Latest news with #KenPomeroy
New York Times
04-04-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
The men's Final Four everyone saw coming is more likely to be a blessing than a curse
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.
Washington Post
02-04-2025
- Sport
- Washington Post
Best bets for a chalky men's Final Four
March Madness has been anything but mad this year. Favorites of six or more points are 32-2 straight up during NCAA men's basketball tournament. Teams favored by seven or more points are an astonishing 26-1, with Clemson's first-round loss to No. 12 seed McNeese State the lone blemish. Favorites have won 14 straight games outright in the men's bracket, and the Final Four will feature four No. 1 seeds for just the second time in the event's history. Coincidentally, that first all-top-seeded Final Four was staged 17 years ago in San Antonio, the same city that will host this year's Final Four. The semifinals that year were both decided by at least 15 points, but the taut championship game — in which Kansas beat Memphis in overtime — was one of the most memorable in tournament history. Here are my best bets for Saturday's semifinals as a predictable tournament reaches its climax. All spreads taken from DraftKings on Wednesday afternoon. For the tournament, Duke is now a +100 favorite to win the national championship, followed by Florida (+300), Houston (+400) and Auburn (+550) No. 1 Auburn vs. No. 1 Florida (-2.5) Best bet: Florida -2.5, playable to Florida -3 Florida has all the ingredients to beat its SEC rival in the Final Four's opening game: resilience, firepower and a superstar who thrives in the biggest moments in Walter Clayton Jr. No team in the country delivers knockout runs quite like the Gators, flipping games on their head in mere minutes. The Gators erased a nine-point deficit in the Elite Eight with an 18-4 blitz against West Region No. 3 seed Texas Tech, dominated No. 4 Maryland in the regional semifinal thanks to a 47-33 second half advantage and started the tournament by pouring in 53 points in less than 17 minutes against No. 16 Norfolk State. Florida's ability to overwhelm elite teams was on full display in the SEC tournament final, when it turned a tie game against Tennessee into a 12-point lead over an eight-minute stretch late in the first half. This team doesn't just survive; it seizes control of games. Florida already proved it can handle the spotlight of facing a top team, winning 90-81 at Auburn in February with its typical aggression and composure. In that game, the Gators held Auburn to just 43 percent shooting from the field and controlled the tempo throughout, closing the first half with a 23-7 run during which they made a trio of three-pointers. That fearless, attacking mindset gives Florida a real edge in this rematch. Finally, Florida has played 15 games this season against teams that like to slow the pace down as Auburn does. The Tigers' defensive possessions average 17.6 seconds this season, per analyst Ken Pomeroy's data. In those 15 matchups against teams using a similarly restrictive style, Florida is 13-2, with an average margin of victory of 18.1 points. Of the 13 wins in those contexts, the Gators won by less than three points just twice. With its fearless mentality, balanced attack and game-breaking momentum, Florida is built to take down Auburn and reach the championship game. No. 1 Houston vs. No. 1 Duke (-5.5) Best bet: Under 136.5 points, playable to 134.5 Both teams rank among the top five nationally in defensive efficiency, according to Pomeroy, and both are also among the slowest-paced teams in the country. Houston is 360th and Duke 268th in adjusted tempo, an estimate of the number of possessions a team would have against an average-paced team. That suggests long, grinding possessions and limited transition scoring. The Cougars' defensive scheme is designed to shrink the court, limiting space and forcing teams into uncomfortable, contested shots. Houston also excels at defending the three-point line — a key part of Duke's offensive footprint — holding opponents to just 30.1 percent shooting from deep, the 13th lowest rate in the nation. That could spell trouble for a Blue Devils team that thrives on ball movement and perimeter looks, especially if freshman star Cooper Flagg doesn't dominate and his supporting cast struggles to create offense. Add in Houston Coach Kelvin Sampson's tournament experience and a potential edge in late-game shot creation from Houston's trio of guards and you get a game that's likely to be played in the half court, with every possession feeling like a battle. While the exact result might be tough to predict, the style of play points clearly to a low-scoring, defensive slugfest — making the under the most appealing play on the board.
