Ranking Each of Texas' 25 Division I College Basketball Teams for January
In this story:
There are 25 Division I men's basketball teams in the state of Texas, and this is the first ranking of all 25 teams.
This is a breakdown of the state of Texas teams that compete at the division level by conference.
American Conference: Rice Owls, North Texas Mean Green, and UTSA Roadrunners
Atlantic Coast Conference: SMU Mustangs
Big 12 Conference: Houston Cougars, Texas Tech, TCU Horned Frogs, and Baylor Bears
Conference USA: Sam Houston Bearkats and UTEP Miners
Southeastern Conference: Texas A&M Aggies and Texas Longhorns
Southland Conference: Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks, Texas A&M-Corpus Christi Islanders, Incarnate Word Cardinals, Lamar Cardinals, UT Rio Grande Valley Vaqueros, East Texas A&M Lions, and Houston Christian Huskies
Southwestern Athletic Conference: Prairie View A&M Panthers and Texas Southern Tigers
Sun Belt Conference: Texas State Bobcats
Western Athletic Conference: UT Arlington Mavericks, Abilene Christian Wildcats, and Tarleton State Texans
These are the five ranking systems used to rank all 25 Division 1 Texas men's college basketball teams.
There are two main types of college basketball rankings: results-based (what happened) and predictive (what should happen). Knowing the distinction is important if you want to know why a team may be number 53 in one ranking and number 41 in another.
1. NET (NCAA Evaluation Tool)
The NCAA Selection Committee uses the NET as the official way to rank teams for the tournament. In 2018, it replaced the old RPI ranking. The goal is to generate a "resume" ranking that puts teams into quadrants (Quad 1, Quad 2, etc.).
This ranking system primarily works in two parts: The Team Value Index (TVI) is a performance-based metric that grants points for defeating formidable teams, particularly when playing on the road. The Adjusted Net Efficiency metric, which takes into account the strength and location of the opponent, displays the number of points a team scores and concedes per 100 possessions.
The Selection Committee uses this metric as the most significant and valuable ranking system to determine who should receive a seed in the NCAA Tournament.
2. KenPom (Pomeroy College Basketball Ratings)
Ken Pomeroy made this method the "gold standard" for advanced analytics in many college basketball analysts' eyes. The objective is to evaluate a team's on-court performance based on statistical data and project their performance against an average opponent.
It doesn't necessarily factor in wins and losses like other rankings, as it primarily cares about an adjusted efficiency margin. KenPom might move a team up if they lose by one point against the number one team in the country on the road, because they played better than projected.
This ranking system is best for finding "hidden" powerhouse teams that may have lost a few games but are truly very good and may have played a difficult schedule, and their record doesn't reflect how good they truly are.
3. The Basketball Power Index (BPI) from ESPN
ESPN's own forecasting methodology is called BPI. The goal is for it to be a tool that looks forward to anticipating the outcomes of games and the success of the season as a whole for each Division I basketball team.
How it works is that it employs offensive and defensive efficiency, just like KenPom. But it also takes into account things like player availability (injuries or bans) and how far they have to go in the season in terms of wins and losses to determine each team's projected success.
This ranking is best for comparing "Strength of Record" and making predictions for each game as the season progresses.
4. BartTorvik (T-Rank)
Certain college basketball analysts and even bracketologists often say that Bart Torvik's site is an open-source, configurable version of KenPom. The goal of this ranking is to give data that is very clear with "tempo-free"-like statistics and analysis.
T-Rank is the main measure that Bart Torvik uses. The "Time Filter" is the best thing about this site, according to many bracketologists. You can see how teams have done in the last month or since a certain player got hurt. There is also "Wins Above Bubble" (WAB), which shows how many more victories a team has than an average bubble team would have versus the same schedule.
It is best for finding out whether teams have been "hot" or "cold" lately instead of looking over the complete season. It has become a more popular ranking metric recently.
5. TeamRankings.com
This site is a data-driven powerhouse that looks at rankings from the perspective of points per game margin and bracketology data analysis. The goal is to give unbiased power ratings that may be used to figure out how likely a team is to win and how the NCAA is projected to seed each eligible team in their bracket.
How it works is that it employs a complicated regression model that takes into account things like returning players, coaching changes, and how well the program has done in the past. The "Predictive Rating" indicates the expected margin of victory against an average team on a neutral court.
What it is best used for is filling out NCAA tournament brackets. They have special "Bracket Picks" features that help you discover an edge in pools by balancing team strength with "pick popularity."
Here are the rankings of all the teams in the state of Texas as of January 15th.
