2023 NCAA Men's Tournament Cheat Sheet
Need a little last-minute help with your bracket? Look no further
It’s Thursday Morning, just hours before the madness begins. But inside your head the madness has already begun; you keep going back and forth on whether or not that 14 seed will pull the huge first round upset or wonder who this year’s Cinderella will be. You’ve heard and seen many other people’s opinions and “analysis” on who’s going to the Final Four and all it’s done is confuse you further. Someone says Alabama is going to win it all and then someone else says they will bow out early. “They can’t both be right,” you tell yourself as the dread and indecision grows. Eventually, you rip up your bracket (or delete it on an app) and give in to the inevitability that your bracket wasn’t going to be good anyways, so you go mostly chalk and try to enjoy the chaos.
I think this is a feeling most of us are familiar with. There are so many back and forth contradictions from the talking heads on TV, it can feel overwhelming trying to fill out a “good” bracket, but I’m here to tell you it is possible. Yes, I realize this seems a bit hypocritical adding another opinion and my “expertise” to the matter, but think of this as more of a compendium of useful tidbits and bracket facts in one central location to help guide you towards winning your office pool or whatever your goal may be. I have curated numerous stats from all over the Internet and beyond to save you the effort. It won’t lead to a perfect bracket, but you will feel more confident and comfortable with your bracket choices (at least until another 16 seed shocks the #1 seed you had winning it all. What can I say? March Madness comes for us all whether we’re ready to be crushed or not)
Identifying a Champion
Look, I get it. Picking the crazy 13 seed to beat the darling 4 seed everyone else has in the Final Four is fun (fondly remembering you 2018 Buffalo). But at the end of the day, you get way more points for identifying Final Four teams and the proper champion. So what makes a champion a champion? For starters, they are usually elite (i.e. top 5 in the country) in some stat category (credit to u/DubsLA on Reddit). That may sound obvious, but it can still be useful to eliminate some popular choices. For this year we have (stats courtesy of Bart Torvik):
Gonzaga (2nd in the country in Effective FG% and the 2nd most efficient team on 2 point shots)
Arizona (3rd in Effective FG%)
Alabama (#1 in both Effective FG% Defense and defending shots inside the arc. Also ranks third best in 3-point field goal defense - though this stat deals with a fair amount of luck)
Houston (3rd best in Effective FG% Defense, 4th best in 2PT FG% Defense, 2nd best in 3PT FG% Defense. And if that wasn’t enough for you, they also grab 37.1% of their missed shots, good for the 4th best Offensive Rebound rate in the nation)
Tennessee (#2 in Effective FG% Defense, #1 in 3PT FG% Defense and #5 in Offensive Rebound rate. Basically a slightly worse version of Houston, but note Tennessee is also dealing with key injuries now)
Connecticut (the very best team in the land at grabbing offensive rebounds with an astounding 39.2% rate)
Purdue (#3 in Offensive Rebound rate, while also being the best team at not sending opponents to the foul line)
St. Mary’s (#2 in Defensive Rebound rate)
Marquette (3rd most efficient offense on 2-point shots)
Xavier (3rd best 3-point shooting team in the country. Note that elite teams reliant on 3-point shooting are more prone to upsets, a point I’ll elaborate on later)
There are a few more examples like Oral Roberts (best team at not turning the ball over) or Colgate (3rd best at not fouling teams and best 3-point shooting team in the nation), but these are aren’t national championship contenders; though you might want to keep your eyes on them for an upset or two
From this list of contenders, we can eliminate some more teams. u/locknload03 identifies 10 key stats that line up with past champions. A key one I will highlight is the KenPom adjusted defense rankings. Those outside the top 60 tend to not make the Final Four, which eliminates Gonzaga (76th) and Xavier (70th). You can’t win a championship if you can’t make the Final Four.
Bracket Research also points a fascinating curse known as the Quarterfinal Rule. It says if a team doesn’t advance to the semifinals of their conference tournament, they will not win a national championship - a rule that has NEVER been broken. With this we can also eliminate Tennessee, as well as a couple other popular teams, such as Kentucky, Baylor, Kansas State, Maryland, Michigan State and Northwestern.
Given all this, I’d be pretty confident that one of Houston, Arizona, Alabama, Connecticut, Purdue, St. Mary’s and Marquette will win the national title (with less confidence in Marquette and St. Mary’s). Sure that’s not going out on much of a limb, but it funnels you down to a few key choices for you to pick based on your favorite criteria (mascot, famous alum, one of the other tidbits I will reveal down below, etc.). I’m not suggesting you pick your champion first and work backwards, shoehorning your champion to win just because “they are supposed to win it all” - after all, the NCAA Tournament is highly matchup-dependent. But this sets you up in the best position to gather the most possible points in your pool.