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
March Madness: Here are the 16 most intriguing potential Final Four combinations
With 16 teams still alive in the NCAA men's tournament, there are 256 potential Final Four combinations left. Here's a look at 16 compelling ones, some chosen for basketball reasons and others chosen for reasons scarcely related to basketball at all. 1. Chalk Final Four: Duke, Florida, Houston, Auburn Only once have all four No. 1 seeds made the Final Four since the NCAA tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985. That was 2008, when Kansas, Memphis, UCLA and North Carolina each advanced to San Antonio. This is the best chance for a repeat in quite awhile, but it's still a long shot. There's a 31.1% chance all four No. 1 seeds even make the Elite Eight, according to Ken Pomeroy's projections. 2. Chaos Final Four: Ole Miss, Arkansas, BYU, Purdue There has been a Final Four team seeded No. 5 or worse every year since 2012, but don't be surprised if that streak ends this year. The elite teams are just too good and too many of them are left in the field. Who has the best chance to make it out of this quartet? It's genuinely a tough call. Arkansas might have the most overall talent, especially with Adou Thiero back. BYU has lost only once since Valentine's Day. Ole Miss has among the nation's best turnover margin. And the Midwest region in Indianapolis is 70 miles from Purdue's campus. 3. The Brainiac Final Four: Michigan, Florida, Duke, Purdue According to U.S. News and World Report, Duke (6), Michigan (21), Florida (30) and Purdue (46) are the highest-rated academic institutions in their regions. 4. The Party School Final Four: Alabama, Ole Miss, Florida, Tennessee 'S-E-C! S-E-C! S-E-C!' Alabama (4) is the NCAA tournament's top remaining party school, according to There's also no shortage of fun to be had at Ole Miss (13), Michigan State (18), Michigan (32), Florida (41), Arizona (44) and Texas Tech (49), either. Only the South region can't throw a good kegger. Houston barely cracks the top 200. Purdue is outside the top 300. 5. New blood Final Four: Ole Miss, Texas Tech, BYU, Tennessee Ole Miss has never been past the Sweet 16. BYU and Tennessee have made the most NCAA tournament appearances without reaching the Final Four. Texas Tech advanced to the Final Four in 2019 but it's the only remaining program in the West region that has yet to hang a national title banner. 6. The first-year coach Final Four: Michigan, Arkansas, Kentucky, BYU It used to be that newly hired coaches needed at least three or four years to revitalize struggling programs. Now, the transfer portal has made it possible to overhaul a talent-bereft roster in a single offseason. Kentucky's Mark Pope, Arkansas' John Calipari and Michigan's Dusty May each did it. Only BYU's Kevin Young inherited some returning talent. 7. The mascot fight to the death Final Four: Auburn, Florida, Alabama, Houston The East region final is the de facto title game. I wasted far too much time trying to figure out how an Elephant would fare fighting a Blue Devil. 8. Final Four guaranteed to capture the NBA audience: Michigan State, Maryland, Duke, Houston There is at least one potential lottery pick on three of these four teams: Michigan State's Jase Richardson, Maryland's Derik Queen and the Duke trio of Cooper Flagg, Kon Knueppel and Khaman Maluach. Houston has several potential draft picks, including point guard Milos Uzan. 9. Final Four guaranteed to have NBA fans changing the channel: Ole Miss, Texas Tech, BYU, Purdue Even this quartet has potential NBA talent. BYU point guard Egor Demin is a projected top-20 pick who could rise higher if a team believes in his wayward jump shot. It would be a surprise if Purdue's Braden Smith didn't at least get a look. Same with the Texas Tech duo of Darrion Williams and J.P. Toppin. 10. When's spring practice Final Four: Michigan, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee The competition in the South region is fierce! Michigan's tradition won out over Auburn and Ole Miss, but the Rebels might have the strongest football team next season. 11. Best beer cities Final Four: Michigan, Florida, Arizona, Tennessee Must-visit Ann Arbor brewery: HomesMust-visit Gainesville brewery: First MagnitudeMust-visit Tucson brewery: Pueblo VidaMust-visit Knoxville brewery: Xul 12. The All-SEC Final Four: Auburn, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee One week after the SEC received a record 14 NCAA tournament bids on Selection Sunday, the league toppled another longstanding mark. The SEC sent seven teams to the Sweet 16, one more than the previous record set by the ACC in 2016. This Final Four would be a repeat of the SEC tournament semifinals earlier this month. It features four of the top six teams in the country for most of the season. 13. All gas, no breaks Final Four: Michigan, Maryland, Alabama, Kentucky Alabama games should come with a whiplash warning. The Tide look to run at any opportunity. They've eclipsed 100 points eight times this season. They also gave up 110 in a road loss at Missouri last month. 14. No fast breaks Final Four: Auburn, Texas Tech, Houston, BYU A 10-point deficit can feel like 20 against Houston. The Cougars have been near the bottom in college basketball all season in average possession length. (BYU doesn't belong in this Final Four, but the Cougars are somehow the slowest-paced of the East region's remaining teams) 15. Defense wins championships Final Four: Michigan State, Maryland, Duke, Houston Five of the nation's top six defensive teams are still alive in the NCAA tournament. Only St. John's failed to reach the round of 16. 16. My Final Four: Michigan State, Florida, Duke, Houston All four of my original Final Four teams survived the opening weekend, no great feat in a chalk-heavy year in which St. John's was the only top-two seed to go home early. Florida and Houston both endured close calls in the round of 32, but I don't think I would change any of my picks if given the opportunity.
