 |
 |
|
|
Updated: March 14, 2025
As I mentioned in Tournament Trends Analysis Part I, seeding is by far the most important
factor in a team's tournament success, but I wanted to find out which other factors determine who advances and who doesn't
in the NCAA Tournament. In Part I, I analyzed seeding, a team's record in the last 10-12 games, record against the RPI Top 50,
road/neutral record and experience.
In this analysis, I tested theories on tournament success based on each team's statistics, including field goal percentage, rebounding and turnovers using team statistical data from the years 1999 to 2024. As you can see in March Madness Trends Part I, certain seed matchups heavily favor the higher-seeded team. To test my theories on the team statistics side, I limited my dataset to seed matchups where the higher seed has won between 45% and 55% of the games (a relatively even matchup). This left me with 648 games to analyze. This includes:
Disclaimer
Let me start by saying that none of this is meant to encourage gambling. I have provided this information for the amusement of college basketball fans and stat junkies like myself. If this helps you fill out your brackets that's great, but I would never advise anyone to gamble with money that they cannot afford to lose. The beauty of the NCAA March Madness pool is that it is very low risk with a possible high reward and the tournament is much more interesting when you have someone to root for. The following information is based on trends in the tournament since 1999. There is no guarantee that these trends will continue this season. More importantly, even if these trends do hold true, they give you only a slight edge. Most of what happens in the tourney is pure chance and it takes a lot of luck to do well in your NCAA pool. Use this information at your own risk.
Theory 1 - The better shooting team will win the majority of the time
My first theory was that good shooting teams (teams with high field goal percentages during the season) would have much more success in the tournament. The way that I see it, defensive intensity increases at tournament time so shots will be that much tougher to make. A good shooter (or in this case good shooting team) is much better equipped to overcome tight defensive pressure than a poor shooting team. Because it didn't make sense to compare situations where one team's shooting efficiency was only fractionally better than their opponent, I limited the analysis to situations where one team had an average field goal percentage at least two percentage points better than their tournament opponent. I found 312 such matchups between 1999 and 2024. My theory proved accurate as the team with the higher field goal percentage was 167-145 (53.5%). When I limited the analysis to matchups between teams with field goal percentages three or more percentage points apart, the better shooting team was 96-89 (51.9%). So teams that shoot better from the floor win more often, but not much more often.
Theory 2 - The team with the better field goal percentage defense will win the majority of the games
Again I started with the 2% rule. That is, I only analyzed games in which one team's average field goal percentage defense (in other words, their opponent's field goal percentage) was at least two percentage points better than the other team's field goal percentage defense. Unfortunately, this theory did not prove to be very strong. In 310 games, the team with the lower opposition field goal percentage was 156-154 (50.3%). When I increased this to a 3% gap, the team with better defense coming into the NCAA Tournament was only 90-95. These were very surprising results.
Theory 3 - Teams that consistently make their free throws will win more often than not
Anyone who has watched college basketball over the years has seen many games lost because one team was not able to make their free throws. The question is: does data from the NCAA Tournament support this? I felt like this would be one of the critical measures for judging who will win games between evenly matched teams. I rarely pick a poor free throw shooting team to beat a similarly-seeded team that shoots a solid percentage from the charity stripe. Obviously, the close games are much more likely to be decided at the free throw line. This time, I limited my data set to matchups between teams with free throw percentages at least 4 percentage points apart. I came up with 269 occurrences and the team with the better free throw percentage was 137-132 (50.9%). These results were disappointing.
Theory 4 - The team with the better turnover margin will win the majority of games
Turnover margin is defined as the difference between a team's average number of opponent turnovers forced and the average number of turnovers committed. A positive number indicates that a team takes better care of the ball than their opponent which is critical during tournament time, especially given that single-elimination stress and tighter defense will result in an increased number of turnovers. I started by simply looking at all games where one team's average turnover margin was better than their opponent's average, regardless of whether both were positive or negative. I found that the team with the better turnover margin (minimum difference in turnover margin of 2.0 turnovers per game) was 179-157 (53.3%). The data suggests that turnover margin has a minimal impact.
Theory 5 - The team with more experience will win more often
There would be many ways to attack this question with more data. You could look at total number of tournament games played for each team's starting five or examine conference tournament experience. I don't have this data readily available so I decided to simply look at games matching teams who played in the tournament in the prior year vs those who didn't. The results were interesting. In the 212 Round of 64 games where teams with NCAA Tournament experience in the prior year played teams without experience, the experienced team was 133-79 (62.7%). In the Round of 32, experienced teams were 23-15 (60.5%). In the Sweet Sixteen and beyond, experienced teams were 19-15 (55.9%). So being there before seemed to make a difference.