No. 25 Texas Southern
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 350
KenPom: 334
BPI: 318
Barttorvik: 312
Team Ranking: 342
Quad 1 Record: 0-4
Quad 2 Record: 0-1
Quad 3 Record: 0-1
No. 24 UTSA
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 342
KenPom: 344
BPI: 310
Barttorvik: 351
Team Ranking: 339
Quad 1 Record: 0-3
Quad 2 Record: 0-1
Quad 3 Record: 0-2
No. 23 Houstin Christian
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 314
KenPom: 304
BPI: 334
Barttorvik: 292
Team Ranking: 311
Quad 1 Record: 0-1
Quad 2 Record: 0-3
Quad 3 Record: 1-5
No. 22 Prairie View A&M
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 277
KenPom: 294
BPI: 303
Barttorvik: 282
Team Ranking: 309
Quad-1-Record: 0–4
Quad-2-Record: 0-1
Quad-3-Record: 0-2
No. 21 East Texas A&M
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 290
KenPom: 312
BPI: 301
Barttorvik: 293
Team Ranking: 312
Quad-1-Record: 0-4
Quad-2-Record: 0-1
Quad-3-Record: 0-3
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 280
KenPom: 277
BPI: 272
Barttorvik: 273
Team Ranking: 258
Quad-1-Record: 0-1
Quad-2-Record: 0-2
Quad-3-Record: 2-6
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 266
KenPom: 266
BPI: 222
Barttorvik: 250
Team Ranking: 256
Quad-1-Record: 0–0
Quad-2-Record: 0-3
Quad-3-Record: 0-4
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 249
KenPom: 238
BPI: 193
Barttorvik: 225
Team Ranking: 220
Quad-1-Record: 0–2
Quad-2-Record: 1-1
Quad-3-Record: 1-5
No. 17 Lamar
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 230
KenPom: 222
BPI: 219
Barttorvik: 234
Team Ranking: 219
No. 16 Incarnate Word
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 224
KenPom: 190
BPI: 179
Barttorvik: 198
Team Ranking: 174
Quad-1-Record: 0–2
Quad-2-Record: 1–3
Quad-3-Record: 0-4
No. 15 UT Rio Grande Valley
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 214
KenPom: 219
BPI: 187
Barttorvik: 200
Team Ranking: 206
Quad-1-Record: 0–2
Quad-2-Record: 0-2
Quad-3-Record: 2-2
No. 14 Abilene Christian
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 201
KenPom: 216
BPI: 249
Barttorvik: 195
Team Ranking: 221
Quad-1-Record: 0–2
Quad-2-Record: 0-2
Quad-3-Record: 3-1
No. 13 Texas A&M-CC
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 169
KenPom: 177
BPI: 169
Barttorvik: 184
Team Ranking: 173
Quad-1-Record: 0–3
Quad-2-Record: 0-2
Quad-3-Record: 2-1
No. 12 Tarleton State
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 152
KenPom: 167
BPI: 239
Barttorvik: 160
Team Ranking: 187
Quad-1-Record: 0–3
Quad-2-Record: 1-1
Quad-3-Record: 1-1
No. 11. North Texas
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 159
KenPom: 137
BPI: 130
Barttorvik: 164
Team Ranking: 130
Quad-1-Record: 0–2
Quad-2-Record: 1-4
Quad-3-Record: 1-1
No. 10 UT Arlington
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 121
KenPom: 145
BPI: 167
Barttorvik: 154
Team Ranking: 154
Quad-1-Record: 0–2
Quad-2-Record: 0-1
Quad-3-Record: 4-2
No. 9 Sam Houston State
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 108
KenPom: 114
BPI: 117
Barttorvik: 119
Team Ranking: 127
Quad-1-Record: 0–2
Quad-2-Record: 0-2
Quad-3-Record: 4-3
No. 8 Stephen F. Austin
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 911
KenPom: 104
BPI: 123
Barttorvik: 78
Team Ranking: 114
Quad-1-Record: 0–1
Quad-2-Record: 0-1
Quad-3-Record: 1-1
No. 7 Texas
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 40
KenPom: 37
BPI: 40
Barttorvik: 37
Team Ranking: 38
Quad-1-Record: 3–4
Quad-2-Record: 0–1
Quad-3-Record: 0-1
No. 6 Texas A & M
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 47
KenPom: 42
BPI: 31
Barttorvik: 38
Team Ranking: 40
Quad-1-Record: 1–3
Quad-2-Record: 3–1
Quad-3-Record: 1-0
No. 5 Baylor
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 42
KenPom: 40
BPI: 41
Barttorvik: 48
Team Ranking: 35
Quad-1-Record: 1–4
Quad-2-Record: 3-1
Quad-3-Record: 1-0
No. 4 TCU
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 43
KenPom: 52
BPI: 55
Barttorvik: 42
Team Ranking: 43
Quad-1-Record: 2–4
Quad-2-Record: 1-0
Quad-3-Record: 1-1
No. 3 SMU
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 25
KenPom: 36
BPI: 42
Barttorvik: 33
Team Ranking: 34
Quad-1-Record: 2–4
Quad-2-Record: 4-0
Quad-3-Record: 2-0
No. 2 Texas Tech
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 19
KenPom: 23
BPI: 22
Barttorvik: 22
Team Ranking: 24
Quad-1-Record: 3–4
Quad-2-Record: 2-0
Quad-3-Record: 5-0
No. 1 Houston
Their Ranking among five publications out of 365 Division 1 teams
NET: 12
KenPom: 7
BPI: 5
Barttorvik: 4
Team Ranking: 7
Quad-1-Record: 4–1
Quad-2-Record: 4-0
Quad-3-Record: 3-0
More From Texas Tech On SI
Stay up to date on Texas Tech Athletics by bookmarking Texas Tech On SIand follow us on Twitter.
Ryan Kay is a journalist who graduated from Michigan State in 2003 and is passionate about covering college sports and enjoys writing features and articles covering various collegiate teams. He has worked as an editor at Go Joe Bruin and has been a contributor for Longhorns Wire and Busting Brackets. He is a contributor for Texas Tech On SI.