Bucks get Number Two: thoughts on Joel Embiid

I haven't really followed the NBA closely for many years, but it has come to my attention that the Bucks came in second in the NBA draft lottery last night.

For over a year, we've been hearing about how loaded the 2014 draft class would be. And it does appear to be relatively deep, at least in the lottery picks. But there's no Lebron -- no surefire number one.

And that brings me to Joel Embiid, the 7-footer from Kansas who many are touting as the number one prospect in the draft. Although I am a college basketball fanatic, I can't say for sure if I've ever seen Embiid play (other than in highlights). He hurt his back late last year and missed the NCAA tournament, so he didn't get any time in the college basketball limelight. But he did get a bunch of hype mid-season as the best player in the game.

Still, he strikes me as a verrry risky pick, at least for a number one. First, there's the obvious: he's a big man with back problems at age 18. Second, looking at his stats he appears to be athletic but raw. In his season at Kansas, he was an elite rebounder at both ends, and a very efficient player on offense. But remember -- he was a seven-footer surrounded by the likes of Andrew Wiggins, Wayne Selden, and Perry Ellis. In other words, he could not be the focus of a defense.

Despite this, in his 28 games at Kansas, Embiid never had a dominating performance. He never took more than nine shots in a game, and he never scored more 18 points in a game. Based on my research, every number one pick that played college basketball has had at least one 20-point game. (Most, of course, had many.)

And it isn't as though Embiid got off to a slow start and then performed at a consistently high level late in the season. In his last eight games before getting shut down, he had three games where he didn't reach double figures in scoring. He went 6-20 from the field in those three games, with just four offensive rebounds.

Finally, look at Embiid's numbers against elite competition. The Big 12 was a solid conference last year but other than Kansas there were no top-20 Kenpom teams. Kansas did play four top-20 teams in the non-conference schedule though, and here are Embiid's performances:

Opponent	Score	Min	ORtg	%Ps	Pts	2PM-A	3PM-A	FTM-A	OR	DR	A	TO	Blk
Duke	W, 94-83	20	102	21	2	1-3	0-1	0-2	4	3	5	1	1
Villanova	L, 63-59	12	99	41	10	4-6	0-0	2-4	1	4	1	2	0
Florida	L, 67-61	30	99	12	6	3-6	0-0	0-1	0	6	2	1	3
SDSU	L, 61-57	26	117	26	12	3-5	0-0	6-7	5	7	3	3	5

Not terrible, by any means, but also not numbers that make you think this guy would be the number one pick in the NBA draft. To be fair, Wiggins didn't set the world on fire in those games either: he scored 22, 10, 26, and 14, but took a lot of shots to get those points. Still, 26 points (on 15 shots) and 11 rebounds at Florida is a superstar kind of game.

So if he were drafted number one, Embiid would be breaking new ground, and would be an extreme example of the NBA's recent drive toward drafting on potential rather than polish. With guys like Noah Vonleh and Julius Randle around -- guys who I am very confident are ready to play in the NBA -- it would be tempting to trade down a few spots if other teams really are itching for Embiid.

What do you guys think -- should the Bucks take Embiid if Cleveland passes on him?

Wiggins

44 Inch Vertical!

Projecting the 2015 NCAA Tournament

Although news of transfers out and grad transfers in seems to come in every day, I'm ready to consider the T-Rank preliminarily done. So I've got a projected rank of all 351 teams, and projected conference champions. That lets me project the NCAA tournament. Here is is!

1 Louisville
1 Kansas
1 Wisconsin
1 Arizona

Louisville is a bit of an outlier as my projected overall #1 seed. The thing with Louisville is that they've finished first in adjusted efficiency each of the last two seasons. So their base "program rating" is easily the best. They are losing one of the best college players ever, Russ Smith, but got a nice surprise when Montrezl Harris decided not to go pro. So they return enough minutes and enough power to project as number one. I doubt they will be the best team in the country next year, but it would be foolish not to project them as a top-ten team.