The Making of an Upset
You may be saying “ok, that’s cool and all but where’s all the magic formulas for finding that #1 seed that goes home early or the 14 seed that shocks the world?” Well don’t worry, we’ve got that too. Picking the right upset (and the right amount of them) can help separate you from the pack in a pool of brackets because you may be getting points while also preventing your adversaries from getting points in future rounds too (plus it’s just plain fun to gloat when you’re the only one to pick Mercer over Duke).
There are plenty of great resources out there that have analyzed the historical data underlying nearly 40 years worth of NCAA Tournament upsets - The Athletic’s Bracket Breakers model, ESPN’s Giant Killers model and the previously mentioned u/DubsLA on Reddit. You can read their posts in-depth (and you should!) for more specifics on the methodologies and data points, but I’ll point out some of the notable ones I’ve used in past tournaments to success that apply this year.
Let’s start with the traditional 12 vs. 5 upset. If a 5 seed has an adjusted offensive or defensive efficiency outside the top 60, they are just 5-15. All other 5 seeds are 28-8! Combine that with 12 seeds inside the top 60 overall on your favorite advanced stats website and you have a strong recipe for an upset. This year, Miami ranks a whopping 141st in adjusted defensive efficiency, making them ripe for an early exit. Depending on if you prefer KenPom or Bart Torvik, San Diego State may also apply to this. The two main analytics sites have a wide variation on the 12 seeds, with the former listing Oral Roberts and VCU in the top 60 overall, while the latter only lists Drake in the top 60. It’s not a clean picture due to this discrepancy, but I tend to like Drake over Miami (something I will highlight in some other tidbits as well).
The 11 seed vs. 6 seed matchup has become the new 12 vs. 5 in recent years (11 seeds have a winning record over the last 5 tournaments!). These games tend to break down into three categories: True Upsets, Non-upsets and Neither. True Upsets are labeled as matchups where the 11 seed is separated from the 6 seed by more than 25 spots in overall adjusted efficency. There’s usually one of these per year for some reason (it is named March Madness after all). Non-upsets are those where the 11 seed is either better than the 6 seed or within 5 spots of adjusted efficiency (no surprise those #11 seeds are 12-5). This year, the committee didn’t gave us a single Non-upset, so no easy picks this year. Take one or two of the #11 seeds however since the matchups do fall under True Upset or Neither, depending on your analytics site of choice.
For something a little spicier, let’s look at the 13 vs. 4 matchup. Look for #4 seeds who have an adjusted defense or offense outside the top 40 and then combine that with #13 seeds with an AdjD/O ranking INSIDE the top 50 (especially if they run opposite one another - i.e. a 4 seed bad at defense against a 13 seed good on offense). #4 seeds in this setup are 5-6 in this matchup, whereas all other #4 seeds are 38-7. This is exactly where that aforementioned 2018 Buffalo upset over Arizona came from. This year looks like lots of potential for chaos on the #4 line. Virginia ranks 59th on offense, while Furman ranks 39th on offense. Indiana ranks 46th on defense, while Kent State ranks 36th on defense. Finally, Tennessee ranks 44th on offense, while Louisiana ranks 48th.
As for some Round of 32 upsets, watch out for 7-10 seeds that rank in the top 20 overall, especially those from major conferences. These underseeded teams are dangerous and feel slighted by the committee. This year, Texas A&M, Arkansas, West Virginia, Memphis all fit the definition depending on your analytics site. Another metric to consider is weeding out top 2 seeds with weaker defenses (worse than 20th), especially against 7-10 seeds that specialize on one side of the ball (ranking 10th or better). With that at our disposal, we highlight Marquette and Arizona (and Purdue if using KenPom) as vulnerable, while Missouri (10th best offense) and Iowa (4th best offense) look like upset contenders. The main caveat here is these 7-10 seeds first have to survive near coin-flip games in the Round of 64, but if you think they will, consider having them advancing to the Sweet 16.
