The men's Final Four everyone saw coming is more likely to be a blessing than a curse

New York Times

04-04-2025

Two days after Selection Sunday, The Athletic offered a prediction — or, rather, a warning — for this NCAA Tournament.
'Hope you like chalk.'
That's because all the data pointed to a March that might be lacking the single thing fans most crave: madness. Between the strongest collection of No. 1 seeds in the modern era and larger industry-wide trends finally matriculating to the hardwood, it would've taken a Herculean — not Cinderellan — effort to upend a field so seemingly set in stone.
Advertisement
Instead, for only the second time in the modern tournament era (and first since 2008), all four No. 1 seeds are still standing on the season's final weekend. Duke, Houston, Florida and Auburn have been jockeying for position atop the AP poll and Ken Pomeroy's efficiency rankings since at least February, if not earlier. All four could reasonably claim they were 'the best team in the country' at some point this season — if not simultaneously. Like Purdue and UConn a year ago, that quartet has clearly been in a class of its own. And now they'll duke it out (no pun intended) in what very well may be the best Final Four we've ever seen? Yes, please.
But is such top-heaviness actually a good thing for the sport? Does it matter? Is this a one-off, or is it really going to be harder for Cinderella to find a slipper moving forward?
Let's dig into it.
One of the best measures of a team's strength, according to KenPom — the most widely used and popularized analytics site for college basketball — is 'net rating,' also known as efficiency margin. (It's determined by a team's points scored and allowed per 100 possessions, then adjusted for schedule.) Most years, we're lucky if a single team has a net rating over 35. In fact, prior to this season, only six squads had cleared that threshold in KenPom history, which dates back to the 1996-97 season: 1999 Duke, 2001 Duke, 2008 Kansas, 2015 Kentucky, 2021 Gonzaga and 2024 UConn. Three of those — 2001 Duke, 2008 Kansas and 2024 UConn — won it all, while the other three fell in the Final Four.
And although no single number can adequately or accurately determine future success in a single-elimination tournament, that 35 net rating? It's the closest thing we've got to a guarantee.
It's also what makes this Final Four so tantalizing: Every team in San Antonio clears that lofty mark, the first time we've ever had multiple teams in a single postseason in that rarified 35-plus air.
Advertisement
To nerd out just a little, Duke, Houston, Florida and Auburn's average net rating is 36.85, also the highest of any collection of Final Four teams. They're all among the top 10 highest-rated teams of the KenPom era. And in the clearest proof that not all No. 1 seeds are created equally, compare this grouping to 2008, the only other time in the modern era that all four No. 1 seeds made the final weekend. That season, Memphis, Kansas, North Carolina and UCLA's average rating was only 31.72.
Analytically speaking, that's a gulf of a difference.
All of which is to say, most other seasons, any of our four remaining semifinalists would be the clear frontrunner to cut down the nets. But dig a little deeper, and even among this fearsome foursome, one team exists in a tier of its own: Duke. The Blue Devils entered this postseason with a net ranking of 38.15, the second-highest in the history of KenPom's database (behind only 1999 Duke). But by virtue of its monstrous average margin of victory (23.5 points through four games), Duke's adjusted efficiency margin has actually grown and now sits at 39.63 entering Saturday's meeting with fellow No. 1 Houston.
For reference: The difference in net rating between No. 1 Duke and No. 2 Houston — 3.22 — is almost triple the difference between Houston and No. 4 Auburn (1.13).
But Duke, Houston, Florida and Auburn did not singlehandedly defeat 64 other teams to reach this point (although we'd sign up for that tournament, too). Even beyond the titanic top seeds, this tournament mostly broke with chalk. For the first time since 2017, no team seeded lower than 12th made it to Saturday of the tournament's first weekend. Every Sweet 16 team hailed from four of the five high-major leagues: the SEC, ACC, Big 12 and Big Ten. The combined Elite Eight seeds — 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 — also tied for the lowest total of all time. And buzzer beaters, what this event is so famous for? We've had one: Maryland over Colorado State, courtesy of freshman big man Derik Queen.
Advertisement
Womp-womp.
Other than the transfer portal, the advent of name, image, and likeness freedoms has been the most seismic shift to college hoops this era. Its impact cannot be ignored amongst all this chalk, but its influence also shouldn't be artificially overstated.
