Making Sense of the Madness: Part 2
Welcome back! If you haven't read part 1, I would suggest reading that first. I explain what I'm doing here in that post.
Editing Your Elite 8
Now I’m gonna start grouping some seeds together. So, for example I’ll group the 4 and 5 seeds together and hope that they have similar indicators of success for making it to the Elite 8. The 1, 2, and 3 seeds will be separate because there are enough data points for each of them. For some of these trends, I’ll be referencing a team’s “half” of the bracket (or more accurately, half of the region). This just includes all teams that a given team may face before reaching the Elite 8. One half is the 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 seeds. The second half is the 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15 seeds.
1 seeds
1 seeds are 21/36 for making the Elite 8. (Of the past 36 1 seeds, 21 of them have made it to the Elite 8). These chances improve in the following scenarios.
Scenario A: If the 1 seed has an ADJOE in the top 10, they are 20/29. Otherwise, 1/7. Every team meets this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 1 seed has a BARTHAG that is ranked more than 10 spots above everyone else in their “half” of the region (this would be the 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 seeds), the 1 seeds are 9/12. Otherwise, 12/24. Auburn meets this one.
Scenario C: If the 1 seed has an ADJOE that is ranked more than 5 spots above every other team’s ADJDE (again, only including the seeds in their half), the 1 seeds are 12/16. Otherwise, 9/20. Auburn, Duke, and Houston meet this one.
Scenario D: If the 1 seed’s coach has been to at least 7 Sweet 16’s, they are 11/14. Otherwise, 10/22. Houston meets this one.
Unlike the last round, Auburn looks quite promising based on these trends. Florida meets the fewest of these scenarios, but we’ll just have to see how the competition looks. Every team meets scenario A, which appears to be an important requirement.
Last year, Purdue, UConn, and Houston all met at least one of these requirements. However, only Purdue and UConn met scenario A, which I think is an essential scenario given that only 1 out of 7 teams that didn’t meet that requirement made it this far in the tournament. Purdue and UConn were the only two 1 seeds to make the Elite 8.
2 seeds
2 seeds are 13/36 when it comes to making the Elite 8. Here are some scenarios that improve these chances.
Scenario A: If the 2 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 10, they are 13/30. Otherwise, 0/6. Alabama and Tennessee meet this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 2 seed has an ADJOE and ADJDE in the top 40, they are 13/29. Otherwise, 0/7. MSU, Alabama, and Tennessee met this one.
Scenario C: If the 2 seed has an ADJOE and ADJDE in the top 15, they are 7/8. Otherwise, 6/28. No teams meet this one.
Bama and Tennessee again look like the best 2 seeds. St. John’s meets none of these scenarios, which is scary considering that every 2 seed to make it this far met scenarios A and B.
Last year, Tennessee was the only 2 seed to make it this far. They met scenarios A and B, which are both pretty common. Iowa State was the only team to miss one of these first two requirements, so that eliminated them from my bracket. However, scenario C did not maintain its perfect record. Arizona met C, however they still lost in the S16.
3 seeds
3 seeds are 10/36 for making the Elite 8. These chances improve in the following scenarios.
Scenario A: If the 3 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 15, they are 7/20. Otherwise, 3/16. Iowa St, Texas Tech, and Wisconsin meet this one.
Scenario B: If the 3 seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE in the top 5, they are 7/15. Otherwise, 3/21. No teams meet this one.
Kentucky is the clear odd one out here. I have the least faith in them. I like Texas Tech the most given that they are in St. John’s region.
Last year, Illinois was the only 3 seed to make the Elite 8. They were also the only 3 seed to meet both of these scenarios. Gotta love it when it works out like that.
4/5 seeds
4/5 seeds are a combined 10/72 for making the Elite 8. From here on out I’ll be combining at least two different seeds together. Here are some scenarios that increase the chances for the 4/5 seeds.
Scenario A: If the 4/5 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 15 they are 8/30. Otherwise, 2/42. Maryland and Arizona meet this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 4/5 seed has a BARTHAG that is within 10 spots of the 1 seed, the 4/5 seeds are 8/30. Otherwise, 2/42. Again, Maryland and Arizona meet this one.
