd in Horz
129	Chattanooga	104.9	170	100.7	109	0.6151	2nd in SC
130	Towson	105.6	153	101.4	124	0.6148	5th in CAA
131	Weber St.	105.7	147	101.5	126	0.6147	1st in BSky	15 seed
132	Hofstra	109.5	80	105.1	217	0.6141	6th in CAA
133	Sam Houston St.	107.0	125	102.8	153	0.6136	1st in Slnd	16 seed
134	Ball St.	108.0	109	103.8	184	0.6116	6th in MAC
135	Winthrop	109.8	77	105.7	228	0.6083	1st in BSth	16 seed
136	Grand Canyon	105.3	160	101.7	129	0.6002	2nd in WAC
137	Morehead St.	106.6	132	102.9	161	0.5978	2nd in OVC
138	Elon	108.6	94	104.9	213	0.5977	7th in CAA
139	Northern Illinois	104.0	189	100.6	108	0.5951	7th in MAC
140	Albany	106.7	129	103.4	173	0.5892	2nd in AE
141	UNLV	105.4	159	102.3	145	0.5840	6th in MWC
142	Mercer	108.6	93	105.5	222	0.5838	3rd in SC
143	La Salle	103.9	192	100.9	113	0.5838	9th in A10
144	Florida Gulf Coast	105.6	150	102.6	148	0.5830	1st in ASun	Play In
145	Massachusetts	104.4	183	101.5	127	0.5800	10th in A10
146	Marshall	110.5	66	107.5	260	0.5795	5th in CUSA
147	East Carolina	106.3	138	103.4	174	0.5793	8th in Amer
148	Stony Brook	102.0	239	99.2	76	0.5788	3rd in AE
149	Wofford	109.2	86	106.3	241	0.5782	4th in SC
150	Evansville	102.5	222	100.0	97	0.5728	4th in MVC

If you’re doing early scouting for potential 15-over-2 giant killers, champ, Vermont (No. 115) is our projected America East champ and the strongest 15 in our preseason NCAA tourney seed forecast. The other projected 15s aren’t too far behind: Lehigh (122), New Mexico State (127) and Weber State (131). Southland conference favorite Sam Houston State (133), meanwhile, is the strongest projected No. 16 seed.

Rank	Team	Proj. Off. Eff.	Off. Rank	Proj. Def. Eff.	Def. Rank	Proj. Pyth. Win%	Proj. Conf. Rank	Proj. NCAAs seed
151	IPFW	108.4	98	105.8	234	0.5714	3rd in Sum
152	Fordham	105.5	157	102.9	158	0.5703	11th in A10
153	Tulsa	105.1	165	102.7	149	0.5672	9th in Amer
154	Saint Peter's	101.1	260	98.7	61	0.5671	4th in MAAC
155	Nebraska Omaha	108.4	99	105.9	237	0.5664	4th in Sum
156	Indiana St.	101.6	248	99.5	85	0.5590	5th in MVC
157	Georgia Southern	107.9	111	105.7	233	0.5586	4th in SB
158	Washington St.	107.1	122	104.9	214	0.5579	12th in P12
159	Kent St.	105.5	155	103.5	178	0.5540	8th in MAC
160	Wagner	103.7	197	101.8	132	0.5539	1st in NEC	Play In
161	Colorado St.	108.3	101	106.3	242	0.5533	7th in MWC
162	Western Michigan	105.7	148	103.9	189	0.5499	9th in MAC
163	Louisiana Tech	104.5	180	102.8	154	0.5481	6th in CUSA
164	Santa Clara	106.7	128	105.2	218	0.5409	4th in WCC
165	Central Michigan	111.9	51	110.5	314	0.5348	10th in MAC