2 Kentucky
2 Duke
2 North Carolina
2 Florida 

With the Harrison twins returning, everyone is slotting Kentucky in at number one, again. They'll certainly be loaded with talent, and T-Rank projects Aaron Harrison to be the single most impactful player on any major conference team. But they do lose their best player (Randle), and their incoming recruiting class isn't quite as good as last year's. Moreover, Kentucky's overall results the last two years—remember that they were an 8-seed last year, and lost in the first round of the NIT the year before—make T-Rank a little skeptical. If Kentucky had lost any of those close games they played prior to the Final Four, I don't think anyone would be quite so gaga about them next year.  Still, they obviously have the talent to win the national title, so number five seems about right as a projection.

If I were doing these projections, I'd probably put Duke on the 1-seed line instead of Louisville, probably ahead of Arizona as well. Duke will again be relying on a stellar recruiting class, and the game against the Badgers in Madison should be a doozy.

Speaking of Arizona, they should be quite good again next year, but the somewhat unexpected departure of Nick Johnson to the pros tempers expectations somewhat.

No reason not to expect Florida to be good again. They lose an epic senior class that went to three Elite Eights and a Final Four, but they'll just reload under Billy Donovan.

North Carolina brings back a lot of young players, and adds another nice recruiting class. It figures to be one of their up years.

3 Michigan St.
3 Virginia
3 Wichita St.
3 Iowa St. 

As discussed previously, Michigan St. comes out a bit high on the T-Rank. That said, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see Michigan St. get a 3-seed next year. It's questionable whether Branden Dawson can be "the man," and State lacks "stars" behind him—but they have a bunch of good players, and bunch of guys who got good minutes last year because of all their injuries. I can't help thinking that they are due to get a little lucky next year.

Wichita State should remain a very good team. They lose Cleanthony Early, but Fred Van Vleet and all the other major contributors return. That said, don't expect them to go 18-0 in the Missouri Valley again, because the conference should take a major step forward next year. T-Rank projects that Northern Iowa, Evansville, and Illinois State should all take big leaps next year, as they all return the bulk of their young rosters. 

Fred Hoiberg solidified next year's roster with the addition of grad transfer Bryce Dejean-Jones from UNLV. They also add Jameel McKay, a juco who committed to Marquette last year then immediately decided to transfer, and Abdel Nader, a transfer out of Northern Illinois. Of course you never know how a transfer-heavy team will come together, but by now Fred Hoiberg gets the benefit of the doubt.

4 Texas
4 Gonzaga
4 Michigan
4 Oklahoma 

T-Rank was pretty much alone in predicting that Texas would be good last year, and it continues to like the Longhorns. Everybody is on to them now, as they return everybody from a ridiculously young team that made the NCAA tournament. 

Oklahoma is another team on the rise under Lon Kruger, and they return most of their key contributors. They are a darkhorse to make some noise in the Big 12. 

5 Ohio St.
5 Pittsburgh
5 Villanova
5 VCU 

Villanova is projected to win the Big East, and VCU is projected to win the A10. Ohio St. is a bit of a mystery team, but I'd never bet against a Thad Matta team. They bring in an impact grad transfer (Anthony Lee, from Temple) and the Big Ten's most highly touted recruit (D'Angelo Russell).

6 Kansas St.
6 Illinois
6 SMU
6 Utah 

SMU is expected to continue its rapid rise under Larry Brown, as they return most of their young talent and add possibly the best player in the class of 2015, Emmanuel Mudiay.

Utah is also climbing under Larry Krystowiak. Along with SMU, they were one of the better teams not to make the tournament last year, and they should be better next year.

Illinois is anyone's guess next year. They've got some transfers coming in (though Groce recently suspended Darius Paul for the year) and some talent coming back. I don't think Groce is a very good coach, but I'm often wrong about these things.