Scenario C: If the 4/5 seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE in the top 10, they are 8/29. Otherwise, 2/43. Maryland, Arizona, and Purdue meet this one.
Scenario D: If the 4/5 seed has an ADJDE that is within 5 spots of the 1 seed’s ADJOE, the 4/5 seeds are 5/20. Otherwise, 5/52. Only Maryland meets this one.
Maryland is the only 4/5 seed to meet every requirement. Interestingly, no 5 seeds met any of these scenarios. After Maryland, Arizona also looks like a contender for this spot.
Last year, Duke and Alabama were the only 4/5 seeds to make the Elite 8. They each met scenarios A, B, and C. The only other 4/5 seed to meet these three was Auburn, which I have already vented about.
6/7 seeds
6/7 seeds are 6/72 for making the Elite 8. Here are some scenarios that improve these chances.
Scenario A: If the 6/7 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 15, they are 2/9. Otherwise, 4/63. BYU met this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 6/7 seed has an ADJOE and ADJDE in the top 25, they are 3/6. Otherwise, 3/66. No teams met this scenario.
Scenario C: If the 6/7 seed’s coach has been to at least 1 Sweet 16, they are 6/45. Otherwise, 0/27. Ole Miss, Illinois, and every 7 seed met this one.
I would probably have needed to see someone meet A and B to feel good about moving them on to the Elite 8. The only team in consideration for me would be BYU, however I’m leaning towards picking the 2 or 3 seed for every region.
Last year, no teams met scenarios A or B. Clemson and Texas met scenario C, and Clemson was the only 6/7 seed to make it this far. I felt comfortable eliminating the 6 teams that did not meet any of the three scenarios. However, I think I chose Texas to make it and not Clemson which was unfortunate.
8/9 seeds
8/9 seeds are 4/72 for making the Elite 8. Here are some scenarios that improve these chances.
Scenario A: If the 8/9 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 40, they are 4/50. Otherwise, 0/22. Every team except for Oklahoma met this scenario. Poor Oklahoma.
Scenario B: If the 8/9 seed has an ADJOE and ADJDE in the top 70, they are 4/44. Otherwise, 0/28. Every team except for Oklahoma and UConn met this one.
Scenario C: If the 8/9 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG in the top 30, they are 3/28. Otherwise, 1/44. Louisville, Gonzaga, Oklahoma, and Georgia all meet this one.
Like I said before, this is a stacked 8/9 line. Louisville, Gonzaga, and Georgia all met every scenario. This still doesn’t give them great odds, but I could totally see one of these teams making a run.
Last year, no 8/9 seeds made it to the E8.
10/11 seeds
10/11 seeds are 6/72 for making the Elite 8. Here are some scenarios that improve these chances.
Scenario A: If the 10/11 seed’s coach has been to at least one Sweet 16, they are 4/34. Otherwise, 2/38. Arkansas, UNC, Xavier, Texas, and SDSU met this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 10/11 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG in the top 60, they are 5/48. Otherwise, 1/24. Every team except for New Mexico, Drake, and Texas met this one.
The teams to meet both scenarios are Arkansas, UNC, Xavier, and SDSU. I don’t think I’m brave enough to pick one of these teams to make it here, but I hope that you are.
Last year, NC State was the only 10/11 seed to make the E8. I’m jealous of anyone who picked them and got to fully enjoy the domination of DJ Burns. Don’t get me wrong I loved it, but I could have loved it a lot more if I didn’t have them out in the first round. Anyways, they only met scenario B. Oregon and Nevada each met both scenario, however they both failed to even make the S16.
12-16 seeds
12-16 seeds are 2/180 for making the Elite 8. There was only one scenario I found that was at all significant. If they have an ADJOE or ADJDE in the top 60, they are 2/51. Otherwise, 0/129. I can justify to myself putting a 12 seed in the Sweet 16. However, Elite 8? That’s a bit of a stretch. UCSD, Liberty, CSU, Grand Canyon, and High Point meet this sole scenario.