166	New Hampshire	102.8	219	101.6	128	0.5317	4th in AE
167	Charlotte	105.1	166	103.9	190	0.5310	7th in CUSA
168	Cal St. Bakersfield	101.8	244	100.8	111	0.5300	3rd in WAC
169	UC Irvine	102.3	232	101.3	123	0.5278	2nd in BW
170	Stephen F. Austin	102.0	238	101.3	122	0.5216	2nd in Slnd
171	UNC Greensboro	104.0	187	103.3	169	0.5215	5th in SC
172	Northeastern	106.2	142	105.5	226	0.5196	8th in CAA
173	Utah St.	108.0	107	107.4	258	0.5178	8th in MWC
174	Pacific	103.8	196	103.3	168	0.5161	5th in WCC
175	UC Santa Barbara	104.0	191	103.4	175	0.5158	3rd in BW
176	IUPUI	102.4	227	101.8	131	0.5155	5th in Sum
177	Denver	101.4	254	101.0	115	0.5097	6th in Sum
178	DePaul	105.6	151	105.3	219	0.5092	10th in BE
179	Pepperdine	103.4	203	103.1	163	0.5086	6th in WCC
180	Holy Cross	102.4	225	102.4	146	0.4996	2nd in Pat
181	Montana	103.9	193	104.0	192	0.4962	2nd in BSky
182	Coastal Carolina	101.9	241	102.0	138	0.4958	5th in SB
183	Wyoming	105.5	156	105.7	231	0.4953	9th in MWC
184	Missouri St.	103.1	215	103.3	170	0.4939	6th in MVC
185	Bucknell	104.9	169	105.1	216	0.4935	3rd in Pat
186	George Mason	104.4	182	104.8	208	0.4895	12th in A10
187	Tennessee St.	100.2	275	100.6	107	0.4893	3rd in OVC
188	Rider	101.5	251	102.0	137	0.4833	5th in MAAC
189	Boston University	106.8	127	107.4	259	0.4830	4th in Pat
190	Missouri	103.5	201	104.1	195	0.4827	14th in SEC
191	Southern Illinois	104.0	190	104.7	206	0.4798	7th in MVC
192	Loyola Chicago	101.2	258	102.0	136	0.4780	8th in MVC
193	UNC Asheville	102.3	229	103.2	164	0.4770	2nd in BSth
194	Cal Poly	106.3	141	107.3	253	0.4731	4th in BW
195	UTEP	103.2	210	104.2	199	0.4714	8th in CUSA
196	Cal St. Northridge	103.2	212	104.3	200	0.4694	5th in BW
197	Fairfield	104.8	174	106.0	239	0.4684	6th in MAAC
198	Bowling Green	102.7	221	103.9	187	0.4680	11th in MAC
199	Murray St.	103.3	207	104.4	202	0.4679	4th in OVC
200	Louisiana Lafayette	104.8	171	106.1	240	0.4661	6th in SB
201	Furman	103.5	199	104.8	209	0.4650	6th in SC
202	Air Force	103.5	200	104.8	207	0.4649	10th in MWC
203	Drake	108.1	105	109.5	297	0.4635	9th in MVC
204	Georgia Tech	101.3	255	102.7	150	0.4614	14th in ACC
205	Rice	108.0	106	109.6	301	0.4580	9th in CUSA
206	Oral Roberts	104.0	188	105.9	236	0.4500	7th in Sum
207	Texas A&M CC	102.3	231	104.1	196	0.4483	3rd in Slnd
208	Tulane	101.0	261	102.9	160	0.4463	10th in Amer
209	Duquesne	104.8	172	106.8	247	0.4458	13th in A10
210	Columbia	104.6	178	106.6	245	0.4453	4th in Ivy
211	North Dakota	101.8	245	103.8	182	0.4445	3rd in BSky
212	NJIT	101.5	249	103.6	180	0.4410	2nd in ASun
