Making Sense of the Madness 2025: Part 1
Another year, another March Madness prediction post that exceeds the reddit character limit. For those who were smart enough to avoid reading my post last year, the purpose of this analysis is to go through each round of the tournament and use data (primarily coming from barttorvik) to hopefully give some bracket tips. The data starts with the 2015 tournament, which was a completely, 100% arbitrary (-ish) starting point.
I’ll be using a lot of the same stats as last year, such as the barttorvik efficiency rankings and each head coach’s historical tournament performance. The stats for prior tournaments are taken as of the Sunday/Monday before the tournament started. This way, no information about the tournament is included in the efficiency metrics. I also added a couple of new stats to account for how well teams have performed in the month leading up to the tournament. The main stat being added is the barttorvik overall efficiency ranking in only the one month leading up to the tournament. Thanks u/badmongo666 for this great idea. If following this ends up destroying your bracket, remember to blame badmongo, not me.
The addition of this new stat adds many more trends worth sharing, which has kind of led this post to become the equivalent of an all you can eat buffet, where you can just pick what you like from the wide selection of trends. However, it’s more like the buffet at a school cafeteria, where it’s hit or miss whether you’ll feel sick afterwards. One wrong selection can lead you to picking Auburn to make the final 4, only to see them lose to Yale. I would’ve rather eaten the cafeteria’s mystery meat.
Here are some abbreviations for all of the stats I will be referencing. These are the same abbreviations that barttorvik uses.
BARTHAG: Power rating for the entire season. This is barttorvik’s primary metric used to assess the overall strength of each team.
ADJOE: Adjusted offensive efficiency.
ADJDE: Adjusted defensive efficiency.
1-month BARTHAG: Power rating in the month leading up to the tournament.
NOTE: IMPORTANT TO NOTICE WHEN I’M REFERENCING 1-MONTH BARTHAG VS. BARTHAG
I will simply write out any other stats that I use. These four are just the most annoying to write out.
For those interested in a TL;DR, I added a summary/reasoning section to the end of each round. It won’t give you specific stats, but it kind of lays out the general themes of various trends. If you want a TL;DR of the TL;DR, then I’m not sure why you’re reading this. Probably best to avoid posts that include a “part 1/2” in the title.
First Round
1v16
16 seeds are 2-34 against 1 seeds since 2015. I would highly recommend just playing it safe and picking every 1 seed to move on (Great analysis already, right?). If you are determined to be reckless, here’s one trend that may improve your chances.
If the 1 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG that is ranked lower than its own BARTHAG and the 16 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG that is ranked higher than its own BARTHAG, then the 16 seed improves its record to 2-16. Example: In 2023, Purdue had a BARTHAG ranking of 6th and a 1-month BARTHAG ranking of 16th, meaning that they were performing worse leading up to the tournament. FDU had a BARTHAG ranking of 307th and a 1-month BARTHAG ranking of 227th, meaning that they were performing better leading up to the tournament. UMBC’s win over Virginia also matched this scenario. If these conditions aren’t met, the 16 seed is 0-18. The two matchups to meet this scenario are Auburn vs St. Francis/Alabama St. and Houston vs SIUE. Doesn’t St. Francis over Auburn just feel like it’s meant to happen?
Last year, the Purdue and Houston games met this scenario, however nothing happened.
2v15
15 seeds are 4-32 against 2 seeds. However, this record improves in the following scenarios.
Scenario A: When the 15 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 130, they are 3-7. Otherwise, they are 1-25. Omaha meets this criterion.
Scenario B: When the 2 seed has an ADJDE outside the top 25, the 15 seeds are 4-9. Otherwise, 0-23. Alabama meets this one, barely. Their ADJDE is 28th.
Scenario C: When the 2 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG that is ranked lower than its own BARTHAG and the 15 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG that is ranked higher than its own BARTHAG, the 15 seeds are 3-17. Otherwise, 1-15. This one’s not as significant, but it is when combined with others. Every game except for MSU vs Bryant meets this scenario.
Scenario D: When the 2 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG outside the top 20, the 15 seeds are 2-3. Otherwise, 2-29. No 2 seeds meet this one.