Speaking of bad Illinois coaches, there's Kansas State.

7 Colorado
7 Minnesota
7 Iowa
7 Northern Iowa 

Colorado is an interesting team. Spencer Dinwiddie went pro, but everybody else returns. They were decent even after his injury last year, so they could continue to improve next year.

Iowa and Minnesota follow on Illinois' heels as mediocre Big Ten teams. As with Illinois, this seems like a best-case scenario for both teams.

There's Northern Iowa, evidence of the MVC resurgence I mentioned above. They return just about everybody, and Ben Jacobson has a history of success, so they are T-Rank's pick for the at-large out of the MVC.

8 Syracuse
8 San Diego St.
8 North Carolina St.
8 Nebraska 

Once again, the T-Rank doesn't like Syracuse. But Syracuse has the same question marks as they did going into last year -- a lot of turnover, and who will play point guard? They struck gold with Tyler Ennis, and this year they'll likely be counting on a freshman again, 4-star recruit Kaleb Joseph. But Boeheim is one of those coaches who just wins, of course.

Nebraska checks in as an 8-seed. It will surprise no one, of course, if they are better than Illinois, Iowa, and Minnesota. They've got some legacy issues keeping their T-Rank down, although I made some major tweaks this year largely to account for teams like Nebraska that have really turned a corner. Sometimes a team like Nebraska turns out to be a flash in the pan, but Coach Miles's record of success is pretty remarkable.  

9 Baylor
9 Notre Dame
9 Alabama
9 Butler 

Butler figures to rise again in the Big East, fueled by some transfers. But their T-Rank still reflects some Brad Stevens mojo, so they'll be interesting to watch next year. Importantly, they'll get Roosevelt Jones back from injury next year. 

10 BYU
10 Connecticut
10 Mississippi
10 Colorado St. 

BYU is a tough team to figure with all the missions, and they lost grad transfer Matt Carlino (to Marquette). But this is about where they seem to be every year. UConn loses a lot, and the rather unexpected departure of Ryan Boatright Deandre Daniels to the pros is an unexpected hit. Colorado State is kind of the mirror image of Nebraska — they had a down year last year, but have a solid history to buck up their T-Rank. But it's questionable whether Larry Eustachy can maintain what Tim Miles built.

11 West Virginia
11 Columbia
11 Oklahoma St.
11 UCLA 

UCLA has suffered a wave of defections, and they're a tough team to figure. West Virginia has young returning talent but suffered a gut punch with Eron Harris's decision to transfer. 

The big surprise here is Columbia, which T-Rank projects as the Ivy League champ over Harvard. This is anomolous, of course. But Columbia returns everybody from a solid young team (#123 in Kenpom last year). I will be rooting for them!

12 Miami FL
12 Florida St.
12 Stanford
12 Harvard 

12 Murray St.
12 UC Irvine

Harvard sneaks in as the last at-large despite Columbia's surge. Stanford is probably underrated here, largely because they have been better than their statistical profile the last couple years. Miami and Florida St. give the sunshine state something to hope for.

13 Green Bay
13 Stephen F. Austin
13 Georgia St.
13 Siena 

It's all automatic qualifiers from here down. Green Bay is again projected to win the Horizon, with Cleveland St. a close second in the projections. Overall, this would be a pretty scary set of 13-seeds.

14 Denver
14 New Mexico St.
14 Toledo
14 Louisiana Tech 

15 Lafayette
15 Radford
15 Stony Brook
15 Northeastern 

16 Florida Gulf Coast
16 Montana
16 Wofford
16 St. Francis NY
16 North Carolina Central
16 Alabama St.

BUBBLE TEAMS

Here are the top ten teams, as projected by the T-Rank, that missed the field:

Indiana
Cincinnati
Dayton
Georgia
Georgetown
Marquette
Creighton
California
Saint Mary's
New Mexico