Something I touched on earlier, was how the NCAA Tournament is matchup-dependent. This is where something like The Athletic’s Bracket Breakers model can enlighten us. Without spoiling everything they worked hard to write about and to compute, upsets boil down to a few key stats for Giants and Killers. Killers need to embrace a high-risk, high-reward style to create the kinds of uncertainty needed to take down a giant. This can come from a few different paths - taking (and making) lots of three-pointers, pressing on defense to force lots of turnovers, being strong at rebounding to limit opponents to one shot (and create second chances for yourself), or slowing the tempo to reduce the total number of possessions in a game. While factors like a stingy defense or an efficient offense are universal positives, it’s these riskier styles that can lead to an upset (or a blowout loss).
On the flipside, Giants need to maximize possessions in a game to allow their superior talent the greatest chance of taking over. Giants that protect the basketball, crash the offensive glass to create second chances and play with a fast tempo are the most protected from upsets. All these stats are used to group Giants and Killers into distinct families (like Gambling Giants or Slow Killers), which matchup better against some families and worse against others. But you’ll have to subscribe to The Athletic for the specifics. However, I will add that Virginia and Xavier are some of the weaker Giants, while Furman, Kent State and Charleston are some of the stronger Killers in the tourney (I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention Mississippi State whose very slow tempo, great offensive rebound ability and turnover-forcing defense was bound to give Giants trouble this year, but they couldn’t get past Pittsburgh in the First Four).
Odds and Ends
So you’ve picked a champion and you’ve circled a few upsets you like. Now what? Before I go, I want to provide a few more historical nuggets to help guide you that didn’t particularly fit well in the previous two sections.
First, a word on the average number of upsets in a tournament and sleeper picks. I found the average number of double-digit seeds advancing to the Round of 32 since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985 is 6.3. We haven’t seen fewer than five double-digit seeds win a first round game since 2008 when only two did it. Furthermore, an average of 2.3 double-digit seeds win an additional game and make the Sweet 16. Only the 2008 and 1996 tournaments didn’t have a double-digit seed in the Sweet 16, so find at least one first round upset you like and have them winning another game. As for deeper runs, look for a #5 seed or lower to make the Final Four. That’s been the case in almost every year, and these sleepers tend to operate at a slower tempo for the same reasons I mentioned in the Making of an Upset section above. Some choices to consider are #5 St. Mary’s (356th in tempo), #6 Iowa State (326th), #7 Michigan State (303rd), #8 Maryland (308th), #9 Auburn (158th), #10 Penn State (312th), #11 Providence (187th) and #12 Drake (221st).
Now, for some notes on turnovers and their impact on a team’s ceiling. Only 3 out of 28 single-digit seeds historically have made the Sweet 16 with a negative turnover rate (force less turnovers than you give away yourself). Texas Tech pulled this off last season, but otherwise it’s a rather barren landscape. This year, a lot of teams actually fall prey to this issue, seemingly spelling an early end for the likes of Creighton, Duke, Xavier and Alabama. Teams like Connecticut, Iowa State and Kansas State make up for their sloppiness with the ball by forcing LOTS of turnovers, but even then, this seems to cap their potential to a Sweet 16 or Elite 8 as most Final Four teams rank no lower than about 180th in offensive turnover rate and these three all rank in the 200s.
Next, I checked pre-tournament stats dating back to 2008 and discovered some historically weak and strong teams in this year’s field for their seed line. For historically strong seeds, let’s look at the 13 line. Iona and Kent State rank 71st in overall efficiency (again, difference between Bart Torvik and KenPom respectively). Since 2008, only 16 #13 seeds ranked as highly entering the tournament. Of those 16, six of them won at least one game (2009 Cleveland State, 2010 Murray State, 2012 Ohio, 2013 La Salle, 2016 Hawai’i and 2018 Buffalo) - and one team that didn’t (2013 Boise State) had to play La Salle in the First Four, so someone was going home empty-handed. Less notable, but on the 15 line, Princeton and Vermont are just the 5th and 6th #15 seeds to rank in the top 100 overall. However, only one of the previous four won a game - 2012 Lehigh which ranked eight spots higher than these Tigers and Catamounts.
For historically weak seeds, boy do we have some notable names. Kansas is just the 3rd #1 seed to rank as low as 12th overall. It’s a very small sample size (and 21st ranked Oregon still made the Elite 8 in 2016), so do with it what you will, but 2014 Wichita State (ranked 14th) was knocked out early in the Round of 32. Virginia and Indiana make for very weak #4 seeds this year. Only four previous #4 seeds ranked as low as the 33rd ranking the Cavaliers and Hoosiers hold currently; 2022 Providence was the only of that group to make the Sweet 16. And finally, Miami is the second-weakest #5 seed since 2008, only trailing a 2009 Florida State squad that went one and done.