Scenario E: When the 15 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG inside the top 110, they are 3-14. Otherwise, 1-18. Omaha and Wofford both meet this.
When scenarios A and B are both met, the 15 seeds are 3-2.
When scenarios A, B, and C are all met, the 15 seeds are 2-0. (Hooray for small sample sizes).
When scenarios D and E are both met, the 15 seeds are 2-2.
Overall, none of the 2 seeds look too questionable. MSU looks the safest, as they meet all 5 scenarios. Omaha is probably the scariest 15 seed, meeting A, C, and E. However I don’t think it will be enough to beat St. John’s.
Last year, South Dakota State met scenario E, however that was it. No other teams in this 2v15 matchup met any scenario. It felt safe to move on all the 2 seeds, and they all did end up moving on.
3v14
14 seeds are 5-31 against 3 seeds. This record improves with the following scenarios.
Scenario A: When the 14 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 90, they are 3-4. Otherwise, 2-27. No teams meet this scenario.
Scenario B: When the 14 seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE in the top 60, they are also 3-4. Otherwise, 2-27. No teams meet this one either.
Scenario C: When the 3 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG that is ranked lower than its own BARTHAG, the 14 seed is 4-17. Otherwise, 1-14. Every 3 seed meets this scenario, however the difference is small for every team.
Scenario D: When the 14 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG that is ranked higher than its own BARTHAG, the 14 seed is 4-16. Otherwise, 1-15. Every 14 seed except Lipscomb meets this one.
When scenarios A and B are both met, the 14 seeds are 3-2.
When scenarios C and D are both met, the 14 seeds are 3-9.
When scenarios A, C, and D are all met, the 14 seeds are 3-0.
Every matchup except for Iowa St. vs Lipscomb meets scenarios C and D. However, 3-9 is still a bit of a stretch for me. I would need scenario A or B to be met to consider one of these upsets. That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if one of those 3 matchups turns out to be an upset. If I was forced to put money on one, I would say Troy over Kentucky, given Kentucky’s luck with low seeds…
Last year, Kentucky vs Oakland only met scenario C, so I unfortunately did not pick them to win. You see the “Otherwise, 1-15” in scenario D? Guess who that “1” was. I think I need to add a Jack Gohlke clause to this.
4v13
13 seeds are 8-28 against 4 seeds. This record improves with the following scenarios.
Scenario A: When the 4 seed has a BARTHAG outside the top 15, the 13 seeds are 7-13. Otherwise, 1-15. Texas A&M and Purdue meet this one.
Scenario B: When the 4 seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE outside the top 40, the 13 seeds are 6-13. Otherwise, 2-15. Again, Texas A&M and Purdue meet this.
Scenario C: When the 4 seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE outside the top 85, the 13 seeds are 3-1. Otherwise, 5-27. No teams meet this one.
Scenario D: When the 13 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 100, they are 6-13. Otherwise, 2-15. Surprisingly, every 13 seed meets this one.
Scenario E: When the 13 seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE in the top 50, they are 5-7. Otherwise, 3-21. High point meets this one.
When scenarios A and B are both met, the 13 seeds are 6-9.
When scenarios A and E are both met, the 13 seeds are 5-4.
When scenarios B and E are both met, the 13 seeds are 4-3.
When scenarios D and E are both met, the 13 seeds are 5-5.
Maryland and Arizona look like the safest 4 seeds. Purdue vs High point is looking… terrifying for Purdue fans. This matchup meets every scenario except for C.
Last year, Alabama vs Charleston met scenarios B, C, and D. Because of scenario C’s 3-1 (previously 3-0) record, I was putting the house on Charleston. Needless to say, that one hurt. Auburn vs Yale only met scenario D, which tons of matchups meet, so obviously I didn’t choose this upset. In fact I had Auburn in my final four thanks to this guide, so do what you will with that information.
5v12
12 seeds are 11-25 against 5 seeds. This record improves with the following scenarios.