New blog rule

There's been lots of good news for Badger fans lately, culminating in the announcement that UW will get a home game against Duke in the Big Ten/ACC challenge next year. Incoming Freshman Ethan Happ won the MVP of his summer international tournament, although the competition wasn't as high as some of the more high profile international tourneys. Still, better that he won the MVP than was just another guy on the bench. Kaminsky and Dekker both decided to come back to the Badgers while other teams have lost players to the NBA and transfers. Neither guy looked like a likely first round pick so it's probably for the best they came back. Both guys should have professional careers beyond UW. Maybe they don't ever make it to the NBA, but they should get a crack at the D league and certainly can have a career overseas if they want to. It certainly seems possible they could become rotational NBA guys, especially Dekker.

UW will be dealing with expectations next year which I have no doubt Bo Ryan will have no trouble with. My hope is that UW wins the Big Ten regular season title. Another post season final 4 run would be great, but those runs are hard to come by with the single elimination system. There are lots of great teams that don't make a final 4, just ask Arizona, Wichita State, Virginia, MI, Villinova, Kansas, etc. The post season is great and exciting, but there is just something very satisfying about winning the 3 month marathon that is the Big Ten regular season.


Here are my quick next year predictions to rival the T-rank. I put no value in these since it's just too early, unless of course I am right, then I will gloat and compare the T-rank predictions to that of a monkey.
UW 14-4
OSU 13-5
MSU 12-6
MI 10-8
IL 10-8
Iowa 9-9
Nebraska 9-9
Minn 9-9
Purdue7-11
IU 7-11
PSU 5-13
Northwestern 4-14
I have done no research on Maryland or Rutgers, so I'll omit them until fall when I update this.


Bo Ryan has brought me so much joy that I am instituting a new blog rule. All badger basketball related posts will now have to be ended with:

I love Bo Ryan

Bucks need to be bigger

Back when Andrew Bogut was still with the Bucks, they made a move to sign Drew Gooden with the intent to play him at the 4 next to Bogut. That was right after the career changing elbow injury Bogut suffered at the end of the 2009-10 season. They wanted to play power basketball with 2 big physical rebounders. Gooden was hurt most of the 2010-11 season and only played 35 games, eliminating that plan. This allowed for more playing time for Ilyasova and rookie Larry Sanders. Bogut then played in just 12 games in the strike shortened 2011-12 season before being traded for Monta Ellis. Power basketball never came to Milwaukee.

The Bucks have played smaller lineups since Bogut has left, starting Gooden by necessity after the Bogut trade. Samuel Dalembert was brought in for 2012-13, but Sanders took over part way into the season. Sanders is small for a center, but is a quality shot blocker. The Bucks have also played undersized at the 4 playing players like Ilyasova, and Mbah-a-Moute who are either too short or too slight to play with big NBA power forwards.
People into metrics love Larry Sanders. His shot blocking, especially from the weak side does make a difference in games. I understand the value of rim protectors, especially mobile ones that can cover a lot of ground to help. I was not a fan of Larry Sanders as a starting center even before his crazy run this year, (broken hand in bar fight, animal neglect charges and other charges, orbital fracture injury in game, and finally failed marijuana test suspension) because he is just too small. Sanders is listed at 6'11" and 235lbs. His athleticism makes up for a lack of beef, but he and the Bucks struggle when the opponent has a lot of beef up front.

The NBA is filled with athletes that run and dunk and  do amazing things, but it is still basketball. In basketball generally the big guys win over the small guys. Just look a the beef of the starters for the top 5 teams in each conference.

Indiana Hibbert/West
Miami Bosh/Haslem (teams with Lebron don't really have to play by the same rules)

Toronto Valanciunas/Amir Williams

Chicago Boozer/Noah
Washington Gortat/Nene
San Antonio Duncan/Splitter or Diaw
OKC Ibaka/Perkins (same applies to teams with Durant)
Clippers Jordan/Griffin
Houston Howard/Jones
Portland Lopez/Aldridge


Every team would like to have a Lebron or a Durant, because it doesn't much matter who plays with them because they are going to win. Not too many of those guys out there, so it's probably not a good strategy for the Bucks. I don't know what the Bucks new owners will do with this team, but I hope they put an emphasis on bigger is better.