I also came across a research paper from Winthrop Intelligence pointing out a very specific situation with some massive implications. Teams from the Pacific time zone, who were sent eastward by the selection committee across two or more time zones (i.e to the Central or Eastern time zone), had their win percentage drop below 38%. And frankly this makes a ton of sense. As humans, we have natural body clocks and jet lag affects even athletes. This paper found this effect most pervasive in early afternoon tip-offs, as this disrupted the “biorhythmic sweet spot” the most (and notably discovered this did not affect Eastern teams sent westward nearly as much). This phenomenon impacts three teams this year: #5 San Diego State (playing in Orlando, FL at ~3:10 p.m.), #5 St. Mary’s (playing in Albany, NY at 2:00 p.m.) and #10 Southern California (playing in Columbus, OH at 12:15 p.m.). If you weren’t already considering Charleston, VCU and Michigan State, then you might want to think long and hard about those three matchups
Lastly, I personally like to identify potential future NBA players on mid-major rosters to help discover upsets the rest of the public may be overlooking. Admittedly, this isn’t rooted in hard numbers or analytics, but historically feels logical (a great future pro can help close the talent gap, especially if he is less known at the time). Think about some of the iconic NCAA Tournament upsets over the last 15 years or so - tiny Lehigh slew mighty Duke in 2012 with the help of future All-Star CJ McCollum or Morehead State taking down Louisville thanks to Kenneth Faried. An upset doesn’t require NBA talent on the roster, but it doesn’t hurt. This year, there are a few guys more on the fringes of future draft boards, but they could send their stock skyrocketing if they help pull a massive upset or two against the big boys. The headliner of this group of under-the-radar mid-major players is Tucker DeVries at Drake. He scored 19 points a game on nearly 39% shooting from behind the arc and is definitely on NBA teams’ minds. However, a few more names I’ve seen mentioned include Boise State’s Tyson Degenhart, UNC Asheville’s Drew Pember and Furman’s Jalen Slawson. These are names that most don’t know right now, but could be the big key behind some of the most memorable parts of this year’s dance.
As I wrap up this piece, I want to say three (more) things. One, don’t use this as gospel; this should be more of a primer, getting your head in the right space to make the best guesses you can by limiting some choices and introducing you to key historical trends and indicators. Picking a bracket is an imperfect science and some of these things go against one another (Bracket Breakers notably doesn’t love Drake as much as some other trends do), so you will need some intuition. Take into consideration the reporting of local beat reporters you follow on Twitter. For example, 2021 Baylor looked vulnerable on paper due to an adjusted defense that fell outside the top 40. Upset looming? Nope, they won the whole thing, but those following the program knew their defense had suffered for a period of weeks from Covid pauses and absences, which wouldn’t affect them in the tournament.
Second, be wary of others misconstruing and twisting stats in an illogical way - that is how you truly confuse yourself and feel overwhelmed by contradictions. I’ve seen a “stat” going around implying you shouldn’t pick Alabama to win the championship because only three #1 overall seeds have won the NCAA Tournament. Seems like ironclad logic, no? Except there can only be one winner and the tourney is mostly an RNG crapshoot anyways, so in reality no specific overall seed has won that many tournaments. #7 overall seeds, #12 overall seeds, #60 overall seeds, none of them have won an overwhelming amount of NCAA Tournaments; it’s a more even distribution of outcomes, but that doesn’t mean Alabama can’t win it all. It just means they aren’t overwhelming favorites (as indicated by Vegas giving them +800 odds rather than -800 odds). This same principle goes for those who eliminate all Big Ten teams from contention because the league happens to have not won it all since 2000. This is true until it won’t be, at which point you might as well never pick against the Big Ten because they would have won every championship since the previous season. I’m not saying Purdue (or some other team) wins it all this year, but to use that to disqualify them is an insult to analysis and statistics. Remember, causation is not correlation.
And last but not least, if you managed to get to the end of this 3,600 word magnum opus, thanks so much for reading. This idea blossomed from my own bracket research, spanning across 10 or so tabs and I wanted to consolidate it all in one location for easier access. I put it in a Word document and then I thought, “why don’t I share this publicly?” From there, it expanded and expanded until we got this novel (and I could’ve written more, but alas I’ve got more things to write in the coming days and need to wrap this up at some point!). If you enjoyed reading this (especially if it helps you in any way), please considering sharing this post and subscribing if you haven’t already. Leave a comment too if you want or even bookmark this for next year. As I alluded to earlier, I have plans for more content very soon. But until then, thanks again and happy March Madness to all