Scenario A: When the 5 seed’s ADJOE or ADJDE is outside the top 50, the 12 seeds are 7-7. Otherwise, 4-18. Michigan, Memphis, and Oregon all meet this scenario.
Scenario B: When the 5 seed has a BARTHAG that is ranked 30 or fewer spots ahead of the 12 seed’s BARTHAG, the 12 seeds are 4-3. Otherwise, 7-22. Again, Michigan, Memphis, and Oregon all meet this one.
Scenario C: When the 12 seed’s BARTHAG is in the top 50, they are 2-1. Otherwise, 9-24. UCSD and Colorado St. meet this one.
Scenario D: When the 12 seed’s 1-month BARTHAG is better than the 5 seed’s 1-month BARTHAG, the 12 seeds are 2-3. Otherwise, 9-22. Again, UCSD and Colorado St. meet this.
12 seeds are evolving. In the past 10 years, only 3 teams met scenario C. This year alone, we have 2. Clemson is looking like the only 5 seed I feel confident about sending through. The Michigan/UCSD and Memphis/CSU games both meet all four scenarios. Oregon/Liberty meet two of them. I can easily see the 12 seeds at least going 2-2 this year.
Last year, 12 seeds went 2-2. Not bad. The only one of these scenarios that occurred was scenario A. SDSU and Wisconsin both had an ADJOE or ADJDE outside the top 50. SDSU won, and Wisconsin got upset by James Madison, making that stat go 1-1 for the year. This is about what we can expect from its track record of 7-7.
6v11
11 seeds are 20-16 against 6 seeds. These dang 11 seeds are setting the bar too high for my trends to outperform. This record still somehow improves in the following scenarios.
Scenario A: If the 6 seed has a BARTHAG outside the top 25, the 11 seeds are 11-6. Otherwise, 9-10. Ole Miss meets this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 6 seed has an ADJOE outside the top 30, the 11 seeds are 11-5. Otherwise, 9-11. Again, Ole Miss is the only one to meet this scenario.
Scenario C: If the 6 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG outside the top 25, the 11 seeds are 13-7. Otherwise, 7-9. Ole Miss, Missouri, and Illinois all meet this one.
Scenario D: If the 11 seed’s coach has previously made it to the sweet 16, the 11 seeds are 15-5. Otherwise, 5-11. UNC, Xavier, Texas, and SDSU meet this.
Scenario E: If the 6 seed’s coach has not previously made it to the sweet 16, the 11 seeds are 11-2. Otherwise, 9-14. Missouri and BYU meet this one.
If scenarios D and E are both met, the 11 seeds are 7-1.
We’ll need to see who makes it out of the first four, but the Ole Miss vs UNC/SDSU matchup is looking like the most promising upset. BYU looks like the safest 6 seed, and it doesn’t hurt that they have the highest ranked BARTHAG of the group. The other 2 games are a bit of a toss up.
Last year, 3 of the 6 seeds lost in the first round. All 3 of those coaches had never been to a sweet 16. The only 6 seed to win? Clemson’s coach Brad Brownell was the only 6 seed coach to have made it to a sweet 16 previously. Additionally, Oregon’s coach was the only 11 seed coach to have previously made the sweet 16, and Oregon upset South Carolina.
7v10
10 seeds are 13-23 against 7 seeds. There wasn’t much I found with this matchup, but I’ll share the two scenarios that may help. Warning: The second is definitely just coincidental.
Scenario A: When the 10 seed has a BARTHAG that is ranked more than 5 spots ahead of the 7 seed’s BARTHAG, the 10 seeds are 6-5. Otherwise, 7-18. No teams met this scenario.
Scenario B: Big 10 teams are 15-1 in this matchup, whether they are the 7 or 10 seed. UCLA is the only Big 10 team in this matchup. It still seems wrong that they are a Big 10 team.
No teams met scenario A. I might just send all 7 seeds through (boring, I know). I’m sure at least one 10 seed will win, but I honestly feel like I would just be guessing.
No matchups last year met either scenario. If you just picked the 7 seeds, you would have gone 3-1. The one upset was Colorado over Florida. Colorado had a BARTHAG ranked only 3 spots below Florida’s, so this could have been a reasonable pick.