Bo Ryan tidbits

A couple of awesome facts about the Bo Ryan era:

1) With another 30-win season, Bo Ryan now has three 30-win seasons with the Badgers. These are, of course, the only 30-win seasons in program history. Even more amazingly, Bo and the Badgers now have as many 30-win seasons as any coach or team in Big Ten history. Michigan St. (Izzo), Ohio State (Matta), Michigan (Frieder/Fischer, Fischer, Beilein), and Indiana (Knight) all also have three 30-win seasons (correction: Knight has four). So, one of next year's goals should be to break this tie and take the 30-win crown for himself join Knight at the top.

2) The Badgers have now been a top-5 seed in the NCAA tournament five years in a row. Only three other schools can say the same: Kansas, Duke, and Syracuse.

EDIT: actually Knight had four with Indiana. Not sure how I screwed that up.

Kohl

The Bucks announced they are being sold to a couple of New York investment guys who have tons of cash and a love of basketball. I have not been a big fan of Herb Kohl, in his capacity as owner of the Bucks. Kohl bought the Bucks in 1985, and at the time they were a perennial playoff team and occasional conference finals threat in an era dominated by Bird and Magic. The team’s success faded in the years after Kohl bought it. The Vin Baker era was painful. Big Dog and Ray Allen brought some hope, but limited playoff appearances and one conference finals appearance was the best they could do. There was some promise before Bogut destroyed his elbow, but that quickly faded. After that, there have been a bunch of bad teams and few wins. It would be hard from a basketball watcher's perspective to say the past 30 years are anything but an overall failure. Not as bad as being the Clippers, but still just not very good.

Kohl will leave ownership with 2 major achievements. He made a ton of money, and he kept the team in Milwaukee. He bought the Bucks for $18 million, and sold for $550 million, minus $100 million he is donating to a fund to build a new arena in downtown Milwaukee. A 2500% increase in value over 30 years is pretty good, and makes all the whines about Milwaukee as a small market team that loses money sound a bit hollow. As a fan, I don’t really care how much money Kohl makes, but I do like that he insured the team will stay in Milwaukee for the near future. With another $100 million from the new owners there will be a new arena, and likely a lease for 20 years or so. Beyond that, the Bucks success during those 20 years will determine if they stay in Milwaukee or not.

The Bucks will never be among the NBAs elite franchises. The NBA is just fine with LA, NY, and the other big cities maintaining their advantages to keep the ratings high. In order for a team like Milwaukee to be successful they need a few things: good owners, good management, and good luck. They need an owner who is willing to spend, but smart enough not to meddle. Despite the financial disadvantages of Milwaukee (less money from local TV contracts, less money from the arena) Kohl was willing to spend when the Bucks were winning. The Bucks were over the cap during part of the Allen, Big Dog, Cassell era, and Kohl paid handsomely to have an elite coach in George Karl during that time too. He doesn’t do so well when it comes to the meddling. Despite his low profile with the team, his fingerprints were on a lot of the moves they made. Not as bad as a Mark Cuban, but more than you want. Good management is another issue. I’m OK with John Hammond, but it’s hard to call his era a success. Larry Harris and others before him would definitely not be called a success. Being considered good management has a lot to do with good luck. San Antonio (another small market) is widely considered to have some of the best management, but they also had the good fortune to draft Tim Duncan who makes a lot of coaches and GMs look good. A lucky draft at the right time can make a huge difference.

Time will tell what this new ownership group brings to Milwaukee. They should have a high pick in a good draft to get them started. A new arena in a few years should help with revenues and keeping players. There is very little talent to build with, but outside of Larry Sanders there are also no massive long term contracts (beyond 2 more years) that will be major problems. The new salary cap should help teams like Milwaukee remain competitive. Lets hope the next 30 years are more successful.