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Sport
- Yahoo
March Madness predictions: Cinderellas, upsets, Final Four picks and more for the NCAA men's and women's tournaments
After months of waiting, March Madness is finally here. The First Four is already providing plenty of drama for college basketball fans, but that's merely an appetizer to the main course that starts on Thursday and picks up on Friday when both the men's and women's tournaments will be in full swing. So what can we expect over the next three weeks? Our experts weigh in with their predictions for which No. 1 seeds are the most vulnerable, which teams are the best Cinderella picks, Final Four teams, national championship winners and more. [Yahoo Fantasy Bracket Mayhem is back: Enter for a shot to win up to $50K] Be unusually cautious about projecting too many non-No. 1 seeds to make this year's Final Four This could be a year when the Goliaths flex their muscles, the giants stomp the giant slayers. The 2025 NCAA tournament might have the strongest quartet of No. 1 seeds in recent history. By the numbers, Duke, Florida, Auburn and Houston each have adjusted efficiency margins of 35 or more, according to college basketball statistician Ken Pomeroy. That's the number of points they would be expected to outscore the average Division I opponent by over 100 possessions. In no other year has more than one team finished the season above 35. This year, only the four No. 1 seeds and Tennessee are above 30. Anecdotal evidence corroborates what the numbers are suggesting. A Duke team with three projected lottery picks and an array of capable veterans has obliterated everything in its path for weeks. Houston won the always rugged Big 12 by four games and then backed that up by claiming the conference tournament crown. Auburn was on its way to a historic regular season before backsliding a bit the past two weeks. Florida stormed to the SEC tournament title last weekend and appears to be peaking in March. The only other time that all four men's No. 1 seeds advanced to the national semifinals, the Final Four was in San Antonio just like it is this year. Could this be a repeat of 2008? Perhaps, but don't count on it. It's called March Madness for a reason. Upsets happen. But expect a No. 1 seed to be crowned national champion for the 26th time since 1985. This isn't the year for a dark horse to come out of nowhere and cut down the nets. -Jeff Eisenberg [Yahoo Fantasy Bracket Mayhem is back: Enter for a shot to win up to $50K] It's shaping up to be a March unlike any other over the past decade. The field of legitimate contenders is deep and the crop of No. 2 seeds could become the rare non-No. 1 seed to win it all. No team in the field has fewer than two losses, and many of the top seeds have already played each other with results that resemble an evidence map. South Carolina beat TCU, which beat Notre Dame, which beat Connecticut, which bested South Carolina by an astonishing 29 points. Duke lost to South Carolina, which lost to UCLA, which lost to USC, which lost to Notre Dame, which petered out to Duke in an uninspiring ACC tournament semifinal. No wonder there have been four teams ranked No. 1 in the AP Top 25 this season. It changed three times in the past month alone. Expecting Madness in the women's bracket is becoming a norm. Far less murky is who will be the tournament's superstars without Iowa's Caitlin Clark, because UConn senior Paige Bueckers and USC sophomore JuJu Watkins are ready for their closeups. Bueckers, who has never missed a Final Four, is poised to re-emerge on fans' radars ahead of the WNBA Draft, where she's the projected No. 1 pick next month. She has one final shot at a national title that would level her up with UConn greats in what would be the storybook ending. Watkins, a walking bucket who could drop 50 points this first weekend, is the face of the game for at least two more years. Her ability to hit buckets with ease and take over games will bring fans into a trance that will keep the women's game on its steep upward climb. -Cassandra Negley
Washington Post
17-03-2025
- Sport
- Washington Post
10 steps to winning your March Madness pool