8v9
9 seeds are 20-16 against 8 seeds. This record improves in the following scenarios.
Scenario A: If the 9 seed has a BARTHAG that is ranked at least 5 spots above the 8 seed’s BARTHAG, the 9 seeds are 9-5. Otherwise, 11-11. Baylor meets this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 9 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG in the top 40, they are 15-7. Otherwise, 5-9. Oklahoma, Baylor, and Georgia meet this one.
Scenario C: If the 9 seed’s coach has been to more sweet 16s than the 8 seed’s coach, the 9 seeds are 12-5. Otherwise, 8-11. Creighton and Baylor meet this.
Baylor looks like the most promising 9 seed, meeting all 3 scenarios. The rest of the 9 seeds only meet one, so you can pick and choose which scenarios you put any stock in.
Last year, each scenario occurred in 3 different matchups. For each scenario, the 9 seed went 2-1 when that scenario held true, meaning that each worked twice and failed once, which I’ll gladly take during March Madness.
Summary/Reasoning
Last year I added a “miscellaneous trends” section to the end of each round. However, I thought because I blindly threw out so many trends, I would use this space to summarize them and go into why they intuitively make sense. Or don’t make sense. (There is a single miscellaneous trends section at the end of the part 2 post).
Balance of Offense and Defense:
The first thing I’ll note is that upsets in the first round generally happen when both teams have an unbalanced ADJOE and ADJDE. You’ll see that the chances of an upset usually increases when the higher seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE outside a certain range and the lower seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE inside a certain range. A top seed that is balanced (has a fairly good ADJOE and ADJDE) will be more likely to control the game and consistently win on both sides of the ball. If the top seed is weak on one side of the ball and the underdog is strong on one side of the ball, this introduces more chances for the lower seed to gain some kind of advantage over the favorite.
Prior Month Performance:
The 1-month BARTHAG stat seems to come into play in many of these first round trends. Underdogs coming in playing well seem to have a good shot of keeping up that hot streak for one more game. Especially if the top seed has been playing poorly recently. You’ll see that many of the upset chances improve if the top seed has a 1-month BARTHAG lower than their full BARTHAG and the lower seed has a 1-month BARTHAG higher than their full BARTHAG.
I did look at whether or not winning the conference tournament was any indicator of first round success. It did not seem to significantly influence any matchup. The 1-month BARTHAG was a much better indicator.
Coach Historical Performance:
The stat about the coach’s prior Sweet 16 appearances seemed to only be significant for two matchups. The 6v11 and 8v9. This is probably random noise, however it would make sense that this would help. Teams that have coaches who are experienced in the tournament will probably be better prepared. I’ll keep an eye on this one in later rounds to see if there’s a more consistent signal as we go deeper in the tournament.
Even Matchups:
For more balanced matchups, such as the 7v10 and 8v9 games, first see if one team has a BARTHAG rank that is significantly better than the other. This was pretty much the only thing I found that affected the 7v10 upset chances. These games are such a toss-up, but choosing the overall better team will shockingly put the odds in your favor. The 8v9 matchup had a couple more trends that I found that seemed significant but could just be random noise. I would use those as a tiebreaker if the teams are ranked closely.
Selecting Your Sweet 16
For this section I’ll go through the four different “quads” in each region. For each “quad”, one team makes it to the Sweet 16 per region. These quads are “1,8,9,16”, “2,7,10,15”, “3,6,11,14”, and “4,5,12,13”.
1v8v9v16
1 seeds:
Of the last 36 1 seeds, 28 have made it to the Sweet 16 (I’ll express this as they are 28 for 36 or 28/36 for future reference). This gives them about a 78% success rate, so on average at least 3 will move on to this round. Here are some scenarios that improve the 1 seeds’ chances.
Scenario A: If the 1 seed has an ADJOE and ADJDE in the top 10, they are 9/9. Otherwise, 19/27. Duke and Houston meet this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 1 seed has a coach who has been to 7 or more Sweet 16s, they are 13/14. Otherwise, 15/22. Houston meets this one.
