NFL free agency may be winding down, but our favorite prospects are getting ready for pro days, and best ball drafts are heating up. Yet I have only one thing on my mind: winning my friends and family March Madness pool.
The key to winning, as RotoViz readers will already know, is not simply to pick the teams most likely to advance. It’s to pick the teams most likely to advance that everyone else is not paying enough attention to. Therefore we need two datasets to make informed decisions. First, we need some measure of each team’s probability of advancing to a given round. I’ve built some simple models and run hundreds of thousands of simulations (sounds harder than it is) to come up with the numbers you see below.
| School | Advance to R64 | Advance to R32 | Advance to S16 | Advance to E8 | Advance to F4 | Advance to NCG | Win NCG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Purdue | 100% | 96% | 72.1% | 52.1% | 35.8% | 22.4% | 13.1% |
| Connecticut | 100% | 90% | 67.1% | 44.7% | 29.6% | 18.8% | 11.9% |
| Houston | 100% | 90% | 65.6% | 43.7% | 29.8% | 18.6% | 10.7% |
| Arizona | 100% | 91% | 65.9% | 40.1% | 24.7% | 13.0% | 7.1% |
| Alabama | 100% | 82% | 55.0% | 37.4% | 21.3% | 10.9% | 5.7% |
| Auburn | 100% | 80% | 55.4% | 30.2% | 17.9% | 9.9% | 5.2% |
| Baylor | 100% | 85% | 57.0% | 32.0% | 17.5% | 8.8% | 4.5% |
| Creighton | 100% | 80% | 57.9% | 34.3% | 17.1% | 8.7% | 4.3% |
| Duke | 100% | 81% | 49.2% | 25.7% | 15.8% | 8.1% | 4.0% |
| Iowa State | 100% | 82% | 55.9% | 32.2% | 14.7% | 7.4% | 3.5% |
| Illinois | 100% | 83% | 46.8% | 27.0% | 13.0% | 6.8% | 3.3% |
| Tennessee | 100% | 89% | 56.3% | 32.0% | 14.4% | 6.8% | 3.2% |
| Marquette | 100% | 85% | 50.2% | 29.7% | 13.5% | 6.3% | 2.7% |
| North Carolina | 100% | 93% | 56.9% | 28.0% | 13.3% | 6.0% | 2.7% |
| Brigham Young | 100% | 75% | 40.3% | 23.2% | 10.3% | 5.2% | 2.5% |
| Kentucky | 100% | 80% | 46.0% | 24.1% | 9.9% | 4.3% | 1.8% |
| Gonzaga | 100% | 67% | 42.2% | 17.9% | 9.3% | 4.3% | 1.8% |
| Wisconsin | 100% | 68% | 33.4% | 14.3% | 7.8% | 3.4% | 1.5% |
| Texas Tech | 100% | 58% | 30.0% | 15.1% | 5.8% | 2.4% | 1.0% |
| Kansas | 100% | 70% | 33.5% | 12.3% | 5.8% | 2.4% | 0.9% |
| Saint Mary's (CA) | 100% | 62% | 25.9% | 13.4% | 5.5% | 2.2% | 0.9% |
| Colorado | 100% | 52% | 24.0% | 12.1% | 4.5% | 1.8% | 0.7% |
| Texas | 100% | 54% | 23.8% | 11.3% | 4.2% | 1.7% | 0.6% |
| Michigan State | 100% | 56% | 25.8% | 10.6% | 4.3% | 1.6% | 0.6% |
| Florida | 100% | 48% | 23.2% | 11.1% | 3.9% | 1.4% | 0.5% |
| TCU | 100% | 55% | 17.7% | 8.3% | 3.6% | 1.3% | 0.5% |
| San Diego State | 100% | 64% | 25.6% | 9.3% | 3.7% | 1.3% | 0.5% |
| Dayton | 100% | 52% | 17.7% | 7.5% | 2.9% | 1.1% | 0.4% |
| Nebraska | 100% | 51% | 17.4% | 7.2% | 3.3% | 1.2% | 0.4% |
| Clemson | 100% | 51% | 20.1% | 7.5% | 3.0% | 1.1% | 0.4% |
| Florida Atlantic | 100% | 51% | 16.3% | 6.7% | 2.8% | 1.1% | 0.4% |
| Washington State | 100% | 52% | 20.5% | 8.3% | 2.6% | 0.9% | 0.3% |
| Colorado State | 100% | 46% | 18.3% | 7.6% | 2.4% | 0.9% | 0.3% |
| Texas A&M | 100% | 49% | 14.7% | 5.9% | 2.6% | 0.9% | 0.3% |
| Northwestern | 100% | 49% | 14.6% | 5.7% | 2.3% | 0.8% | 0.3% |
| New Mexico | 100% | 49% | 19.3% | 6.8% | 2.5% | 0.8% | 0.3% |
| Oregon | 100% | 52% | 18.0% | 6.9% | 2.0% | 0.7% | 0.2% |
| Nevada | 100% | 48% | 14.3% | 5.4% | 1.9% | 0.6% | 0.2% |