Filling out a March Madness bracket can be intimidating. Everywhere you look this week, fans and pundits are pontificating on which teams will advance pas the opening weekend, which will make the Final Four and which have no chance. Some of it will be good advice, but most of it is noise, distracting you from the real wisdom needed to fill out a bracket that has a fighting chance. That's why I created this guide to help you maximize your pool entry. To build an easy strategy, we're going to incorporate historical trends, make some educated guesses based on analytics and lean on betting markets to point us in the right direction. Some of these tips may be new to you, but rest assured this is the correct path to take. Most people sit down with a bracket, start choosing the round-of-64 winners and go round by round until they have a national champion. A more lucrative approach is to first choose your teams advancing to either the Elite Eight or Final Four and then work backward before selecting your national champion. Why? Because according to a March 2020 study in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports ('Models for generating NCAA men's basketball tournament bracket pools'), bracket generators that start by selecting the teams that reach the Elite Eight or Final Four tend to outperform generators that start with the round of 64 or the national title game. This approach also reduces the number of decisions you need to make in the earlier rounds, saving you time for more productive things like telling a friend or two to subscribe to The Washington Post. Most people sit down with a bracket, start choosing the round-of-64 winners and go round by round until they have a national champion. A more lucrative approach is to first choose your teams advancing to either the Elite Eight or Final Four and then work backward before selecting your national champion. Why? Because according to a March 2020 study in the Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports ('Models for generating NCAA men's basketball tournament bracket pools'), bracket generators that start by selecting the teams that reach the Elite Eight or Final Four tend to outperform generators that start with the round of 64 or the national title game. This approach also reduces the number of decisions you need to make in the earlier rounds, saving you time for more productive things like telling a friend or two to subscribe to The Washington Post. While higher seeds are generally more talented, the public tends to advance those higher seeds — teams on the No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 lines — to the Elite Eight at too high of a rate compared to how often those squads actually advance that far. As a result, most people are too shy about advancing the lower seeds, scared about taking risks that won't pay off. Don't make that mistake. Specifically, look for highly rated teams in analyst Ken Pomeroy's rankings that have been under-seeded in the tournament. You could also target lower-seeded teams that have a high consensus rating relative to the field, using analyst Ken Massey's aggregation of dozens of rating methods. One team that jumps out this season is Gonzaga, the No. 8 seed in the Midwest Region. The Bulldogs rank ninth in Pomeroy's ratings, similar to the rankings for most of the No. 2 and No. 3 seeds, and have the ninth-most efficient offense in the country. They start with No. 9 Georgia and would likely need to beat No. 1 seed Houston in the second round, but if that happens, you'll gain ground on almost everyone in your pools. Other lower seeds that fare well in Pomeroy's rankings include No. 7 seeds Kansas and St. Mary's and No. 8 seed Louisville. While higher seeds are generally more talented, the public tends to advance those higher seeds — teams on the No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 lines — to the Elite Eight at too high of a rate compared to how often those squads actually advance that far. As a result, most people are too shy about advancing the lower seeds, scared about taking risks that won't pay off. Don't make that mistake. Specifically, look for highly rated teams in analyst Ken Pomeroy's rankings that have been under-seeded in the tournament. You could also target lower-seeded teams that have a high consensus rating relative to the field, using analyst Ken Massey's aggregation of dozens of rating methods. One team that jumps out this season is Gonzaga, the No. 8 seed in the Midwest Region. The Bulldogs rank ninth in Pomeroy's ratings, similar to the rankings for most of the No. 2 and No. 3 seeds, and have the ninth-most efficient offense in the country. They start with No. 9 Georgia and would likely need to beat No. 1 seed Houston in the second round, but if that happens, you'll gain ground on almost everyone in your pools. Other lower seeds that fare well in Pomeroy's rankings include No. 7 seeds Kansas and St. Mary's and No. 8 seed Louisville. We will define an upset as one in which the winning team is at least three seeds worse than its opponent. Since 2011, when the men's field expanded to 68 teams, there have been, on average, 14 of these upsets per tournament with half occurring in the first round. So how do you decide which teams are capable of busting brackets? If you are comfortable with sports betting, check out the point spreads for each individual game and find lower-seeded teams that are either small underdogs or favored outright. Some of those this season include West Region No. 12 seed Colorado State, which is favored against No. 5 Memphis, and South Region No. 12 