Now that Feast Week has passed and most of the best college basketball players in the country have played real games against significant competition, it’s time to release a 2025 NBA Draft Big Board.

This year’s Top 100 has been quite difficult to formulate early in the process. There aren’t many sure things outside of the top group of talent, and there is more talent returning to college basketball than in recent years because of the advent of name, image and likeness rights. However, much of that talent has been evaluated already, and NBA scouts don’t have quite as much interest in many of those players as what their market demands in college hoops.

And yet, it’s time to cobble together a starting point. Throughout the season, you can expect some significant turnover as players rise and fall. We’re dealing with small collegiate sample sizes so far, which makes it difficult to formulate exactly where these players sit.

As always, here’s the way the Big Board works:

• The Big Board does not take team fit into account. It goes without saying that the Boston Celtics’ board will look different from the Phoenix Suns’ board based on the schemes they run and the positions in which they need depth. I do give a bit of a bump to players who I think will be successful in multiple schemes. I also tend to give a bump to guys who seem to be winning players who can defend multiple positions, play well within a team defensive concept, knock down shots and play with great processing speed. The latter quality is the most important one for non-stars to have for NBA playoff success.

• I get input and information from NBA executives, college coaches, agents, scouts and other evaluators during the process of slotting players. Sometimes, those exchanges are about a prospect’s background and off-court habits. Sometimes, they’re about his work ethic. Other times, they’re just conversations about whether we think a guy can play or whom they might compare to in the NBA. These conversations happen daily, but at the end of the day, this is my ranking. While it is reflective of the general tenor of NBA teams, it’s not a consensus board either.

• At this stage of the process, as is true every year, I do not include freshmen who’d be ranked outside of the top 50. It’s very early for that to occur, and realistically, freshmen whom I have ranked outside of the top 50 should probably just go back to school.

• Ages on the board are as of the projected draft day in 2025 (June 25); heights listed are per official team and school websites.