| South Carolina | 100% | 48% | 16.6% | 6.4% | 1.9% | 0.6% | 0.2% |
| Utah State | 100% | 45% | 11.6% | 4.9% | 1.9% | 0.6% | 0.2% |
| Mississippi State | 100% | 44% | 16.5% | 5.6% | 1.9% | 0.6% | 0.2% |
| NC State | 100% | 42% | 16.5% | 6.5% | 1.8% | 0.6% | 0.2% |
| Drake | 100% | 48% | 16.8% | 6.0% | 1.6% | 0.5% | 0.1% |
| McNeese State | 100% | 33% | 13.2% | 3.0% | 1.0% | 0.3% | 0.1% |
| Grand Canyon | 100% | 38% | 9.9% | 3.4% | 0.9% | 0.2% | 0.1% |
| James Madison | 100% | 32% | 8.8% | 2.0% | 0.6% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| UAB | 100% | 36% | 7.8% | 1.7% | 0.4% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| Samford | 100% | 30% | 8.6% | 1.4% | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| Duquesne | 100% | 25% | 6.0% | 1.6% | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| Yale | 100% | 20% | 7.3% | 1.5% | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| College of Charleston | 100% | 18% | 5.9% | 1.5% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Akron | 100% | 20% | 6.5% | 1.4% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Vermont | 100% | 19% | 5.0% | 0.9% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Oakland | 100% | 20% | 4.9% | 1.0% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| South Dakota State | 100% | 18% | 5.3% | 0.9% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Morehead State | 100% | 17% | 3.5% | 0.7% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Colgate | 100% | 15% | 3.4% | 0.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Longwood | 100% | 10% | 2.1% | 0.3% | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Western Kentucky | 100% | 15% | 2.7% | 0.4% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Stetson | 100% | 10% | 2.0% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Long Beach State | 100% | 9% | 1.9% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Saint Peter's | 100% | 11% | 1.8% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Grambling | 100% | 3% | 0.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Wagner | 100% | 7% | 0.8% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
These numbers rely mainly on a team’s offensive and defensive efficiency, pace, and strength of schedule. Once we have these figures we can simulate each matchup at least 10,000 times and find the expected win percentages for every team in every matchup, and use those expected win percentages to calculate expected advance rates.
The second thing we need is a way to gauge how popular each team is — how many brackets have picked each to advance to a certain round. Yahoo! makes this data available. From there it’s a matter of picking which teams have a better chance to advance than the public thinks. But there is slightly more to the strategy of filling out a bracket.
How to Use the Data to Fill Out a Bracket
Armed with this data you might be tempted to do one of two things. You might be tempted to start in the Round of 64 and pick a few high-value upsets along with favorites expected to advance easily, then move on to the next round and do roughly the same thing, and so on until you reach the final game. Or, you might be tempted to pick the highest-value champion, and work backward from there, filling in the second highest-value team in the final game, and so on.