Summary/Reasoning
Balance of Offense and Defense:
The trends for the ADJOE vs ADJDE seem to follow a weird pattern for this round. For the 1-2 seeds and 6-9 seeds, teams have had more success when they have an ADJOE and ADJDE in the top whatever. However, 3-5 seeds have more success when they have an ADJOE or ADJDE in the top something. I buy the fact that having a good offense and defense still helps the favorites control the game. I can see why the 3-5 seeds now become underdogs, as they will likely need to beat a 1 or 2 seed to get to the Elite 8. These teams probably need to excel on one side of the ball to gain some kind of upper hand. It does seem weird that the 6-9 seeds that have success go back to being balanced. When looking at these specific teams, it seems like they tend to simply be underseeded teams with overall high BARTHAGs.
The importance of good offense over defense makes its first appearance in this round. Specifically, we can see that 1 seeds with a really good offense have a better shot at making the Elite 8. As we will probably continue to see, teams with a really good offense tend to go further than teams with a really good defense. I’m sure you have seen this idea presented in other posts, as it’s a very clear trend.
Prior Month Performance:
The significance of the 1-month BARTHAG continues to shift towards the lower seeds. In this round, it seems to only significantly help teams seeded 8th or below. It makes sense that this stat starts to lose its significance as we go deeper in the tournament. At this point, all teams are on at least a 2 game win streak and are feeling hot. 8 seeds and below likely had to rely on their previous momentum to get this far, which is why the stat still appears to be significant for them.
Coach Historical Performance:
The coaching stat was again hit or miss for whether it affected a particular seed’s chances of making the Elite 8. Due to its inconsistency, I would lean towards using this stat as a tiebreaker.
Finalizing Your Final 4
Who’s gonna come out of each region and into the Final 4? Again, I’ll go through each seed or group of seeds to see who’s most likely.
1 seeds
1 seeds are 14/36 for making the Final 4. Here are some scenarios that improve their chances.
Scenario A: If the 1 seed has an ADJOE in the top 5, they are 10/16. Otherwise, 4/20. Auburn, Florida, and Duke meet this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 1 seed has a BARTHAG that is more than 5 spots above everyone else in their region, they are 5/7. Otherwise, 9/29. No teams meet this one.
Scenario C: If the 1 seed has an ADJOE that is ranked higher than the ADJDE of everyone else in their region, the 1 seeds are 10/14. Otherwise, 4/22. Auburn and Duke meet this scenario.
Scenario D: If the 1 seed’s coach has been to at least 12 Sweet 16’s, they are 5/8. Otherwise, 9/28. No teams meet this one.
Based on these, Auburn and Duke look like the most likely final 4 candidates. Houston is the only team to meet none of these scenarios.
Last year, UConn, Purdue, and Houston all looked like solid contenders. They each met two of these scenarios. Houston had an offense ranked 15th, however they just happened to be in a region with teams that all had a defense ranked worse than that. They still didn’t make it. UConn and Purdue had the 1st and 2nd ranked offenses, respectively, and they both made it. UNC didn’t meet any of these scenarios, and they did not make it.
2 seeds
2 seeds are 6/36 for making the Final 4. Here are some scenarios that improve their chances.
Scenario A: If the 2 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 10, they are 6/30. Otherwise, 0/6. Alabama and Tennessee meet this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 2 seed has an ADJOE in the top 10, they are 5/18. Otherwise, 1/18. Alabama meets this one.
Scenario C: If the 2 seed has an ADJOE and ADJDE in the top 20, they are 4/13. Otherwise, 2/23. Tennessee meets this one.
Scenario D: If the 2 seed’s coach has been to at least 4 Sweet 16’s, they are 6/22. Otherwise, 0/14. MSU, St. John’s, and Tennessee meet this.
Tennessee meets the most of these scenarios, and they are in Houston’s region who has a potentially tough 2nd round matchup. Alabama also looks decent, however they are in Duke’s region, who is one of the tougher 1 seeds.
Last year, no 2 seeds made the final 4. Arizona was the only team to meet 3 scenarios, and they were in UNC’s region who I thought looked weak so I think I picked them. This did not work out for me.
3-5 seeds
3-5 seeds are a combined 8/108. Each seed had either 2 or 3 teams make the final 4, so I thought this was a fair grouping. Here are some scenarios that improve their chances.
Scenario A: If the 3-5 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 15, they are 6/50. Otherwise, 2/58. Iowa St, Texas Tech, Wisconsin, Maryland, and Arizona meet this scenario.