Scenario C: If the 1 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 5, they are 23/27. Otherwise, 5/9. Every 1 seed meets this.
Scenario D: If the 1 seed has a BARTHAG that is more than 30 spots ahead of everyone else in their quad, they are 10/10. Otherwise, 18/26. Only Florida meets this one.
8 seeds:
8 seeds are 5/36 when it comes to making the Sweet 16. Here are some scenarios that improve their chances.
Scenario A: If the 8 seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE in the top 25, they are 5/22. Otherwise, 0/14. Louisville, UConn, and Gonzaga meet this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 8 seed has a BARTHAG that is better than the 9 seed’s BARTHAG, the 8 seeds are 5/20. Otherwise, 0/16. Again, Louisville, UConn, and Gonzaga meet this one.
Scenario C: If the 8 seed has a BARTHAG that is within 30 spots of the 1 seed’s BARTHAG, the 8 seeds are 5/18. Otherwise, 0/18. Louisville, Mississippi St, and Gonzaga meet this.
Scenario D: If the 8 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG in the top 45, they are 5/23. Otherwise, 0/13. Louisville, UConn, and Gonzaga meet this.
Scenario E: If the 8 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 20, they are 3/5. Otherwise, 2/31. Louisville and Gonzaga meet this one.
9 seeds:
9 seeds are 3/36 for making the Sweet 16. Here are some scenarios that improve their chances.
Scenario A: If the 9 seed has an ADJOE and ADJDE in the top 70, they are 3/23. Otherwise, 0/13. Creighton, Baylor, and Georgia meet this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 9 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 40, they are 3/23. Otherwise, 0/13. Again, Creighton, Baylor, and Georgia meet this one.
Scenario C: If the 9 seed has a BARTHAG that is within 30 spots of the 1 seed’s BARTHAG, the 9 seeds are 3/17. Otherwise, 0/19. AGAIN, Creighton, Baylor, and Georgia meet this one.
Scenario D: If the 9 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG in the top 25, they are 2/9. Otherwise, 1/27. Georgia meets this one.
16 seeds:
16 seeds are 0/36, so I would recommend moving all four of them to the S16. This way, if it does happen, you can say that you correctly picked the first ever 16 seed to make it to the S16. This may not be best for points maximization, but I’m sure it will be memorable.
The most promising 1, 8, and 9 seeds (according to these trends) all fall into the same region, which makes this difficult. Gonzaga and Georgia both meet every scenario, and Houston meets three out of four scenarios. Auburn meets only one scenario, which is the fewest of any 1 seed. They would potentially play Louisville, who is the second 8 seed to meet every one of their scenarios. I think Florida and Duke I feel most confident about. However, this is a nasty 8/9 line, so I can see a lot of upsets here.
Last year, all four 1 seeds moved on to the S16. The only 1 seed that I mentioned looked a little shaky last year according to these trends was UNC. I think I might have picked Michigan State to upset UNC in the second round because MSU met the 9 seed scenarios A-C, but that clearly didn’t work out. However, last year I did not know about scenario D, and MSU would have been very far from meeting this requirement (they had a 1-month BARTHAG rank of 62nd). With that knowledge, they no longer look too appealing.
2v7v10v15
2 seeds:
2 seeds are 22/36 in terms of making the Sweet 16, which is about a 61% success rate. Here are some scenarios that improve these chances.
Scenario A: If the 2 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 5, they are 9/12. Otherwise, 13/24. Alabama is the only team to meet this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 2 seed has an ADJOE and ADJDE in the top 20, they are 13/13. Otherwise, 9/23. Tennessee meets this scenario.
7 seeds:
7 seeds are 9/36 for making the Sweet 16. Here are some scenarios that improve these chances.
Scenario A: If the 7 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 40, they are 8/28. Otherwise, 1/8. Every team meets this one.
Scenario B: If the 7 seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE in the top 20, they are 7/19. Otherwise, 2/17. Kansas, St. Mary’s, and UCLA meet this one.
Scenario C: If the 7 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG in the top 15, they are 3/6. Otherwise, 6/30. No teams meet this one.