seed UC San Diego, a narrow underdog against No. 5 Michigan. You could also check out the consensus rankings and make decisions accordingly. Higher-rated team have historically won approximately 67 percent of the time, giving you a good benchmark for how many upsets to target. We will define an upset as one in which the winning team is at least three seeds worse than its opponent. Since 2011, when the men's field expanded to 68 teams, there have been, on average, 14 of these upsets per tournament with half occurring in the first round. So how do you decide which teams are capable of busting brackets? If you are comfortable with sports betting, check out the point spreads for each individual game and find lower-seeded teams that are either small underdogs or favored outright. Some of those this season include West Region No. 12 seed Colorado State, which is favored against No. 5 Memphis, and South Region No. 12 seed UC San Diego, a narrow underdog against No. 5 Michigan. You could also check out the consensus rankings and make decisions accordingly. Higher-rated team have historically won approximately 67 percent of the time, giving you a good benchmark for how many upsets to target. Years ago, analyst Peter Tiernan created a classification for NCAA basketball coaches based on how many tournaments they qualified for and the number of Elite Eights they advanced to. At the time, rookie coaches and those Tiernan called snakebit — more than five tournament trips with no Elite Eight runs — were among the worst performing coaches relative to their teams' seeding. However, the worst performing coaches are now flashes-in-the-pan, those with more than five trips to the Big Dance but only one Elite Eight run. Coaches in this underperforming group include Brad Brownell (Clemson), Brad Underwood (Illinois), Buzz Williams (Texas A&M), Greg McDermott (Creighton), Mick Cronin (UCLA), Nate Oats (Alabama) and Shaka Smart (Marquette). All of those teams but Creighton is at least a No. 7 seed this year. The coaches who should outperform their seed's average performance, based on Tiernan's classifications and historical data, include Connecticut's Dan Hurley (a coach in the Destined category) and a number of coaches classified as prodigies, such as Brian Dutcher (San Diego State), Chris Beard (Mississippi), Dusty May (Michigan), Jon Scheyer (Duke), Mike White (Georgia) and Porter Moser (Oklahoma). Years ago, analyst Peter Tiernan created a classification for NCAA basketball coaches based on how many tournaments they qualified for and the number of Elite Eights they advanced to. At the time, rookie coaches and those Tiernan called snakebit — more than five tournament trips with no Elite Eight runs — were among the worst performing coaches relative to their teams' seeding. However, the worst performing coaches are now flashes-in-the-pan, those with more than five trips to the Big Dance but only one Elite Eight run. Coaches in this underperforming group include Brad Brownell (Clemson), Brad Underwood (Illinois), Buzz Williams (Texas A&M), Greg McDermott (Creighton), Mick Cronin (UCLA), Nate Oats (Alabama) and Shaka Smart (Marquette). All of those teams but Creighton is at least a No. 7 seed this year. The coaches who should outperform their seed's average performance, based on Tiernan's classifications and historical data, include Connecticut's Dan Hurley (a coach in the Destined category) and a number of coaches classified as prodigies, such as Brian Dutcher (San Diego State), Chris Beard (Mississippi), Dusty May (Michigan), Jon Scheyer (Duke), Mike White (Georgia) and Porter Moser (Oklahoma). The SEC was the best performing conference of the season, with its teams rated 19 points better than their opponents as a conference, per Sports Reference's Simple Rating System. Pomeroy's rating system agrees, estimating an average team from the conference scores 22 net points more per 100 possessions than an average team in Division I. That is again tops among conferences, and the SEC was rewarded with 14 tournament berths, the most ever for a single conference. We've seen this kind of conference domination before. In 1997, for example, the ACC was the best conference in the country. However, conference tournament champion North Carolina lost in the Final Four, regular season champion Duke was upset in the second round and four other ACC teams — Wake Forest, Clemson, Maryland and Virginia — failed to make it past the Sweet Sixteen. Last year, it was the Big 12 dominating the conference landscape, but just two of its eight tournament teams, Houston and Iowa State, reached the Sweet Sixteen. In fact, according to Pomeroy's research, 'among power conferences, the better the league, the more likely their rating will drop during the tournament.' That means you should fade some of the SEC teams in this year's tournament, possibly including East Region No. 2 seed