I'm no Bo Ryan

Bo Ryan is all about the next game. It's one of the things that makes him a great coach. I am a fan, so I have the luxury of obsessing about the past and the future of Badger basketball. I don't remember being as emotionally crushed by a loss in a sporting event since the Packers lost to Denver in the Super Bowl. I was a much younger and more emotional fellow in those days, so I was a bit taken by surprise how affected I was by the Badgers' loss this year. I have finished my obsessing about the past, and I'm almost ready to move on to the future.

Watching this year's team was a great ride. The run to the Final Four was just one more notch on Bo Ryan's belt of amazing accomplishments at UW. I am very happy that it happened this year, as runs like that are not easy to come by. I can already hear the fans and pundits predicting a UW team that brings back 6 of 7 rotational players will be a lock to return next year. Just ask Virginia, Wichita State, Arizona, Michigan, Villanova ... you get the point. A lot of great teams every year aren't going to the Final Four, and it's highly likely that UW won't be one of those last 4 next year.
But I am one of those fans after all, so it's time to move on the future and start daydreaming about Bo making back-to-back Final Fours. Perhaps even more.

I'll throw out my far less scientific big ten predictions in the weeks to come, once we have a better feel for who is going pro.

Projected 2015 Big Ten Standings

As mentioned earlier, I'll be expanding the T-Rank (my preseason ratings) to all 350 or so teams this off-season. If you want preseason ratings based on careful thought and rigorous data, Dan Hanner is your man. If you want results based on a quirky project of mine, then the T-Rank is the be-all-end-all. In the coming days I will have some posts showing how well last year's effort did. The short story is: not bad. Not as good as Hanner, but on par with Kenpom, and better than Team Rankings. But it is a small sample size, so a lot is riding on next year's performance. (Just kidding: literally nothing is riding on it.)

This will be a lot of work, particularly trying accurately to incorporate transfers. There will be errors. But it gives me something to do in the off-season.

Anyhow, to whet your appetite, I've got preliminary ranks done for the Big Ten. I'm sure that I'm missing some transfer info, and this will be continually updated. But since T-Rank spits out a projected Pythagorean winning percentage, I can use that to project win totals for the Big Ten season. And because I can, I have:

So there you have it: the Badgers are pretty much guaranteed to win the Big Ten next year.

Edit: Typo originally had Ohio State's wins and losses reversed.

NEXT

Prepare yourself for the most anticipated, hyped Badger basketball team ever. They will likely be preseason Top 5. They will likely be Top 5 in the preseason computer rankings (including the T-Rank, which I plan to expand to all 350 teams this year).

Can't wait.

Sean Miller

Sean Miller is obviously a great coach. His Xavier teams were great, and he has rebuilt Arizona into a national power. He will almost certainly win a championship there.

But I was equally impressed with his post-game comments, which were beyond classy. Both in the immediate post-game interview, in which he expressed how happy he was for Bo Ryan, and in the post-game press conference. He's frankly made me into an Arizona fan, and I'll be rooting for them next year—until they play the Badgers in the Final Four.

I love Bo Ryan

Today was a good day.

Friday Facts: Tourney edition

Here's the efficiency data for every team in the tournament. So far, the Badgers are outscoring their opponents at a clip of .35 points per possession, best in the tournament. They also lead in my "adjusted" efficiency margins, which accounts for the quality of opponents. Of course, this is a small sample of just three games, so the 40-point destruction of American takes on an out-sized influence no matter what. Still, no team has been more impressive than the Badgers so far.

Another notable fact is that Michigan and Tennessee are tied for second in efficiency margin. They play each other tonight, so something has to give.

