2026–27 Big 12: MMH Top 10 Players
2026-11-03
Robert Wright III leads MMH's preseason Big 12 player rankings. The order weighs projected impact, responsibility, fit and likely availability rather than simply sorting last season's scoring averages. Team title picks and individual rankings answer different questions.
Current-roster correction: Iowa State announced Tamin Lipsey's return on September 28. He is included here despite Blue Ribbon's earlier departure listing. JT Toppin's ACL recovery creates enough availability uncertainty that this list does not assume a full season from him.
| Rank | Player | Team |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Robert Wright III | BYU |
| 2 | Motiejus Krivas | Arizona |
| 3 | Tyran Stokes | Kansas |
| 4 | JoJo Tugler | Houston |
| 5 | Paulius Murauskas | Arizona State |
| 6 | Ivan Kharchenkov | Arizona |
| 7 | Dedan Thomas Jr. | Houston |
| 8 | Tamin Lipsey | Iowa State |
| 9 | Cruz Davis | Texas Tech |
| 10 | Xavier Edmonds | TCU |
1. Robert Wright III, BYU
2025–26 background: 18.1 PPG; 3.5 RPG; 4.6 APG.
Wright gives BYU an established lead guard whose scoring and passing can set the terms of its offense. His return reduces the number of responsibilities that must be solved by newcomers. The next challenge is maintaining that efficiency when opponents focus their pressure on him. His ability to create a quality shot for himself or a teammate makes him MMH's first choice in a conference with several rebuilt backcourts.
2. Motiejus Krivas, Arizona
2025–26 background: 10.4 PPG; 8.2 RPG; 1.1 APG.
Krivas supplies Arizona with an interior reference point at both ends. His size can turn a well-timed entry pass into a quality attempt, and his presence affects opponents' choices around the basket. The returning foundation gives Arizona room to develop its new guards. His greatest value comes when his work on the glass and defensive positioning remain as consistent as his scoring opportunities.
3. Tyran Stokes, Kansas
2025–26 background: Incoming freshman; no 2025–26 college statistics..
Stokes brings a substantial freshman ceiling to Kansas through his size, skill and ability to create an advantage. The challenge is converting that talent into dependable decisions against experienced defenses. Kansas will need him to handle attention without treating every possession as a test of individual scoring. His ranking reflects the immediate responsibility and impact projected for him, with the usual uncertainty attached to a first college season.
4. JoJo Tugler, Houston
2025–26 background: 8.4 PPG; 5.3 RPG; 1.3 APG.
Tugler changes Houston's defensive possibilities. His length, activity and ability to contest plays can make a clean scoring opportunity disappear. The important distinction is how often that disruption ends with Houston controlling the ball. His offensive value also increases when he finishes the chances created by the guards and keeps possessions moving without requiring a large share of the shots.
5. Paulius Murauskas, Arizona State
2025–26 background: 18.4 PPG; 7.6 RPG; 2.0 APG.
Murauskas gives Arizona State a forward who can create production through more than one kind of possession. His scoring and rebounding can stabilize a group that is establishing a new hierarchy. The question is how efficiently those strengths translate against the Big 12's interior size and defensive pressure. Arizona State's outlook improves if he remains productive without requiring the offense to stop moving around him.
6. Ivan Kharchenkov, Arizona
2025–26 background: 10.4 PPG; 4.3 RPG; 2.3 APG.
Kharchenkov's size and returning experience make him a central part of Arizona's title case. He can take difficult perimeter assignments while giving the offense a wing who understands its spacing and movement. His next step is using that familiarity to become a steadier scoring option. Arizona does not need every important possession to begin with him, but it benefits when defenses cannot ignore him.
7. Dedan Thomas Jr., Houston
2025–26 background: 15.3 PPG; 2.7 RPG; 6.5 APG.
Thomas gives Houston another guard with the experience to organize difficult possessions. That matters in a league where the first option is often taken away and careless passes become immediate transition opportunities. His fit depends on balancing creation with the movement and defensive accountability Houston requires. Sharing those duties can make the Cougars less vulnerable to pressure directed at a single handler.
8. Tamin Lipsey, Iowa State
2025–26 background: 13.5 PPG; 3.9 RPG; 5.1 APG.
Lipsey's September return restores an experienced organizer and disruptive defender to Iowa State. That is a material change from summer previews that treated his departure as final. He can help newcomers understand the demands of T.J. Otzelberger's system while sharing handling responsibilities with Jaquan Johnson. The ranking includes him as a current roster member rather than preserving an outdated preseason assumption.
9. Cruz Davis, Texas Tech
2025–26 background: 20.1 PPG; 3.7 RPG; 4.7 APG.
Davis gives Texas Tech a guard who can put pressure on a defense and create opportunities beyond the first action. His value is greatest when scoring and distribution reinforce each other. The Red Raiders need that balance to avoid an offense built around difficult individual possessions. A productive season requires him to help the new pieces find useful shots while limiting the mistakes that fuel opponents' transition games.
10. Xavier Edmonds, TCU
2025–26 background: 12.7 PPG; 6.5 RPG.
Edmonds gives TCU an interior player who can help establish a more dependable offensive foundation. His work around the basket becomes particularly important when perimeter possessions grow difficult. The Horned Frogs need his rebounding and finishing to survive against the league's stronger frontcourts. Consistency across those responsibilities is the route from a promising individual role to a larger effect on the standings.
Method and sources
These are MMH editorial evaluations, not the official conference awards ballot. Stat lines describe 2025–26 production at the previous-season school, not projected 2026–27 averages; transfer figures are not attributed to the new team. Player background comes from the supplied Blue Ribbon College Basketball Yearbook 2026–27 and the current-roster updates linked above. Freshman projections carry more uncertainty than established college roles. Injury-sensitive rankings describe expected healthy impact without promising a return date. See the full conference preview for team-by-team source pages and the standings comparison.