213	Boston College	97.8	309	99.9	96	0.4383	15th in ACC
214	Dartmouth	102.5	223	104.8	211	0.4365	5th in Ivy
215	Penn	104.8	173	107.3	256	0.4325	6th in Ivy
216	Loyola Marymount	103.1	214	105.7	232	0.4292	7th in WCC
217	North Florida	109.0	89	111.8	329	0.4281	3rd in ASun
218	Detroit	106.4	137	109.1	290	0.4279	4th in Horz
219	Saint Louis	99.5	286	102.3	144	0.4207	14th in A10
220	South Alabama	100.9	265	103.8	185	0.4191	7th in SB
221	Youngstown St.	106.5	135	109.6	300	0.4180	5th in Horz
222	Wright St.	98.1	303	101.0	114	0.4171	6th in Horz
223	Cornell	100.5	273	103.6	179	0.4147	7th in Ivy
224	Rutgers	100.9	266	104.0	191	0.4138	14th in B10
225	Troy	102.3	230	105.5	223	0.4130	8th in SB
226	UC Riverside	101.7	247	104.8	212	0.4123	6th in BW
227	Manhattan	100.7	270	103.9	186	0.4109	7th in MAAC
228	Portland	105.7	149	109.1	288	0.4093	8th in WCC
229	Northern Kentucky	102.2	235	105.5	227	0.4082	7th in Horz
230	Hawaii	99.5	288	102.8	152	0.4075	7th in BW
231	Idaho	103.0	218	106.4	243	0.4058	4th in BSky
232	South Florida	102.2	236	105.7	229	0.4044	11th in Amer
233	UMKC	105.6	154	109.3	293	0.4022	4th in WAC
234	South Dakota	104.7	177	108.4	272	0.4011	8th in Sum
235	Western Illinois	100.1	277	103.7	181	0.4010	9th in Sum
236	Jacksonville	105.3	161	109.1	287	0.4003	4th in ASun
237	Eastern Illinois	103.4	204	107.2	250	0.3988	5th in OVC
238	Texas Southern	104.5	181	108.5	274	0.3936	1st in SWAC	Play In
239	Stetson	106.5	133	110.8	320	0.3879	5th in ASun
240	Lipscomb	103.9	194	108.1	266	0.3878	6th in ASun
241	Samford	103.9	195	108.2	269	0.3852	7th in SC
242	Austin Peay	105.0	167	109.5	295	0.3832	6th in OVC
243	Fairleigh Dickinson	107.3	119	111.9	330	0.3821	2nd in NEC
244	Tennessee Tech	106.0	145	110.7	318	0.3766	7th in OVC
245	Texas St.	97.2	317	101.7	130	0.3711	9th in SB
246	Idaho St.	103.4	205	108.4	270	0.3682	5th in BSky
247	Gardner Webb	100.9	264	105.8	235	0.3671	3rd in BSth
248	Norfolk St.	102.1	237	107.2	249	0.3648	1st in MEAC	Play In
249	Navy	99.9	283	105.0	215	0.3607	5th in Pat
250	Cal St. Fullerton	102.3	228	107.6	263	0.3588	8th in BW

The three weakest major-conference teams fall into this tier, with Georgia Tech at No. 204, Boston College at 213 and Rutgers at 224. This is the second straight season the Scarlet Knights have had the weakest major-conference projection, but things are looking up: In 2015–16 we projected them to finish 288th (and they finished 291st). At No. 248 is the NCAA tournament team with the weakest projection: Norfolk State, which is the favorite to win the MEAC and appear in the First Four in Dayton.