RANK	PLAYER	TEAM	POS.	AGE	HT.
1	Cooper Flagg	Duke	W/F	18	6-9
2	Egor Demin	BYU	G	19	6-9
3	Dylan Harper	Rutgers	G	19	6-6
4	Ace Bailey	Rutgers	W	18	6-10
5	Kasparas Jakucionis	Illinois	G	19	6-5
6	V.J. Edgecombe	Baylor	G	19	6-3
7	Nolan Traore	Saint-Quentin	G	19	6-3
8	Asa Newell	Georgia	F/C	19	6-9
9	Kon Knueppel	Duke	W	19	6-7
10	Liam McNeeley	Connecticut	W	19	6-7
11	Khaman Maluach	Duke	C	19	7-2
12	Ben Saraf	Ratiopharm Ulm	G	19	6-6
13	Tre Johnson	Texas	G	19	6-6
14	Boogie Fland	Arkansas	G	18	6-2
15	Jase Richardson	Michigan State	G	19	6-3
16	Noa Essengue	Ratiopharm Ulm	F	19	6-8
17	Collin Murray-Boyles	South Carolina	W/F	19	6-8
18	Alex Karaban	Connecticut	W/F	22	6-7
19	Hugo Gonzalez	Real Madrid	W	19	6-6
20	Kam Jones	Marquette	G	22	6-5
21	Labaron Philon	Alabama	G	19	6-4
22	Donnie Freeman	Syracuse	F	19	6-9
23	Cedric Coward	Washington State	F	22	6-7
24	Rasheer Fleming	St. Joseph’s	F	20	6-9
25	Adou Thiero	Arkansas	W	20	6-8
26	Dink Pate	Mexico City Capitanes	G	19	6-7
27	K.J. Lewis	Arizona	G	20	6-4
28	Nique Clifford	Colorado State	W	22	6-5
29	Noah Penda	Le Mans	F	20	6-8
30	JoJo Tugler	Houston	F/C	20	6-8
31	Will Riley	Illinois	W	19	6-8
32	Ryan Kalkbrenner	Creighton	C	22	7-1
33	Tyrese Proctor	Duke	G	20	6-6
34	Bogoljub Markovic	Mega	F	19	6-11
35	Drake Powell	North Carolina	W	19	6-6
36	Derik Queen	Maryland	C	19	6-10
37	Alex Toohey	Sydney	W/F	20	6-7
38	Johni Broome	Auburn	C	21	6-10
39	Mackenzie Mgbako	Indiana	W/F	20	6-9
40	Jaland Lowe	Pittsburgh	G	20	6-2
41	Hunter Sallis	Wake Forest	G	22	6-5
42	Rocco Zikarsky	Brisbane	C	18	7-3
43	R.J. Luis	St. John’s	W	20	6-7
44	Derrion Reid	Alabama	W/F	18	6-8
45	Ryan Nembhard	Gonzaga	G	22	6-0
46	Juni Mobley	Ohio State	G	19	6-1
47	Michael Ruzic	Joventut	F	18	6-9
48	Yaxel Lendeborg	UAB	F	22	6-9
49	Carter Bryant	Arizona	W/F	19	6-8
50	Tomislav Ivisic	Illinois	C	21	7-1
51	Tyon Grant-Foster	Grand Canyon	W	24	6-7
52	Chase Ross	Marquette	W	21	6-5
53	Jamir Watkins	Florida State	W	22	6-7
54	Kwame Evans Jr.	Oregon	F	19	6-9
55	Darrion Williams	Texas Tech	W/F	21	6-6
56	Ryan Conwell	Xavier	G	21	6-4
57	Sergio De Larrea	Valencia	W	19	6-5
58	Braden Smith	Purdue	G	21	6-0
59	Payton Sandfort	Iowa	W	21	6-8
60	Mark Sears	Alabama	G	23	6-1
61	J.T. Toppin	Texas Tech	F/C	20	6-9
62	Ben Henshall	Perth	G	20	6-5
63	Milos Uzan	Houston	G	21	6-4
64	Jaden Bradley	Arizona	G	21	6-3
65	Adama Bal	Santa Clara	W	21	6-7
66	Motiejus Krivas	Arizona	C	20	7-2
67	Max Shulga	VCU	W	23	6-4
68	Walter Clayton Jr.	Florida	G	21	6-2
69	Elliot Cadeau	North Carolina	G	19	6-1
70	Xaivian Lee	Princeton	G	21	6-3
71	Aaron Scott	St. John’s	W	22	6-7
72	Owen Freeman	Iowa	C	20	6-10
73	Alex Condon	Florida	F/C	20	6-11
74	Izan Almansa	G League Ignite	F	19	6-10
75	Miles Byrd	San Diego State	W	21	6-7
76	Grant Nelson	Alabama	F/C	22	6-11
77	Malique Lewis	South East Melbourne	F	19	6-8
78	Sion James	Duke	G	22	6-6
79	Michael Ajayi	Gonzaga	W/F	22	6-7
80	Jack Kayil	Mega	G	19	6-3
81	Zvonimir Ivisic	Arkansas	C	21	7-2
82	Hansen Yang	Qingdao	C	19	7-1
83	Lachlan Olbrich	Illawarra	F/C	21	6-10
84	Milan Momcilovic	Iowa State	F	19	6-8
85	Simas Lukosius	Cincinnati	W	22	6-8
86	Elijah Mahi	Santa Clara	W/F	21	6-8
87	Saint Thomas	USC	W/F	22	6-7
88	Chaz Lanier	Tennessee	G	23	6-5
89	Tucker DeVries	West Virginia	W/F	21	6-7
90	Bruce Thornton	Ohio State	G	21	6-2
91	Solomon Ball	Connecticut	G	20	6-3
92	Donovan Dent	New Mexico	G	21	6-2
93	Koby Brea	Kentucky	W/F	23	6-7
94	Ben Humrichous	Illinois	W	22	6-9
95	Kobe Johnson	UCLA	W	22	6-6
96	Caleb Foster	Duke	G	20	6-5
97	Jizzle James	Cincinnati	G	20	6-3
98	Jaxson Robinson	Kentucky	W	22	6-6
99	Dillon Mitchell	Cincinnati	W	21	6-8
100	Eric Dailey Jr.	UCLA	W/F	20	6-8

 6-9 freshman wing | Duke | No. 1

Flagg has been terrific for Duke so far as the Blue Devils have played a tough schedule early, including games against a strong  team and No. 1 Kansas. At just 17 years old, Flagg is averaging nearly 16 points, eight rebounds and four assists while posting 1.4 steals and 1.3 blocks per game. It’s an absurd stat line for someone this young, and a lot of the tape matches that.