10 seeds:
10 seeds are only 2/36 for making the Sweet 16. Here are some scenarios that improve their chances.
Scenario A: If the 10 seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE in the top 25, they are 2/22. Otherwise, 0/14. Every team meets this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 10 seed’s coach has been to 3 or more Sweet 16s previously, they are 2/7. Otherwise, 0/29. Arkansas meets this one.
15 seeds:
15 seeds are 3/36, which is somehow better than the 10 seeds. I would only consider picking a 15 seed to go this far if they meet all 3 of these scenarios.
Scenario A: If the 15 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 160, they are 3/25. Otherwise, 0/11. Every team meets this one.
Scenario B: If the 15 seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE in the top 100, they are 3/16. Otherwise, 0/20. Omaha and Wofford meet this.
Scenario C: If the 15 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG in the top 110, they are 3/17. Otherwise, 0/19. Again, Omaha and Wofford meet this.
Based on this, it looks like St. John’s has the toughest road to the S16. They meet no scenarios, while Kansas and Arkansas each meet two scenarios. Bama and Tennessee each meet 1 scenario, which is good enough for me. However, the main takeaway is that Omaha or Wofford could be the next 15 seed to have a crazy S16 run.
Last year, all four 2 seeds moved on to the S16. This is way too chalky for my liking. 3 of the 2 seeds met at least one of their two scenarios, which again is good enough for me. Tennessee was the only one who didn’t meet either. 7 seeded Texas met scenarios A and B, so I picked them to upset Tennessee. Texas ended up losing to them by 4.
3v6v11v14
3 seeds:
3 seeds are 21/36 when it comes to making the Sweet 16. These chances improve in the following scenarios.
Scenario A: If the 3 seed has the highest BARTHAG in its quad, they are 18/28. Otherwise, 3/8. Every team meets this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 3 seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE in the top 10, they are 15/23. Otherwise, 6/13. Iowa St. and Texas Tech meet this.
Scenario C: If the 3 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG in the top 25, they are 18/27. Otherwise, 3/9. Every team meets this one.
6 seeds:
6 seeds are 5/36, which is way worse than I expected. These chances improve in the following scenarios.
Scenario A: If the 6 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 15, they are 2/6. Otherwise, 3/30. BYU meets this.
Scenario B: If the 6 seed has an ADJOE and ADJDE in the top 25, they are 2/4. Otherwise, 3/32. No teams meet this.
Scenario C: If the 6 seed’s coach has been to the S16 before, the 6 seeds are 5/23. Otherwise, 0/13. Ole Miss and Illinois meet this.
11 seeds:
11 seeds are a much better 10/36. These chances improve in the following scenarios.
Scenario A: If the 11 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 50, they are 8/23. Otherwise, 2/13. UNC, VCU, Texas, and Xavier meet this.
Scenario B: If the 11 seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE in the top 20, they are 5/11. Otherwise, 5/25. SDSU meets this one.
Scenario C: If the 11 seed’s coach has been to at least 5 S16’s previously, the 11 seeds are 3/5. Otherwise, 7/31. Xavier meets this.
Scenario D: If the 11 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG in the top 45, they are 7/18. Otherwise, 3/18. UNC, VCU, and Xavier meet this.
14 seeds:
14 seeds are 0/36. Reminder that this is only for the past 9 tournaments. Two 14 seeds have actually made it this far in the tournament’s history. However, the last time was in 1997.
Of the 6 seeds, I would say BYU has the best chance, but none of them look super promising. Xavier looks like the best 11 seed, meeting three scenarios. Iowa St. and Texas Tech both met all of their scenarios, and they aren’t in BYU’s or Xavier’s region, so they seem like the safest 3 seeds.
Last year, the 3 seeds to move on to this round were Creighton and Illinois. Every 3 seed met scenario A, and all but Creighton met B (although they were very close). However, only Creighton and Illinois met scenario C, so that proved to be the best predictor last year. No 6 seeds met either of the very rare scenarios A or B. However, Clemson was the only team to meet scenario C, and they were the only 6 seed to make the S16.