Team	AdjEM	O.E.	D.E.	Raw EM
Wisconsin	0.15	123.8	88.6	0.35
Michigan	0.07	120.4	92.9	0.27
Tennessee	0.12	128.6	101.6	0.27
Virginia	0.05	118.4	95.2	0.23
Florida	0.10	110.7	89.8	0.21
Wichita St.	0.06	114.8	94.3	0.20
Arizona	0.09	118.1	97.9	0.20
Syracuse	0.05	106.6	88.5	0.18
Louisville	0.05	99.3	83.3	0.16
Michigan St.	0.05	121.8	106.3	0.15
Baylor	0.10	111.1	96.8	0.14
Iowa St.	0.06	126.2	112.1	0.14
Connecticut	0.06	116.1	102.1	0.14
UCLA	0.08	111.1	99.5	0.12
Pittsburgh	0.05	105.2	94.0	0.11
San Diego St.	0.08	108.7	99.5	0.09
North Carolina St.	0.04	108.5	100.0	0.08
Oregon	0.05	119.7	111.7	0.08
Kentucky	0.05	108.9	101.6	0.07
Dayton	0.07	101.0	94.4	0.07
Kansas	0.03	104.6	98.5	0.06
Villanova	0.03	98.6	92.9	0.06
North Carolina	0.03	113.3	113.3	0.00
Stanford	0.05	95.0	96.0	-0.01
Ohio St.	0.01	89.4	90.9	-0.02
Harvard	0.03	103.9	106.2	-0.02
VCU	0.01	107.1	110.0	-0.03
Arizona St.	0.01	121.4	124.3	-0.03
Providence	0.01	118.5	121.5	-0.03
Albany	0.02	100.0	104.0	-0.04
New Mexico St.	0.01	94.5	100.0	-0.05
Cincinnati	0.01	95.0	101.7	-0.07
Oklahoma	0.00	104.2	111.1	-0.07
New Mexico	0.01	85.5	93.5	-0.08
Saint Louis	0.02	90.5	98.6	-0.08
George Washington	0.00	110.0	118.3	-0.08
Texas	0.01	119.7	129.1	-0.09
Gonzaga	0.02	98.0	108.1	-0.10
Oklahoma St.	0.01	98.7	109.0	-0.10
Manhattan	0.02	94.1	104.4	-0.10
Memphis	0.02	104.0	114.3	-0.10
Mercer	0.02	117.5	128.3	-0.11
Mount St. Mary's	-0.01	100.0	110.9	-0.11
Duke	0.00	110.9	121.9	-0.11
North Dakota St.	0.01	98.4	109.5	-0.11
Saint Joseph's	0.01	112.5	123.6	-0.11
Stephen F. Austin	0.01	103.8	115.2	-0.11
Kansas St.	0.01	80.3	91.8	-0.11
Cal Poly	-0.01	96.7	109.0	-0.12
Weber St.	0.01	98.3	113.3	-0.15
Louisiana Lafayette	0.00	101.5	116.9	-0.15
Creighton	-0.01	104.8	120.8	-0.16
Eastern Kentucky	0.00	107.8	125.0	-0.17
Coastal Carolina	0.01	100.0	118.6	-0.19
Texas Southern	-0.02	111.3	130.6	-0.19
Iowa	0.00	100.0	120.0	-0.20
Delaware	0.00	106.8	127.4	-0.21
Nebraska	0.00	88.2	108.8	-0.21
Xavier	-0.01	92.2	115.6	-0.23
Tulsa	-0.01	88.1	113.4	-0.25
BYU	-0.01	94.4	120.8	-0.26
Massachusetts	0.00	94.4	121.1	-0.27
North Carolina Central	-0.01	119.0	147.6	-0.29
Milwaukee	-0.01	76.8	105.8	-0.29
Wofford	-0.01	71.4	101.8	-0.30
Western Michigan	-0.02	82.8	120.3	-0.38
Colorado	-0.03	78.7	126.2	-0.48
American	-0.05	60.3	129.3	-0.69