But both of those approaches are suboptimal. A 2020 article in the Journal of Quantitative Sports Analysis details why bracket generators that start by filling in either the Elite Eight or Final Four teams tend to outperform others. Elsewhere, one of the authors of that study explains in layman’s terms how starting with the Elite Eight or Final Four reduces the number of decisions you have to make.
Starting with the Elite Eight or Final Four means picking the teams that can give you the most value in those rounds, and then filling out the rest of the bracket with high-value favorites and upsets. The team most likely to advance to the Elite Eight and the Final Four, according to the simulations, is Purdue. (They have an easier path than any other No. 1 seed.) But because they are a No. 1 seed, they are still slightly overvalued based on the number of brackets that pick them to advance. The team that stands out as the most undervalued Final Four (and Elite Eight) pick is a name familiar to football fans: Alabama.
Other good value picks for the Elite Eight include Auburn, BYU (even though they’d likely have to beat either Connecticut or Auburn to get to the Final Four), and Texas Tech. Additional potential value picks for the Final Four include Duke, Baylor, and Illinois (although they’ll likely face BYU and either Auburn or Connecticut).
Value Picks, Advanced Stats, and Potential Upsets
East Region
According to most models and rankings (including ours) Connecticut is the best team in the nation. The problem is they also find themselves in the toughest region. Auburn, the No. 4 seed in the East region, is a top-five team in multiple ratings systems, including those from Ken Pomeroy, Evan Miyakawa, and Bart Torvik. Auburn is the best value Elite Eight pick in the region, followed closely by BYU and Illinois.
A No. 15 seed upsetting a No. 2 seed is never something to bet on unless you play in a massive pool and need to get some long shots right. That said, South Dakota State appears to have as good a chance as any recent No. 15 seed, if not better, to upset Iowa State. The Cyclones may have been slightly overseeded as a No. 2 — according to our numbers they are just the fourth best team in the East region (both Illinois and Auburn are better). What makes the game particularly interesting is that South Dakota State faces the second-highest three-point-attempt rate in the nation, suggesting they may force Iowa State into a strategy the Cyclones are uncomfortable with. Iowa State attempted only 18.7 threes per game, which ranked No. 304 in the country. They made less than 35% of those attempts (No. 131). Iowa State also gives up three-pointers at a higher-than-average rate, but the difference is the Jackrabbits like to shoot threes (No. 74 in the nation) and are decent at it (No. 53).
That’s not to say you should pick South Dakota State. The overwhelmingly most likely outcome is still that Iowa State advances. If Iowa State advances, they have a much easier path to the Elite Eight than either Marquette or Tennessee (the No. 2 seeds in the South and Midwest regions, respectively). The Cyclones lead all tournament teams in opponent turnover rate, and only Houston is better at limiting opponent offensive efficiency.
The No. 5 vs. No. 12 matchup is always a favorite place to look for potential upsets, and this year is no different. San Diego State was in the National Championship Game in 2023, but this year they look slightly overvalued as a No. 5 seed. According to the simulations, UAB wins this matchup about 36% of the time.
West Region
Despite playing in a tough region, UConn’s path to the Final Four is much easier than North Carolina’s. The Tar Heels will likely get a tough matchup against Alabama in the Sweet 16, and Alabama should actually be favored according to the simulations.
The team most likely to emerge from the West region is actually the No. 2 seed, Arizona. Only Purdue, Connecticut, and Houston (all No. 1 seeds) have an easier path to the Elite Eight. In what we have as the most likely West region Elite Eight matchup, Arizona beats Alabama about 52% of the time.
No. 8 vs. No. 9 matchups are generally toss-ups, and that’s no different here. Where it gets interesting is in the Round of 32, where the winner has a decent chance to take down a No. 1 seed. Michigan State beats Mississippi State in 56% of simulations, and they go on to beat North Carolina in 43% of the cases in which they face off. No other No. 1 seed is as likely to be bounced before the Sweet 16.