Alabama, Midwest No. 3 Kentucky, South No. 4 Texas A&M, and No. 6 Mississippi, West No. 6 Missouri and East No. 8 Mississippi State. The SEC was the best performing conference of the season, with its teams rated 19 points better than their opponents as a conference, per Sports Reference's Simple Rating System. Pomeroy's rating system agrees, estimating an average team from the conference scores 22 net points more per 100 possessions than an average team in Division I. That is again tops among conferences, and the SEC was rewarded with 14 tournament berths, the most ever for a single conference. We've seen this kind of conference domination before. In 1997, for example, the ACC was the best conference in the country. However, conference tournament champion North Carolina lost in the Final Four, regular season champion Duke was upset in the second round and four other ACC teams — Wake Forest, Clemson, Maryland and Virginia — failed to make it past the Sweet Sixteen. Last year, it was the Big 12 dominating the conference landscape, but just two of its eight tournament teams, Houston and Iowa State, reached the Sweet Sixteen. In fact, according to Pomeroy's research, 'among power conferences, the better the league, the more likely their rating will drop during the tournament.' That means you should fade some of the SEC teams in this year's tournament, possibly including East Region No. 2 seed Alabama, Midwest No. 3 Kentucky, South No. 4 Texas A&M, and No. 6 Mississippi, West No. 6 Missouri and East No. 8 Mississippi State. Four at-large teams will begin the tournament with 'First Four' games on Tuesday and Wednesday. The winners won't all succeed, but from 2011 to 2024, only once (in 2019) has an at-large First Four team failed to win a game in the round of 64. According to various ratings, the best First Four team this year is No. 11 North Carolina, which faces San Diego State on Tuesday, with the winner facing No. 6 seed Mississippi. The Tar Heels lost to No. 1 Duke in the semifinals of the ACC tournament after a heartbreaking lane violation, but finished 36th in the NET rankings — based on game results, efficiency metrics, strength of schedule and quality wins — and 33rd in Pomeroy's rankings, which adjust offensive and defensive efficiency for strength of schedule. Teams within a few spots of North Carolina's Pomeroy's rating include No. 5 seed Oregon, No. 8 seed Mississippi State and No. 9 seed Georgia. Four at-large teams will begin the tournament with 'First Four' games on Tuesday and Wednesday. The winners won't all succeed, but from 2011 to 2024, only once (in 2019) has an at-large First Four team failed to win a game in the round of 64. According to various ratings, the best First Four team this year is No. 11 North Carolina, which faces San Diego State on Tuesday, with the winner facing No. 6 seed Mississippi. The Tar Heels lost to No. 1 Duke in the semifinals of the ACC tournament after a heartbreaking lane violation, but finished 36th in the NET rankings — based on game results, efficiency metrics, strength of schedule and quality wins — and 33rd in Pomeroy's rankings, which adjust offensive and defensive efficiency for strength of schedule. Teams within a few spots of North Carolina's Pomeroy's rating include No. 5 seed Oregon, No. 8 seed Mississippi State and No. 9 seed Georgia. From 1999 to 2010, eight out of 12 national champions previously won their conference tournaments. In the 13 tournaments since, just five conference champions won the national championship. However, every national championship-winning team since 1985 — with the exception of UCLA in 1995 and Arizona in 1997, neither of which had a conference tournament — has lasted at least to the semifinal round of its conference tournament. So plan on avoiding teams that made an early exit, at least for your national title pick. This year, such teams include No. 3 seed Iowa State, No. 3 Kentucky, No. 4 Purdue, and No. 4 Texas A&M. From 1999 to 2010, eight out of 12 national champions previously won their conference tournaments. In the 13 tournaments since, just five conference champions won the national championship. However, every national championship-winning team since 1985 — with the exception of UCLA in 1995 and Arizona in 1997, neither of which had a conference tournament — has lasted at least to the semifinal round of its conference tournament. So plan on avoiding teams that made an early exit, at least for your national title pick. This year, such teams include No. 3 seed Iowa State, No. 3 Kentucky, No. 4 Purdue, and No. 4 Texas A&M. There were thousands of games this season, producing countless statistics fans will use to decide which teams to favor. Most of them are irrelevant. Focus on the essentials of shooting, rebounding, creating turnovers and getting to the free throw line, also known as the four factors for offense and defense. For upset