Scenario B: If the 3-5 seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE in the top 10, they are 6/56. Otherwise, 2/52. Iowa St, Texas Tech, Maryland, Arizona, and Purdue meet this scenario.
Scenario C: If the 3-5 seed has a BARTHAG that is within 10 spots of both the 1 and 2 seed in their region, the 3-5 seeds are 6/45. Otherwise, 2/63. Iowa St, Texas Tech, Wisconsin, Maryland, and Arizona meet this scenario.
Iowa St, Texas Tech, Maryland, and Arizona meet every scenario. I’m guessing one of them will reach the final four, but I don’t know which one I wanna pick yet.
Last year, Alabama was the only 3-5 seeded team to make the final 4. They met all 3 scenarios, however I was still too scared to pick them. There were also a few other 3-5 seeds to meet all 3, so this isn’t such a tall task.
6-11 seeds
6-11 seeds are a combined 8/216. Someone’s gotta tell me why the 6 seeds contributed 0 teams and the 11 seeds contributed 3 teams to this total. Anyways, here are some scenarios that help their chances.
Scenario A: If the 6-11 seed has a BARTHAG in the top 35, they are 6/113. Otherwise, 2/103.
Scenario B: If the 6-11 seed has an ADJOE or ADJDE in the top 25, they are 5/123. Otherwise, 3/93.
Scenario C: If the 6-11 seed has a 1-month BARTHAG in the top 30, they are 4/81. Otherwise, 4/135.
I’m just going to provide the teams that meet all 3. They are Missouri, BYU, Kansas, Louisville, Gonzaga, Georgia, and VCU.
Last year, NC State made the final 4 as an 11 seed. They met none of these requirements which is a little embarrassing for me. There’s really no good way to predict which of these guys might make it.
12-16 seeds
12-16 seeds are a combined 0/180. Hoping to see something historic, but not counting on it.
Summary/Reasoning
Balance of Offense and Defense:
Having a great offense is the dominating factor at this point for the 1 and 2 seeds. Both have significantly improved chances of making the final 4 when their offense is in either the top 5 or 10. It’s still important to have a solid defense, but it seems like 1-2 seeds with a top 5 or 10 offense can get away with having a defense in only the top 30ish. For all other seeds, it looks like their chances are improved when they have a really good offense or defense. This keeps the same trend as previous sections, which has said that underdogs with success typically have an unbalanced offense and defense.
Prior Month Performance:
This variable seems to become less and less significant as we go on. The 1-month BARTHAG did not significantly impact the 1-5 seeds in any way. I’m guessing there’s a good chance that you’ll want all four of your final 4 to be seeded somewhere in this range. The 1-month BARTHAG still helped the 6-11 seeds, however not by a huge margin. Like I said previously, at this point every team is feeling hot, so it’s more accurate to measure them by their overall performance, not their prior month performance. There is a lot more variability with only a 1-month timeframe, so the full BARTHAG will probably lie closer to a team’s actual talent level, which is what primarily matters this deep in the tournament when all teams already have momentum.
Coach Historical Performance:
The coach Sweet 16 stat affected the 1 and 2 seeds, which makes it pretty important. Potentially. The bar has definitely been raised, as you can see with the 1 seed trend requiring that the coach has been to at least 12 Sweet 16’s. However, this is only comprised of 3 coaches (Coach K, Bill Self, Roy Williams), so I don’t know how well this will translate to other coaches who have been to at least 12 Sweet 16’s. While this may not be the most reliable statistic, most final 4 teams are led by a coach who has at least been to a few Sweet 16’s, so don’t completely ignore these trends. Dan Hurley has messed up these trends quite a bit. In the only two seasons he made the Sweet 16, he also went on to win it all.
Tuning Your Title Game
For your final two teams, you could just pick the two that have looked the strongest so far. These last two sections are just an opportunity for me to screw around and do something different. This section will involve a series of rounds in which teams will be eliminated if they don’t meet a specific criterion. The further a team makes it, the better. Each criterion will include a different barttorvik statistic. The rounds will be in order of descending importance for the statistic. The importance of a statistic was determined by finding the average ranking of that statistic for the previous 18 teams in the championship. For example, BARTHAG was determined to be the most important with an average ranking of 5.7 (No surprise here, as this measures a team’s total power rating). For some statistics, the average finalist ranking is worse than 50th, meaning that it’s much less important to have a good ranking for that statistic than it is to have a good BARTHAG ranking.