Rank	Team	Proj. Off. Eff.	Off. Rank	Proj. Def. Eff.	Def. Rank	Proj. Pyth. Win%	Proj. Conf. Rank	Proj. NCAAs seed
251	Eastern Kentucky	104.2	184	109.7	302	0.3582	8th in OVC
252	UC Davis	97.7	311	102.9	155	0.3559	9th in BW
253	Eastern Washington	107.3	120	113.0	337	0.3549	6th in BSky
254	Miami OH	97.6	313	102.9	159	0.3529	12th in MAC
255	North Texas	103.2	208	109.0	282	0.3496	10th in CUSA
256	San Francisco	103.1	216	109.2	291	0.3406	9th in WCC
257	High Point	103.1	213	109.3	294	0.3401	4th in BSth
258	Utah Valley	101.8	243	108.4	271	0.3285	5th in WAC
259	Louisiana Monroe	98.1	304	104.5	203	0.3269	10th in SB
260	FIU	100.9	263	107.5	261	0.3268	11th in CUSA
261	Canisius	105.6	152	112.5	336	0.3260	8th in MAAC
262	Western Carolina	99.4	289	105.9	238	0.3260	8th in SC
263	Montana St.	103.4	202	110.2	311	0.3248	7th in BSky
264	Cleveland St.	95.6	326	101.9	133	0.3246	8th in Horz
265	Kennesaw St.	100.9	262	107.6	262	0.3235	7th in ASun
266	Brown	102.7	220	109.5	299	0.3231	8th in Ivy
267	Southern Miss	100.1	278	106.9	248	0.3207	12th in CUSA
268	USC Upstate	103.7	198	110.8	319	0.3195	8th in ASun
269	Quinnipiac	96.6	319	103.3	171	0.3163	9th in MAAC
270	San Jose St.	96.4	321	103.1	162	0.3155	11th in MWC
271	Mount St. Mary's	95.5	327	102.3	142	0.3128	3rd in NEC
272	Colgate	102.4	226	109.7	304	0.3118	6th in Pat
273	Tennessee Martin	100.2	276	107.3	255	0.3111	9th in OVC
274	Liberty	101.7	246	109.0	283	0.3106	5th in BSth
275	Jackson St.	95.1	330	101.9	134	0.3105	2nd in SWAC
276	Drexel	100.1	279	107.2	252	0.3103	9th in CAA
277	Binghamton	94.4	334	101.2	117	0.3097	5th in AE
278	Charleston Southern	100.8	268	108.1	268	0.3083	6th in BSth
279	Florida Atlantic	98.3	302	105.4	221	0.3082	13th in CUSA
280	Portland St.	103.3	206	111.0	324	0.3042	8th in BSky
281	Appalachian St.	100.6	272	108.1	267	0.3024	11th in SB
282	Sacramento St.	101.4	253	109.1	286	0.3013	9th in BSky
283	San Diego	93.8	336	101.2	118	0.2952	10th in WCC
284	South Carolina St.	102.5	224	110.6	315	0.2945	2nd in MEAC
285	Milwaukee	100.7	269	108.7	279	0.2938	9th in Horz
286	Northwestern St.	105.8	146	114.3	344	0.2909	4th in Slnd
287	Incarnate Word	100.6	271	108.8	280	0.2901	5th in Slnd
288	Nicholls St.	97.5	314	105.5	224	0.2886	6th in Slnd
289	Lamar	101.5	250	109.9	306	0.2854	7th in Slnd
290	Arkansas St.	99.4	290	107.7	265	0.2834	12th in SB
291	Houston Baptist	101.4	252	110.0	308	0.2831	8th in Slnd
292	Jacksonville St.	101.3	257	109.9	305	0.2818	10th in OVC
293	Southern	96.6	320	104.8	210	0.2816	3rd in SWAC
294	Seattle	96.0	324	104.1	197	0.2814	6th in WAC
295	NC Central	100.0	282	108.5	275	0.2797	3rd in MEAC
296	Alabama St.	100.0	280	108.8	281	0.2761	4th in SWAC
297	VMI	98.6	295	107.3	254	0.2747	9th in SC
298	UMass Lowell	102.2	233	111.3	327	0.2728	6th in AE
299	Marist	103.0	217	112.4	335	0.2683	10th in MAAC
300	SE Louisiana	99.5	287	108.7	277	0.2664	9th in Slnd
301	Niagara	96.3	322	105.5	225	0.2579	11th in MAAC
302	Campbell	100.9	267	110.7	317	0.2556	7th in BSth
303	Howard	97.9	307	107.7	264	0.2512	4th in MEAC
304	Illinois Chicago	94.9	331	104.6	205	0.2457	10th in Horz
305	New Orleans	98.6	296	108.7	278	0.2452	10th in Slnd