candidates, generating turnovers might be the most important statistic. Turnovers provide less talented teams with the extra possessions that are crucial to pulling off a March upset. Some of the best ball-hawking teams that are lower-seeded teams in this tournament include No. 12 seed UC San Diego, No. 11 Drake and No. 12 McNeese State. There were thousands of games this season, producing countless statistics fans will use to decide which teams to favor. Most of them are irrelevant. Focus on the essentials of shooting, rebounding, creating turnovers and getting to the free throw line, also known as the four factors for offense and defense. For upset candidates, generating turnovers might be the most important statistic. Turnovers provide less talented teams with the extra possessions that are crucial to pulling off a March upset. Some of the best ball-hawking teams that are lower-seeded teams in this tournament include No. 12 seed UC San Diego, No. 11 Drake and No. 12 McNeese State. The tiebreaker most often used in bracket contests — total points scored in the championship game — is often treated as an afterthought. It doesn't have to be. Since 1985, when the men's tournament expanded to 64 teams, the national title game has averaged 145 total points when decided in regulation. The four overtime games in that span averaged 157 total points. The most total points scored in regulation was in 1990, when UNLV beat Duke, 103-73 (176). The fewest total points came in 2011, when Connecticut beat Butler, 53-41 (94). How many points you choose should be influenced by which teams you have in the final. Here's a quick list of some of the most frequent matchups in the Elite Eight and beyond and the average total points scored in those contests since 2011 — but look at the scoring averages of your particular chosen teams. I will have a guide to picking the tiebreaker later this week. The tiebreaker most often used in bracket contests — total points scored in the championship game — is often treated as an afterthought. It doesn't have to be. Since 1985, when the men's tournament expanded to 64 teams, the national title game has averaged 145 total points when decided in regulation. The four overtime games in that span averaged 157 total points. The most total points scored in regulation was in 1990, when UNLV beat Duke, 103-73 (176). The fewest total points came in 2011, when Connecticut beat Butler, 53-41 (94). How many points you choose should be influenced by which teams you have in the final. Here's a quick list of some of the most frequent matchups in the Elite Eight and beyond and the average total points scored in those contests since 2011 — but look at the scoring averages of your particular chosen teams. I will have a guide to picking the tiebreaker later this week. Success leaves clues, and we have a lot of data on how an eventual championship team usually performs leading up to the tournament. My colleague Matt Bonesteel outlines some of those clues in his annual best bets column — which included eventual national champion Connecticut as one of the seven most likely winners last year — and there are some other guidelines you can follow. Since the field expanded to 68 teams in 2011, for example, every national champion except two — No. 7 seed Connecticut in 2014 and Connecticut again as a No. 4 seed in 2024 — was a No. 1, 2 or 3 seed. Since 1985, when the field expanded to 64 teams, all but five of the 38 winners were a No. 1, 2 or 3 seed and 25 of the 39 (64 percent) were No. 1 seeds. And all but four of the past 20 winners have had their individual Simple Rating System, a schedule-adjusted margin of victory rating that is expressed in points per game, rank in the top four nationally. The top four teams in SRS this year are also the No. 1 seeds in the tournament, Duke, Auburn, Houston and Florida. Success leaves clues, and we have a lot of data on how an eventual championship team usually performs leading up to the tournament. My colleague Matt Bonesteel outlines some of those clues in his annual best bets column — which included eventual national champion Connecticut as one of the seven most likely winners last year — and there are some other guidelines you can follow. Since the field expanded to 68 teams in 2011, for example, every national champion except two — No. 7 seed Connecticut in 2014 and Connecticut again as a No. 4 seed in 2024 — was a No. 1, 2 or 3 seed. Since 1985, when the field expanded to 64 teams, all but five of the 38 winners were a No. 1, 2 or 3 seed and 25 of the 39 (64 percent) were No. 1 seeds. And all but four of the past 20 winners have had their individual Simple Rating System, a schedule-adjusted margin of victory rating that is expressed in points per game, rank in the top four nationally. The top four teams in SRS this year are also the No. 1 seeds in the tournament, Duke, Auburn, Houston and Florida.