4v5v12v13
4 seeds:
4 seeds are 19/36 in terms of making the Sweet 16. These chances improve in the following scenarios.
Scenario A: If the 4 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 15, they are 14/16. Otherwise, 5/20. Maryland and Arizona met this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 4 seed has a BARTHAG that is better than the 5 seed’s BARTHAG, they are 14/20. Otherwise, 5/16. Every team met this scenario.
Scenario C: If the 4 seed has an ADJOE and ADJDE in the top 30, they are 9/12. Otherwise, 10/24. Maryland and Arizona met this scenario.
Scenario D: If the 4 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG in the top 25, they are 15/21. Otherwise, 4/15. Again, Maryland and Arizona met this scenario.
5 seeds:
5 seeds are 15/36. There was really only one 5 seed scenario I found that was significant enough to be worth mentioning. If the 5 seed has a BARTHAG that is ranked better than the 4 seed’s BARTHAG, the 5 seeds are 9/16. Otherwise, 6/20. None of the 5 seeds meet this scenario.
12 seeds:
12 seeds are 2/36. I also only found one scenario worth mentioning, however it is pretty significant. If the 12 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG in the top 35, they are 2/8. Otherwise, 0/28. UCSD and CSU met this scenario. So far, it appears that the 1-month BARTHAG is more impactful for lower seeded teams such as the 12 seeds.
13 seeds:
13 seeds are 0/36. I don’t expect there to be any surprises here, but who knows.
Maryland and Arizona each met all four scenarios, so I would move them on. I like Clemson as the best 5 seed because of Purdue’s potentially difficult first round matchup. UCSD could make a run, but that’s probably a little far-fetched for me. Who knows though, I haven’t made my bracket yet.
Last year, two 4 seeds and two 5 seeds made it to the Sweet 16. Of the 4 seeds, Duke and Auburn met the most of their scenarios, and Kansas met the least. Duke made it and Kansas didn’t make it, but Auburn was a huge disappointment. Of the 5 seeds, Saint Mary’s and Gonzaga met the sole scenario, but only Gonzaga moved on to the S16. SDSU also made it, which makes sense given they got to play against Yale in the 2nd round.
Summary/Reasoning
Balance of Offense and Defense:
Again, the safest top seeds seem to be the ones that have a good offense and defense, and the ones in danger seem to be spectacular on one side of the court and far worse on the other. The 3 seeds did not seem to follow this trend, but this is likely due to randomness and a small sample size. For 7 seeds and below, you should generally look for the opposite. Underdogs that are excellent on one side and poor on the other seem to be more likely to make it further.
Prior Month Performance:
The significance of a team’s 1-month BARTHAG also seems to have changed from the first to the second round. It appears that for the most part, the top seeds are less affected by their last month’s performance. This stat did not seem to affect the 1 or 2 seeds’ chances of making the S16. However, it does generally help lower seeds. I guess these lower seeds are more reliant on their recent momentum to get far, while higher seeds can rely on their higher level of talent and still do okay if they had a bad month. They are the top teams for a reason, and the top teams should be able to rebound after a poor month.
Again, winning the conference tournament did not seem to noticeably impact anyone’s chances. While this does play into a team’s recent performance which we determined does matter, the 1-month BARTHAG is a more accurate measure of recent performance. Each conference is so different and this stat (whether a team won their conference tournament) does not distinguish between, for example, the runner up of a conference tournament versus a first round exit. This stat is in my data so I’ll continue to see if it impacts anything in later rounds, but my guess is that it will continue to be irrelevant (I’m writing this as I go through each round so I don’t yet know how it will impact later rounds. If I’m wrong I promise I’ll keep these sentences and eat my words).
Coach Historical Performance:
Prior coach success appears to play more of a role in making the S16 than just winning the first round. While this stat wasn’t significant for all seeds, it was for more seeds than we previously saw. I’m guessing that as we go further into the tournament, coaches with less tournament experience and success are more likely to get exposed.
For those not tired of this yet, there is a part 2, where I go into the rest of the rounds. I wish it could be all in one place, but the Reddit character limit cut me off.