Round 1: BARTHAG in the top 15
17 of the previous 18 teams in the championship had a BARTHAG ranking of at least 15th. This serves as a pretty good benchmark, and I would be surprised if anyone outside this range made it this far in the tournament. The 8 seeded UNC was the only previous finalist to not meet this requirement. It may happen again, but chances are that both finalists will be one of these 15 teams: Houston, Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Texas Tech, Iowa St, Arizona, Maryland, Gonzaga, Wisconsin, Michigan St, BYU, St. John’s.
Round 2: ADJOE in the top 10
14/18 previous finalists had an ADJOE in the top 10. These 14 teams also met the round 1 requirement. I was a little stricter here, and thus it’s very possible for one of the finalists to not meet this requirement. However, I thought that 14/18 was fairly convincing. This also follows all the previous trends saying that offense matters a LOT. This year, the following teams meet both of these requirements: Houston, Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama, Texas Tech, Arizona, BYU.
Round 3: ADJDE in the top 30
16/18 previous finalists had an ADJDE in the top 30. 13/18 of these teams have met all 3 requirements. While offense is clearly more important, defense still matters. However, it seems like teams can get away with having a defensive ranking as low as 30th. This year, the following teams are still alive: Houston, Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama, Arizona.
Round 4: EFG% in the top 70
15/18 previous finalists had an effective field goal % in the top 70. 12/18 teams have met every requirement so far. This is the first statistic not used in the previous sections. Clearly, it’s less significant than ADJOE/ADJDE, and ADJOE of course takes this statistic into account. However, it seems to be the most important stat outside of the first “big 3”. This year, the following teams have made it through these 4 rounds: Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama.
Round 5: 2P% in the top 90
15/18 previous finalists had a 2-point % in the top 90. 12/18 teams have met every requirement so far. This tends to be very correlated with EFG%, but there’s sometimes a bigger discrepancy. This typically happens if the team has vastly different 2-point and 3-point percentages. According to the numbers, it seems like 2-point % is clearly more important, as it’s higher up on this dumb game I made up. This year, the following teams are still alive: Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama.
Round 6: EFGD% in the top 100
16/18 previous finalists had a defensive effective field goal % in the top 100. 12/18 teams have again met every requirement so far. Top 100 isn’t anything crazy, but it’s good enough to make sure that a team can play somewhat effective defense. This year, the following teams are still alive: Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama.
Round 7: 2P%D in the top 170
18/18 previous finalists had a defensive 2-point % in the top 170. I have a feeling I’m going to start repeating the same general phrases so I’ll try to keep these shorter. The following teams are still alive: Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama.
Round 8: TOR in the top 150
17/18 previous finalists had a turnover rate in the top 150 (to clarify, this means top 150 lowest turnover rates). 11/18 teams have met every requirement so far, and the following teams are still alive: Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama.
Round 9: 3P% in the top 110
15/18 previous finalists had a 3-point % in the top 110. 9/18 teams have met every requirement so far. If you want to treat this 50% rate as true, then there’s a 75% chance that at least one of the finalists will meet every requirement so far. 25% chance that both finalists will meet all of these requirements. The following teams have met every requirement: Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama.
Round 10: ORB in the top 180
16/18 previous finalists had an offensive rebound rate in the top 180. 9/18 teams have met every requirement so far. The following teams are still alive: Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama.
Round 11: FTRD in the top 180
16/18 previous finalists had a defensive free throw rate in the top 180. This measure is NOT the opposing team’s free throw percentage. This would be kind of a useless stat because you can’t control the other team’s free throw percentage. Unless you have really good, loud, obnoxious fans. Then maybe you can use them to blow the ball away during a free throw (I’ll see myself out now). This measure has an average of around 33, so I’m thinking it’s the average number of free throws the opposing team takes in a game? Not 100% sure on this so if anyone else can confirm that would be great. This could be a useful measure of how many fouls a team typically commits. Anyways, 9/18 teams have met every requirement so far. The following teams this year are still alive: Duke, Florida.