Where Flagg has been most impressive is in his shot creation from the midrange. NBA scouts know Flagg is a terrific defender with tremendous instincts on that end. They know he’s wildly competitive and willing to play in whatever manner he needs to win. They also know he’s a sneaky sharp passer and an elite transition player. The real question for them entering the draft cycle was simply what his role would be in half-court settings. To this point, he’s played much more on the ball than off it and has particularly been asked to do a lot in isolation off mismatch situations. The results have been mixed. He’s had several moments that have flashed real potential to scouts. I broke down in detail the Kentucky loss, when it seemed like Duke’s entire strategy was predicated upon getting Flagg into mismatch situations and allowing him to attack in a straight line.

That involved positive and negative moments. He had impressive finishes on the interior where he beat his man to the basket using his athleticism. He had some highly impactful pull-up moments. The same can be said for his other games so far this year.

But undeniably, Flagg also looks like a 17-year-old out there sometimes. His handle is solid, but he’s not quite creative off the bounce yet. Mostly, he’s using his physical tools and size to get to his spots. He can get a bit loose from time to time with the ball, which has resulted in a few end-of-game situations that weren’t ideal as teams collapse around him. The Blue Devils are 5-2 instead of 7-0 in large part because they’ve struggled to execute end-of-game situations. Also, scouts would love to see Flagg’s jumper continue to take strides throughout the year. Becoming a player who can play both on and off the ball on offense feels essential to his highest-end translations as a player. So far, he’s hit just 26.9 percent from 3, and the wonky mechanics on his 3-point jumper he showed in high school are still there.

But I still don’t see a prospect out there who has hit Flagg’s level yet. He’s not the best player in the country, but he’s certainly the best mix of two-way play at his age. Flagg is the easiest player to bet on being awesome in this draft class. As I wrote in the preseason and have talked about at length, I don’t see him in quite the same category as a prospect as or someone like that. But he’s a terrific player with significant all-star upside, especially given some of his growth as a shot-creator this season.

| 6-9 freshman guard | BYU | No. 2

Demin is another player who has stood out immensely. Right now, if I were taking bets on the player who could supplant Flagg at No. 1, Demin would be my pick. Why? His passing and processing ability isn’t just high level; it’s elite. It’s different. He sees the game with the kind of incredibly clear understanding that comes from the league’s elite passers. His vision is incredible and looks quite similar to someone like  out there at that size making incredible reads across the court.

The thing that makes Demin a bit more dangerous than Giddey (whom I had as more of a late lottery-level prospect in 2021) is his athleticism. He is a bit smoother as an athlete. But he also executes his passes at an elite level. He puts real velocity on the ball when necessary and also can throw them with his right or left hand off a live dribble from anywhere on the court. He has touch when the time calls for it. But most importantly, the ball always seems to be directly in his teammates’ shooting pockets. His accuracy from difficult angles doesn’t really falter. So far, Demin is averaging over six assists per game with nearly a three-to-one assist-to-turnover ratio.

Why wasn’t he seen as quite this level of prospect at Real Madrid before his commitment to BYU? His offensive package of skills has been opened up drastically by an improved jumper. He’s made substantial mechanical changes, including with his wrist positioning on the shot. He used to really bend his wrist significantly on the shot and flick it forward, leading to an inconsistent trajectory on the shot. Now, the wrist doesn’t flex quite as much, and he’s able to maintain much better control of the ball coming out of his hand because of it. His base looks better, as does his shot prep. I broke all of this down in this video, in which I discuss what makes Demin such a truly special prospect.