Regardless of what the NCAA intended in July 2021 when the NIL era formally began, it has quickly become one of the biggest drivers of recruitment and player movement. While none of the four teams left standing have shallow coffers, none are exactly driving market-setting deals either. (The lone superstar who could command one, Duke freshman Cooper Flagg, has enough legitimate endorsement deals with powerhouse brands like Gatorade and New Balance to supplement any guaranteed money he's receiving.)
Meanwhile, the teams believed to have spent the most on their rosters this season — the likes of Louisville, Indiana, Arkansas, Baylor, and Kansas State, to name a few? From that group, only Arkansas made the tournament's second weekend, and several didn't even earn a bid.
So good luck finding a throughline from dollars invested in a team to NCAA Tournament success. There isn't one.
While it is true that resetting payrolls does not directly correlate to postseason success, doing the opposite is guaranteed to gut a team's chances. Look no further than several former Final Four teams — hello, NC State! — whose unwillingness or inability to hit established market-level spending floors resulted in precipitous declines.
What we're saying is, you don't have to break the bank to build a contender. But the further we get into the NIL era, you at least have to be in the same range as your competitors if you don't want to be left in the dust.
Other than continuing to spur anger for some of its bubble decisions, we'd like to propose a possibly unpopular hypothesis: Maybe the selection committee is actually improving?
Advertisement
While every individual committee member is allowed to rank and evaluate teams on their own criteria, there's a reason why the group has pushed for more information in recent seasons. Under committee chair Bubba Cunningham this year, members were provided a staggering 23 metrics with which to sort and rank their choices: everything from KenPom rankings to strength of schedule analyses to the mythical Wins Above Bubble (WAB) that was so critical to North Carolina earning the final spot in this season's field. The fabled eye test isn't falling by the wayside, but it certainly isn't the consensus method for choosing teams anymore.
It's almost like there's a grounded, data-driven reason why we didn't see as many controversial seed lines this postseason (unless you ask the fine folks in Louisville, who were dissatisfied — to put it mildly — at being an 8-seed in Pat Kelsey's first season).
This is not to say that human evaluation shouldn't be a factor in the equation. After all, computers cannot fully capture a team's momentum or health or mental state. But there's also a reason why whoever wins it all this weekend in San Antonio will be the 20th champion in the last 23 tournaments to enter March as a top-six team on KenPom.
Outliers will always exist. But patterns are more bankable.
It depends. If Duke wins it all, cementing Cooper Flagg's status as arguably the best freshman in modern NCAA history, will we reminisce fondly on the Blue Devils' journey? Or if Houston wins, will it be remembered as redemptive for Kelvin Sampson, years after a show-cause penalty forced him out of the sport entirely?
Or the flip side: If Auburn or Florida wins, will we look back on this year's bracket as a relative snooze-fest? Something memorable to fans on the Plains or in Gainesville, but otherwise largely meh?
It is a fascinating thought experiment — and why, despite us clearly having the best four teams in San Antonio, there's immense pressure on this chalky Final Four to actually deliver the goods.
Advertisement
If we get three all-timers this weekend, will that offset the relative routs we've had so far? Or, gasp, what if these games aren't close and competitive either? Will fans appreciate the all-time quality of ball they're watching, or will they flip the channel when the margin balloons to 20, like they would any other regular-season contest?
Without knowing how Saturday's Final Four will unfold, or which team will ultimately raise the trophy on the River Walk, turning to the past again gives us some perspective. In 2008, after both No. 1-vs.-No. 1 semifinals turned into double-digit destructions, the championship game between Memphis and Kansas was one for the ages: Derrick Rose's missed free-throw late in the second half; Mario Chalmers' overtime-forcing 3 with seconds left; Bill Self's first title; John Calipari's heartbreak. That one game was so stupendous that it more than defined a tournament that bore that same 'chalk' connotation.
If nothing else, with the caliber of teams taking the court at the Alamodome this weekend, it feels impossible that we won't get at least one truly epic game, the likes of which we've largely lacked this postseason.
And if it comes on Monday night, with the nation watching, for all the marbles? Maybe the tenor of this 'boring' tournament can still be flipped on its head.