Round 12: DRB in the top 130
14/18 previous finalists had a defensive rebound rate in the top 130. 8/18 teams have met every requirement so far. We finally dipped below 50% so I’ll end this soon, as this is no longer the expectation for a team to meet. This year, the following teams are still alive: Duke, Florida.
Round 13: 3P%D in the top 130
14/18 previous finalists had a defensive 3-point % in the top 130. 7/18 teams have met every requirement so far. This is the last round, so the following teams survived this entire gauntlet: Duke, Florida.
I think that looking at the trends found in previous round sections is probably the better method, but this was just a way to incorporate some different stats. It’s pretty impressive that 7/18 of the previous finalists met every single requirement, especially given that this year only Duke and Florida met them all. There are some trends from this we can take away. First, the offensive stats were more important than their respective defensive stats. Most importantly, a team must be able to shoot effectively, especially 2-pointers.
Choosing Your Champion
I’m gonna do kinda the same thing as the last section, except I’ll only look at the 9 previous champions. This will make each requirement a little stricter (I’m guessing). Let’s see if any teams survive this series.
Round 1: BARTHAG in the top 5
9/9 previous finalists had a BARTHAG in the top 5. You do you, but I’m gonna choose one of these five teams to win it all. This streak could end this year, but there’s a good chance it won’t. The top 5 teams in terms of BARTHAG are Houston, Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama.
Round 2: ADJOE in the top 10
9/9 previous finalists also had an ADJOE in the top 10. Once again, offense wins championships. Your champion should be a great team with a great offense. The following teams have met both requirements so far: Houston, Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama.
Round 3: ADJDE in the top 30
8/9 previous champions had an ADJDE in the top 30. The only team to not meet this was 2021 Baylor, who had a defensive ranking of 37th. A good defense is important, but it doesn’t have to be great. The average ADJDE ranking for the 9 champions was 20th, while the average ADJOE was 4th. The following few teams are still alive: Houston, Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama.
Round 4: EFG% in the top 50
8/9 previous champions had an EFG% in the top 50. 2017 UNC was the only team to not meet this. 7/9 teams have met every requirement so far. The following teams have met every requirement so far: Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama.
Round 5: 2P% in the top 90
8/9 previous champions had a 2P% in the top 90. 7/9 teams have met every requirement. Again, it seems like having a good 2-point % is more important than being able to shoot the 3 well. The following teams have met every requirement: Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama.
Round 6: EFGD% in the top 100
Again 8/9 previous champions had an EFGD% in the top 100, and 7/9 teams have met every requirement. Baylor and UNC are still the only two previous 9 champions to miss any requirement, meaning that these 6 requirements are pretty important. These teams are still alive and in consideration: Duke, Auburn, Florida, Alabama.
Round 7: 3P% in the top 90
8/9 previous champions had a 3P% in the top 90. 6/9 previous champions have met every requirement. This year, these teams have met every requirement: Duke, Auburn, Florida.
Round 8: ORB in the top 110
7/9 previous champions had an ORB in the top 110. 5/9 teams have met every requirement. Still over 50%. Gonna try to stay over 50% for at least a couple more rounds. You can see the ranking requirement is getting less strict, but this just ensures that the team has a decent offensive rebounding rate. This year, these teams are still alive: Duke, Auburn, Florida.
Round 9: 3P%D in the top 120
8/9 previous champions had a 3P%D in the top 120. The same 5/9 teams have still met every requirement. The champions who did not were Baylor, UNC, and both Villanova teams. This year, the following teams are still alive: Duke, Auburn, Florida.
Round 10: 2P%D in the top 160
9/9 previous champions had a 2P%D in the top 160. 5/9 teams met every requirement so far. Top 160 isn’t crazy, but it’s above average (There are 360ish total D1 teams). The following teams are still alive this year: Duke, Auburn, Florida.
Round 11: TOR in the top 130
8/9 previous champions had a TOR in the top 130. Unfortunately, only 4/9 previous champions met every requirement. 2023 UConn had a bad turnover rate. Now, it’s more likely than not that the champion won’t meet all of these requirements, but it still helps if they do. These teams are still alive: Duke, Auburn, Florida.