306	American	95.5	328	105.4	220	0.2422	7th in Pat
307	Robert Morris	93.6	339	103.5	177	0.2391	4th in NEC
308	Radford	99.8	285	110.4	312	0.2389	8th in BSth
309	Bradley	90.8	349	100.5	105	0.2387	10th in MVC
310	Savannah St.	91.4	346	101.2	116	0.2369	5th in MEAC
311	Sacred Heart	98.4	298	109.2	292	0.2318	5th in NEC
312	UMBC	102.2	234	113.7	340	0.2269	7th in AE
313	Northern Arizona	97.8	310	109.1	289	0.2208	10th in BSky
314	Hartford	99.0	292	110.6	316	0.2179	8th in AE
315	McNeese St.	101.9	242	113.8	341	0.2179	11th in Slnd
316	St. Francis PA	98.8	294	110.4	313	0.2171	6th in NEC
317	SIU Edwardsville	95.4	329	106.6	244	0.2168	11th in OVC
318	Hampton	92.5	344	103.4	176	0.2155	6th in MEAC
319	Morgan St.	95.8	325	107.2	251	0.2141	7th in MEAC
320	Abilene Christian	98.3	301	110.1	310	0.2125	12th in Slnd
321	Loyola MD	97.7	312	109.5	296	0.2120	8th in Pat
322	St. Francis NY	92.9	341	104.1	194	0.2116	7th in NEC
323	Bryant	99.0	293	111.0	325	0.2099	8th in NEC
324	The Citadel	102.0	240	114.5	346	0.2095	10th in SC
325	Longwood	98.1	305	110.1	309	0.2094	9th in BSth
326	Northern Colorado	99.8	284	112.1	332	0.2078	11th in BSky
327	LIU Brooklyn	98.4	299	111.0	322	0.1997	9th in NEC
328	Central Arkansas	101.3	256	114.3	345	0.1994	13th in Slnd
329	Bethune Cookman	99.4	291	112.2	334	0.1981	8th in MEAC
330	Delaware	97.9	306	111.0	323	0.1917	10th in CAA
331	MD Eastern Shore	98.4	300	111.6	328	0.1898	9th in MEAC
332	Lafayette	100.0	281	113.9	343	0.1831	9th in Pat
333	Southern Utah	98.4	297	113.5	339	0.1617	12th in BSky
334	Coppin St.	96.9	318	112.2	333	0.1558	10th in MEAC
335	Arkansas Pine Bluff	92.6	342	108.6	276	0.1380	5th in SWAC
336	Prairie View A&M	90.9	348	106.8	246	0.1353	6th in SWAC
337	Mississippi Valley St.	93.5	340	110.0	307	0.1337	7th in SWAC
338	Alabama A&M	97.8	308	115.2	350	0.1327	8th in SWAC
339	North Carolina A&T	97.5	315	114.9	348	0.1319	11th in MEAC
340	Delaware St.	94.2	335	111.1	326	0.1304	12th in MEAC
341	Alcorn St.	93.8	337	110.8	321	0.1276	9th in SWAC
342	UTSA	97.3	316	115.1	349	0.1263	14th in CUSA
343	Chicago St.	94.6	332	112.0	331	0.1259	7th in WAC
344	Army	92.2	345	109.7	303	0.1191	10th in Pat
345	SE Missouri St.	91.2	347	109.0	285	0.1132	12th in OVC
346	UTRGV	96.0	323	114.9	347	0.1125	8th in WAC
347	Presbyterian	94.4	333	113.2	338	0.1102	10th in BSth
348	Maine	93.6	338	113.9	342	0.0951	9th in AE
349	Grambling St.	90.0	350	109.5	298	0.0946	10th in SWAC
350	Central Connecticut	92.5	343	115.2	351	0.0743	10th in NEC
351	Florida A&M	87.4	351	109.0	284	0.0730	13th in MEAC

Florida A&M, which lost out on the No. 351 crown to Central Connecticut last season, is projected to win it in ‘16–17. The Rattlers had the nation’s least-efficient offense in ‘15–16, and their only double-digit scorer, Malcolm Bernard, departed on a graduate transfer to Xavier. This final group isn’t entirely lost-cause territory, though: Two teams here—Jackson State (No. 275) and South Carolina State (284)—are projected to finish second in their leagues, giving them decent odds of winning a conference tournament and earning an automatic bid to the NCAAs.