The West region is another place to look for an upstart No. 12 seed. Our simulations like Grand Canyon to beat Saint Mary’s about 38% of the time. The likely Round of 32 matchup against Alabama takes the wind out of any potential Cinderella’s sails. But no team in the tournament makes more free throws per field goal attempt than Grand Canyon. Among tournament teams, only Saint Peter’s and Auburn allowed a higher free throw rate than Alabama. Grand Canyon shot better than 75% from the stripe this season.
It’s also not a foregone conclusion that Alabama will advance out of the Round of 64. Even though they are the top value pick in the tournament, they get a deceptively tough first-round draw. No. 13 seed Charleston attempted the third-most three-pointers of any team, and if they get hot from outside they could surprise people.
South Region
Texas Tech could get to the Elite Eight with wins against (probably) Kentucky and Marquette. Even though we said above that the Iowa State-South Dakota State matchup looked interesting, that had at least as much to do with the Jackrabbits’ strengths as with the Cyclones’ weaknesses. In fact, Iowa State is a much stronger No. 2 seed than Marquette. The Golden Eagles have only a 50% to advance to the Sweet 16. Depending on who wins the play-in game tonight, Marquette will face either a Colorado team that ranks No. 9 in the nation in field goal percentage, a Boise State team that is No. 2 in the nation in opponent offensive rebound rate, or a Florida team that led the nation in total points.
Both Duke and Wisconsin are strong Elite Eight value picks, but both would have to defeat a tough Houston defense to get there. Wisconsin may have a difficult time getting out of their first matchup. Only two teams in the country have gone on more 10-0 runs this season than James Madison. Wisconsin has struggled in some pace-up games, and JMU likes to play fast, which could cause issues for the Badgers.
None of the No. 14 seeds have a particularly good chance to upset a No. 3 seed. But if one is going to happen in this tournament, Oakland beating Kentucky appears the most likely. That upset happens 20% of the time in simulations, but only 6% of brackets are picking against the Wildcats. Kentucky is the top three-point shooting team in the country, and they are No. 2 in points per game. However, they are very poor at limiting opponent offensive rebounds.
Midwest Region
As we mentioned above, Purdue has the easiest path to the Final Four, with by far the easiest Sweet 16 matchup against (probably) either Kansas or Gonzaga. Our models have Gonzaga as the more likely team to emerge, but Kansas is the favorite according to the seeding.
One difficulty Kansas faces is that they are already the most likely No. 4 seed to lose to a No. 13 seed. Our simulations have Samford beating Kansas 30% of the time, and the sims don’t even know that Kansas will be without their top scorer Kevin McCullar for the duration of the tournament. Samford is No. 7 in the nation in three-point percentage, No. 5 in total steals, and No. 2 in total points. Yes, they played against much weaker competition. Kansas should still be able to pull out a victory, but it will be harder than the public seems to believe — Yahoo! brackets have Kansas winning nearly 85% of the time.
The other undervalued Elite Eight team from the Midwest region is the No. 3 seed Creighton, who our models like to beat the No. 2 seed Tennessee in the Sweet 16. Creighton has the lowest free throw rate allowed of any team in the country, and is No. 8 in total three-pointers made. Less than 13% of Yahoo! brackets have Creighton reaching the Final Four. Our simulations find them there 17% of the time.
No. 11 seeds have actually won over half their games against No. 6 seeds since the tournament expanded to 68 teams. Oregon appears to have a good chance to help continue this trend against No. 6 South Carolina. Our simulations have the Ducks winning 52% of the time — they are actually the favorites, despite being seeded much lower. They would then have to face a difficult Creighton team (probably), so it’s unlikely Oregon will make a deep run like some No. 11 seeds of the past. But they are an undervalued team to keep an eye on.