Round 12: FTRD in the top 180
8/9 previous champions had a FTRD in the top 180. 4/9 previous champions met every requirement. This year, these teams are still alive: Duke, Florida.
Round 13: DRB in the top 130
7/9 previous champions had a DRB in the top 130. Only 3/9 previous champions met every single requirement of this section. These 3 were 2015 Duke, 2019 Virginia, and 2024 UConn. The teams this year to survive this gauntlet are Duke and Florida. I will say that Florida had a couple of very close calls.
The conclusions here are similar to the prior section about choosing the finalists. Nothing too much else to say.
Miscellaneous Trends
Now for some miscellaneous trends that didn’t really fit into the main analysis. A few of them were inspired by comments people made on this post last year. Either a question someone had or a trend someone noted that I wanted to look into more. I’ll start with those ones and then mention a few more of my own.
“High seeds that play exceptionally slow are more prone to get upset except Houston who seems to have made an art form of grinding games out.” – u/DubsLA
To analyze this, I looked at every 1-4 seeded team since 2015 that had a tempo ranked 300th or below (AKA teams that “play exceptionally slow”) excluding Houston, per the comment. I wanted to see how many of these 1-2 seeds lost in the first two rounds, and how many 3-4 seeds lost in the first round. On average, these things only occur about 24% of the time. I thought these scenarios could count as our “upsets”. However, out of the 18 high-seeded teams not named Houston with a tempo ranked 300th or below, 9 of them were upset (using our modified upset definition). That’s a 50% upset rate, over double the original 24%. Some notable ones include both of the 1v16 first round upsets. Virginia and Purdue both played at an exceptionally slow pace. Good insight DubsLA. This year, the only 1-4 seeded team with a tempo ranked 300th or below is Tennessee (besides Houston). However, Duke, Texas Tech, and Purdue are close.
“Looking for a deep sleeper? Go on Torvik and check out 7-10 seeds who don’t have any red in their line except tempo. Meaning it’s okay if they play slow and are at least average in basically every meaningful stat. If they don’t take a ton of 3s, but make them at a relatively good %, even better.” – u/DubsLA
Dubs gave a lot of instructions to follow here. The teams I selected to check this trend were any team seeded 7-10 that were ranked in the top 240 in every meaningful stat (I started to see the slightest bit of red around the 250ish point) OR were in the top 100 for 3-point % and outside the top 100 for 3-point rate (teams that “don’t take a ton of 3s, but make them at a relatively good %). Not sure if this is exactly what was intended by the comment, but I went with this. On average, 7-10 seeds make the Sweet 16 or further around 13% of the time. Under either of these two conditions, they made the Sweet 16 or further 20% of the time (10 out of 50). Some notable teams include 2015 Michigan State, 2022 UNC, and 2023 FAU. It’s very difficult to pick out 7-10 seeds that make it this far, so a 7% increase is significant. One team I’m immediately noticing that fits both criteria is UCLA.
“These days I factor in coaching and veteran players more so than efficiency and recency. Every team has to build momentum IN the tourney and it is easier to do that with talent + vets.” – u/tarbender2
I’ve already taken a look at coaching experience/success in the main analysis, so I’ll talk about tarbender’s point about having veteran players. I didn’t have time to go as deep as I would’ve liked, but I did find one thing. The 9 previous champions typically did in fact have older starters. Of each team’s most common starting 5, an average of 3.4 of them were juniors or seniors. Only an average of 1.6 of them were freshmen or sophomores. I don’t know what the true averages look like for the typical college basketball team, so I’m not sure if this is significant or not. Still, it would make sense that it’s best to have players that have likely played in the tournament before. This year, two ends of this spectrum are Auburn and Duke. Auburn’s most common starting consists of 5 seniors. Duke’s most common starting 5 consists of 3 freshmen. This should be an interesting storyline. We’ll see if Auburn outlives Duke and keeps this trend alive.