Because he’s made adjustments to the jumper, teams now have to account for that when he brings the ball up the court, takes a ball screen or catches in spot-ups along the perimeter. The pressure that he puts on defenses there has helped to open up driving lanes and passing angles for him in a significant way. He’s averaging over 14 points and almost five rebounds per game while shooting 57 percent from the field and 44 percent from 3. The shooting from distance will come down eventually, but I do see him as a serious playmaker and scorer who is deserving of top-five consideration. With NBA teams constantly on the lookout for potential No. 1 or No. 2 options, he feels like the most likely player to do so because of his ability to think the game at a high level, get paint touches and hopefully knock down shots efficiently. We all want to see if this will hold up in Big 12 play, and ultimately, that’ll tell the tale of where Demin gets picked. But if it does, expect the Demin Hype Train to leave the station.

| 6-10 freshman wing |  | No. 4

As I wrote in the preseason, there is no bigger swing prospect than Bailey in this class. Some NBA scouts will answer his name when you ask who’s most likely to challenge Flagg at No. 1. Others are not particularly high on him. Some see him as a serious potential shot-creator in the  mold with real All-Star upside. Others see him more as a  type player who is an elite shot-maker and could be incredibly valuable in the right situation. And yet, others worry Bailey could end up being a bit worse than that if he doesn’t cut out some of the tough midrange stuff, learn how to create easier shots for himself or play off the ball.

I get an incredibly wide range of opinion on Bailey from sources inside the NBA, and it’s easy to see why based on his first few collegiate games. So far, he’s averaging 18.8 points and 5.8 rebounds per game while hitting 38 percent from 3. Also, he’s dished out only four assists in six games and has gotten lost a bit more often on defense than you’d like to see. He also shows real hustle plays, too, on that end. His performance against  particularly, showcased a significant number of impressive on-ball defensive moments as well as sharp switchability. But everything on offense is on his terms when he’s involved. He rarely swings the ball quickly, often catching and holding to see if there is a play available. Rutgers rarely seems to maintain advantages when he catches; instead, he has to self-create everything. He’s excellent at self-creating pull-up jumpers from the midrange but has really struggled to get all the way to the rim.

There’s a wild range of outcomes on a possession-by-possession basis, in large part because Bailey takes an immense number of tough shots. When the shots are falling, he looks like the No. 1 pick in the draft. When they’re not, he looks like a run-of-the-mill upside swing in the first round. I have him at No. 4 right now, but I’d be lying if I said I knew where he ends up in June.

If you went purely off a three-minute highlight reel in terms of making your pick for No. 1, I would bet on Bailey winning that race by a mile. His elite tape passes the eye test better than anyone else’s. But the full games provide just a bit less substance. The key for Bailey will revolve around continuing to show growth as an overall decision-maker. Porter was similarly an elite-level shot-creator and shot-maker from the midrange but rarely seemed to get as many easy shots at the rim as you’d hoped for because his loose handle couldn’t quite create drives to the rim. Bailey plays very upright, and the ball tends to get dislodged on his forays toward the basket, which is why it feels like he tends to settle in the midrange. But if he can make quick reads, get the ball out of his hands quicker when he doesn’t have an advantage or simply drive in a straight line and play with better bend when he does, there is immense upside in his game.

 | 6-3 freshman guard |

Richardson is a quick riser up the board this year, an efficient playmaker who has showcased the ability to play with the ball in his hands at lower levels as well as play well off the ball this season at Michigan State. The son of former Michigan State star and NBA Slam Dunk Contest champion Jason Richardson, Jase isn’t quite the athlete his father was. Rather, he is effective through sharp decision-making and quick processing of what’s happening around him on the court. He’s not a bad athlete, but he’s strong and seems to have real length. And more than anything, he’s taken and run with every single opportunity he’s gotten to this point. Every time he hits the court, good things happen either with offensive flow or defensive playmaking.

Richardson’s numbers on their face look a bit pedestrian, as he’s averaging 10.4 points, 2.9 rebounds and two assists per game. But despite a difficult schedule that has included games at the Maui Invitational as well as against Kansas in the Champions Classic, Richardson continues to make an impact with his presence off the bench. There’s a very real case he’s been Michigan State’s best player. Richardson is one of those guards who just knows how to get to his spots. He’s a lefty who plays off two feet and consistently gets himself into dangerous areas of the court. Sometimes, it’s via attacking closeouts. Sometimes, it’s via the ball screen. Sometimes he cuts and finds an open shot that way. He’s making over 70 percent of his 2-point shots despite not being overly vertical, largely because he is also tremendous at discerning when creases are actually available. That also stands for his passing too; he boasts a seven-to-one assist-to-turnover ratio.

