Where Does Creighton Basketball Stand in the Latest Rankings and Big East?

As a long-time observer and analyst of college basketball, particularly within the dynamic landscape of the Big East Conference, I find myself constantly assessing where teams stand not just in wins and losses, but in their underlying composition and potential. The question of where Creighton basketball stands in the latest rankings and the Big East hierarchy is a fascinating one this season, and it brings to mind a broader principle of team-building that I’ve seen play out on international stages. Believe it or not, a recent development in Asian basketball, specifically regarding the Philippine national team, Gilas Pilipinas, offers a surprisingly relevant lens through which to view Creighton’s current situation. The news that SEA Games organizers adopted a ‘passports-only’ rule, which in turn allows Gilas to potentially field naturalized players like Justin Brownlee and Ange Kouame simultaneously while tapping a wider pool of Fil-foreign talent, underscores a critical modern basketball truth: roster flexibility and depth of versatile talent are paramount. For Creighton, their standing is a direct reflection of how well they’ve mastered this very concept.

Looking at the latest AP and Coaches polls, Creighton consistently finds itself nestled in that coveted 8-12 range, a testament to their strong season and national respect. They’re not the flashy, undisputed top dog, but they are a nightmare matchup for anyone, a team built with a specific, potent philosophy. This positioning mirrors their place in the brutal Big East, where they are firmly in the upper echelon alongside the likes of UConn and Marquette, but the week-to-week battles are a grind that can shuffle that order instantly. Their ranking is a snapshot, but their conference standing is a marathon. The key, in my view, is their offensive ecosystem. They run a beautiful, spaced-out system predicated on elite shooting and intelligent passing, often ranking among the national leaders in three-point percentage and assists per game. When Ryan Kalkbrenner is anchoring the paint defensively and acting as a hub offensively, and when Baylor Scheierman and Trey Alexander are hitting from deep, they look like a Final Four team. I’ve always been a sucker for teams that play a stylish, unselfish brand of basketball, and Creighton, at its best, is exactly that.

However, and this is where the Gilas analogy creeps in, their ceiling might be influenced by a relative lack of roster flexibility compared to some elite peers. The ‘passports-only’ rule for Gilas essentially expands their talent pool, allowing them to mix and match skill sets more freely. For Creighton, their rotation is excellent but leans heavily on a core six or seven players. Their success is intricately tied to the health and performance of Kalkbrenner, Scheierman, and Alexander. An injury or foul trouble, particularly for Kalkbrenner, forces them into lineups that lack their typical balance. They don’t have the luxury of throwing wildly different looks at opponents in the way a team with deeper, more varied personnel might. While Steven Ashworth is a fantastic addition at point guard, providing another shooter and steady hand, the roster doesn’t have a true, physical, switch-everything defensive wing or a backup big who can seamlessly replicate Kalkbrenner’s two-way impact. In a conference as physical as the Big East, that can sometimes be exposed, leading to those head-scratching losses that momentarily ding their ranking.

My personal take, and I’ve argued this with colleagues, is that Creighton’s ranking is probably a touch generous on pure talent depth but completely justified by their system and coaching. Greg McDermott gets every ounce out of his roster, and their offensive system is so well-drilled that it can overcome certain athletic mismatches. They are the epitome of “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” But come March, the question will be whether their parts are versatile enough to adapt to the different styles they’ll face. Can they win a rock fight? Can they handle a team with three explosive, athletic wings? The Gilas situation, being able to play both Brownlee and Kouame, is about having answers for different questions. Creighton’s answer is usually to out-execute you with their system. It’s a beautiful approach, and one I prefer over purely talent-reliant teams, but it has a narrower margin for error.

So, where do they stand? As of this writing, I’d slot them as a solid No. 2 in the Big East, behind a seemingly inevitable UConn, and fighting tooth and nail with Marquette for that position. Nationally, a 3 or 4 seed in the NCAA Tournament feels right, somewhere between 8th and 12th in the polls. They are a legitimate threat to make another deep Elite Eight run because when their shots are falling, they can beat anyone in the country. Their standing is secure, respected, and earned. Yet, the lingering thought, inspired by that international roster news, is whether their somewhat fixed, albeit brilliant, formula has the inherent flexibility to solve the unique, high-stakes puzzles the tournament presents. I hope it does, because college basketball is better when a team that plays the right way goes far. But in a sport increasingly defined by versatile, multi-positional talent, Creighton’s beautiful machine will be tested against teams built with more adjustable, and perhaps more forgiving, components.