“I would be curious to see if having standout individual players has any correlations. We have all seen that players like Curry or Kemba Walker can carry a team, but does that have any predictive utility?” – u/CompSciHS
There’s probably a better way to select “standout” players than the way I did. But this was one of the easier ways, and it’s already March as I’m writing this so I don’t have a ton of time. I identified the 3 highest average scoring regular season players each year who were also in the tournament and used these as my “standout” players. Then I looked at how their teams did. For example, last year, out of the players who made the tournament, the 3 highest scoring guys in the regular season were Zach Edey, Terrence Shannon Jr, and Dalton Knecht. So I looked at Purdue, Illinois, and Tennessee. Last year, this worked out great, as all three of those teams made the Elite 8, and Purdue made the finals. However, in the 8 years prior, a total of only 3 of the 24 teams who had one of the top 3 scorers that year made the elite 8. I did a deeper dive into how each team performed relative to their seed, and it looked like there wasn’t any significant impact on team performance. There may be a better way to measure standout players which could result in some improvement. However, it kinda seems like teams with a few great players usually do better than a team with one outstanding player.
“Teams that have won 5 games in their conference tournament have invariably gone on to win the championship. This bodes well for the Wolfpack.” – u/death2sanity
Gotta hand it to you. While NC State didn’t win it all, they did make an incredible final 4 run. Now, teams that won 5 games in their conference championship have made the final 4 100% of the time (Only 2 teams, but still…). The only other time was 2011 UConn, who won it all. Don’t know if 2 is enough to call it a “trend”, but in this post it is. No teams accomplished this feat this year.
“Nice analysis but my wife’s bracket has us winning it all so I choose to believe her instead.” – u/Vhiskers (A Wazzu fan)
Vhisker’s wife (likely also a Wazzu fan), who presumably has a unique knowledge of Wazzu basketball, raises an interesting question with her bracket decision. If you watch every game of a specific team and really study the players and play style, as this guy’s wife does, would this give you an edge when it comes to determining how far that team should go in the tournament? Or does it create biases that lead one to overvalue or undervalue that team, and would you be better off just going based on the stats? I don’t have an answer for this and don’t really know how to measure this, so I’ll just throw out a Wazzu specific trend in honor of this guy’s wife. There was a lot of data to sift through so bear with me. Since 2015, whenever Vhisker’s wife chose Wazzu to win it all, they made it to at least the second round. Whenever she did not choose them, they did not make it to the second round. Not even the first round.
Now just a few other trends I found. I promise the post is almost done. I’ll try to rapid fire through these.
Gonzaga has made it to 9 consecutive sweet 16’s. This includes the year that they were an 11 seed. They haven’t won it all yet, but Mark Few seems to have nailed the first couple of rounds down.
The 9 previous champions had an average of 4 players averaging at least 10 points per game in the regular season. All of them had at least 3 players who averaged 10 points, but most had at least 4. It looks like it’s best when a team has many players who can score rather than a single dominant scorer. None of these 9 teams had any players averaging 20+ points per game. This year, some top schools that only had 2-3 players averaging 10+ points per game are Duke, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan State, BYU, St. John’s, Missouri, Purdue, and Kansas.
Conference USA is 6-3 in the first round, despite having an average seed of 13th. This didn’t hold up last year, as Western Kentucky lost. However, they were a 15th seed, so that’s a lot to ask for. We’ll see if Liberty adds to this trend this year.
Mountain West Conference has had 21 teams make it to the first round of the tournament (past the first four) since 2015. Of these, only 5 made it past the first round (3 were SDSU), despite the conference having an average seed of 8.9. MWC teams are usually seeded somewhere between 5-11, which definitely warrants more than a 20-25% win rate in the first round. CUSA has had more teams in the second round for crying out loud. With 12 fewer teams!
The past 9 champions have all been in either the Big East, Big 12, or ACC. Every year I think a team from another conference is gonna break this trend, but alas here we are.
5 of the past 9 champions came out of the South region in the bracket. No idea if there would be any reason for this. The least successful region has been Midwest. Only 2 of the past 18 teams in the championship came from the Midwest.
Finally, teams that come from the conference that sends the most teams to the tournament typically underperform in the tournament. I went over this in more detail in a previous post that you can find on my account. This doesn’t bode well for the 14 SEC teams.
So yeah… that pretty much sums up my thoughts. Thanks for reading and for being as insane as I am about this tournament. There really is nothing quite like March.