As much as Richardson knows when to shoot, he knows when not to shoot. As much as he knows when to pass, he knows when not to pass. He’s constantly on-balance and doesn’t put himself in dangerous spots where he can make a mistake. He also does a good job defending at the point of attack and has generally done a great job of getting into passing lanes and rotating across the court. Richardson’s ultimate draft stock will be swung by how his shooting holds up over the course of the season. Scouts would love to see him in that 38 to 40 percent range given his size. But I’ve seen few freshmen this year come in and genuinely impact winning basketball in the way that he does. There are some translation questions given that Richardson is probably going to come in at around 6-2 without shoes and isn’t a monster athlete. He also hasn’t played on the ball a ton yet in his career, having played at Columbus (Fla.) High School last year with the Boozer twins. But in a -style way, Richardson just impacts winning basketball.

Other notes

• Right now, I have a group of three players in my top tier in Flagg, Demin and . I have Bailey in a tier by himself titled “????” and then the group from No. 5 down to No. 9 pretty tightly bundled together.

• I feel good that the top 13 names will likely be selected in the first round. Beyond that, it definitely feels like a free-for-all right now, with scouts questioning a bit how deep this draft will actually be. That’s not to say the players below that level aren’t talented. They are. But there is just more inconsistency to their performance. Or in some cases, they have significant deficiencies that can’t be changed. For instance, has been incredible so far for Arkansas, but he’ll probably come in measuring right around 6-feet without shoes. We’ll see where it all settles at the end. After those top 13 names, there is real room for any number of players to rise into that first-round mix.

• In that vein, I was talking recently to my good friend and The Athletic colleague John Hollinger, and he brought me this question: Who is the non-freshman college player who will be taken in the top 20? I didn’t have a great answer, so I asked my friends around the league. To say there was zero consensus to this question would be an understatement. The returning class of collegiate players just doesn’t have an immense number of names that scouts are particularly enthused about.

• The name I currently have highest as a college returnee is  a big-bodied forward for South Carolina who defends well. But his overall offensive game doesn’t exactly scream that it fits in the NBA. Connecticut wing  is a guy whom I feel quite confident is a rotation player in the NBA, but he can’t really create off the bounce at all. has started well at Arkansas, but scouts have real questions about where his shooting will fall into place. Marquette’s Kam Jones has been outstanding so far, and he’s about as efficient a scoring guard as you’ll find. His passing also has continued to make strides since he took over as Marquette’s primary playmaker after Tyler Kolek went out late last year with an injury. Any of those four seem like the best bet right now.

• Two off-the-radar players who could end up getting into this conversation are Saint Joseph’s forward declared for the draft last year and impressed NBA teams in workouts but returned to school and transferred to Washington State to play for his former coach at Eastern Washington, David Riley. Coward is one of those guys who just does a little bit of everything at 6-6 with a 7-foot wingspan. He shoots it well, passes well and defends at a solid level. Fleming is the wilder card of the two. Scouts aren’t even convinced yet what his primary NBA position will be. He’s about 6-8 with a massive wingspan well over 7-feet long, plus has significant athleticism. He slides his feet well, has serious explosiveness off the bounce and has coordination. From an athletic perspective, he looks not dissimilar from someone like OG Anunoby. However, he doesn’t really handle the ball well right now and hasn’t shown much in terms of automatic feel for the game yet. There are flashes but not consistency. He might end up as more of a power forward/center style player positionally as opposed to a power forward/small forward. The latter would be much more valuable.

• A few other players I’ve loved watching this season: Marquette wing Chase Ross has been a demon on defense, as disruptive as I’ve seen any player this season.  JoJo Tugler is similar on that end of the court as a big. This is probably an aggressive ranking for him inside the top 40 right now given where his offensive game is, but his physical tools give him an immense amount of margin for error.  Derik Queen is also shaping up to be quite polarizing, as he has immense offensive talent but seems to be in the 6-9 range at the center position and doesn’t have a ton of athleticism to compensate for it. Still, his passing and shot making have been terrific so far.

the essential NBA newsletter from Zach Harper and The Athletic staff, delivered free to your inbox.

Sam Vecenie covers the NBA Draft, college basketball and the NBA for The Athletic. His podcast, the Game Theory Podcast, is regularly ranked among the top podcasts on iTunes. Previously, he worked for CBS Sports, SB Nation, Sporting News, and Vice. Follow Sam on Twitter @Sam_Vecenie