Theory 6 - Teams playing the best heading into the tournament will perform better in the tournament
My NCAA basketball databases contain a field for each team's record in the last 10 or 12 games prior to the NCAA Tournament, including conference tournament games. I think the team data you'll find online switched from last 10 games to last 12 games because the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee started using last 12 as a selection criteria instead of last 10. It doesn't really matter because I'm capturing winning percentage "down the stretch." This particular data point is a bit dubious because of the variance in conference strength. A West Coast Conference team going 11-1 down stretch might be less impressive than an SEC team going 9-3 in those games. But I thought the data was worth a look. As it turns out, the results didn't impress me. Teams with two or more wins than their opponent down the stretch were 130-125 (51%).
Theory 7 - Teams with a better record against the Top 50 teams will perform better in the tournament
This is pretty self-explanatory. The NCAA Tournament is largely comprised of the top 50 teams (based on RPI) in the country plus 18 or so automatic bid teams that wouldn't be in tournament without the conference title. So theory goes: if you have played well against the Top 50 during the season you will be battle-tested and stand a better chance of beating similar teams in the NCAA Tournament. The opposite should also be true. A team that struggled against Top 50 teams would be expected to struggle against the top competition they will face in March Madness. I limited my search to teams with a winning percentage 20 percentage points or better than their opponent. The results favored the team playing better to the tune of 114-102 (52.8%). Once again, the theory is proven correct but the advantage is minimal.
Theory 8 - Teams with a better road/neutral court record will perform better in the tournament
Obviously, no NCAA Tournament games are played on home courts. Everyone is playing away from the comforts of their home court. This is why the Tournament Selection Committee looks at road/neutral court record when choosing the at-large teams. If you are on the NCAA Tournament bubble and have struggled away from home you probably won't be invited to March Madness. Road/Neutral record might also be a predictor of success in the tournament. The limitation here is that the data I have collected combined road and neutral court records and playing on a neutral court is typically not as difficult as a road game. But I would say that a team that has played well on the road is better suited for March success. I limited my analysis to road/neutral winning percentage gaps of 15 percentage points or more. Once again, the results were disappointing. The better road/neutral team was 123-121 (50.4%).
| Statistic | Record | Win Pct |
| 1 - Team with Higher FG% (minimum 2% better) | 167-145 | 53.5% |
| 1 - Team with Higher FG% (minimum 3% better) | 96-89 | 51.9% |
| 2 - Team with Lower Opponent FG% (minimum 2% better) | 156-154 | 50.3% |
| 2 - Team with Lower Opponent FG% (minimum 3% better) | 90-95 | 48.6% |
| 3 - Team with Higher FT% (minimum 4% better) | 137-132 | 50.9% |
| 4 - Team with Better Turnover Margin (minimum difference of 2 per game) | 179-157 | 53.3% |
| 5 - Team with Previous Year Experience Advantage | 175-109 | 61.6% |
| 6 - Team with Better Record in Last 10-12 Games (minimum 2 win gap) | 130-125 | 51.0% |
| 7 - Team with Better Record Against the RPI Top 50 (minimum 20% gap) | 114-102 | 52.8% |
| 8 - Team with Better Road/Neutral Court Record (minimum 15% gap) | 123-121 | 50.4% |
Conclusions
The good news: in most cases I was right that the team with the better statistics won more games than their opponent. The bad news: the results were underwhelming, with only a slight advantage for the team with the better numbers. With the exception of previous year experience advantage (61.6%), the team with the statistical advantage won less than 54% of the time. I think this shows (a) how competitve the NCAA Tournament has become and (b) the randomness of how college teams can play from game to game. There are a lot of close games that will be decided literally by a single trip down the floor. If the star player normally makes 3 of 8 three point shots and hits 2 of 8, they team will probably lose, but if he hits 4 of 8, the team will probably win. Over a seven game series, the results would be more predictable but in a one-and-done, anything can happen. That's why we love it.
One way to gain an advantage in an NCAA pool is to identify a dominant team like UConn in 2024. But a run like the one UConn had is rare. Most Final Four teams face at least one major scare on their way to winning their region. Surely, there are many teams that were knocked out in the Round of 64 or 32 that would've won the title if they had survived that first weekend. It's called March Madness for a reason. I wish this page would've come up with more dramatic results but I have to call 'em like I see 'em. Ultimately, the "eye test" along with knowing your seeds (I think Part I is very useful) and some good luck is the best path to a successful bracket. I know that I did much better in my pool when I watched a ton of college basketball during the season. I think you get a good feel for a team when you've seen them play two or three times.
Other Analysis
Please take a look at my March Madness Analysis Part I page. There you will find analysis largely based on Seed Matchups.
