The NFL free agency period is more or less over, which can only mean one thing: March Madness time! Just like last year, I’m leveraging advanced team metrics and simulations to find value in the bracket. For a more detailed look at the methodology, check out the introduction to last year’s article.
This year I’m adding two tools to the analytical arsenal. The first is variously called shot volume index. The idea is to measure how good a team is at getting extra shots, either by limiting turnovers or grabbing offensive rebounds, and forcing their opponent to turn the ball over or limiting their second-chance opportunities. A team that is able to put up more shots than their opponent has a good chance of winning. Think of it as expected points for college basketball.
The second component is shot quality, which aims to measure whether those extra shots that teams might be putting up are actually good shots. Shot quality uses computer vision and player tracking to capture the type, location, distance, defensive pressure, and a host of other factors that go into the probability of a shot going in. Think of this more along the lines of NFL Next Gen’s expected rushing yards for running backs.
The track record for the shot quality data is fairly strong. Connecticut was the No. 1 team last year, which isn’t surprising. But they were also No. 2 in 2023, a year when they came into the tournament as a 4 seed. In fact, in three of the last four seasons, the eventual champion has been either the No. 1 or No. 2 team in shot quality. Shot volume index also has a strong track record — each of the last 22 champions had a net shot volume index of at least 1.5.
I’ll also be incorporating metrics and data from other sources where appropriate, and will explain how to interpret those numbers as they arise. But enough ado; here are the probabilities for each team advancing to each round, according to our simulations.
| school | R64 | R32 | S16 | E8 | F4 | NCG | Win |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Auburn | 100% | 98% | 71% | 56% | 43% | 31% | 19% |
| Duke | 100% | 96% | 68% | 51% | 37% | 25% | 16% |
| Florida | 100% | 94% | 67% | 49% | 32% | 18% | 10% |
| Houston | 100% | 94% | 63% | 43% | 28% | 17% | 10% |
| Alabama | 100% | 93% | 66% | 43% | 20% | 11% | 6% |
| Texas Tech | 100% | 84% | 53% | 37% | 19% | 10% | 5% |
| Tennessee | 100% | 83% | 53% | 30% | 14% | 7% | 3% |
| Arizona | 100% | 84% | 59% | 24% | 12% | 6% | 3% |
| Iowa State | 100% | 78% | 49% | 28% | 12% | 6% | 2% |
| Michigan State | 100% | 89% | 54% | 29% | 12% | 6% | 2% |
| Purdue | 100% | 74% | 46% | 20% | 11% | 5% | 2% |
| Kentucky | 100% | 84% | 49% | 26% | 12% | 5% | 2% |
| Maryland | 100% | 82% | 57% | 23% | 12% | 5% | 2% |
| Missouri | 100% | 68% | 35% | 22% | 11% | 4% | 2% |
| Gonzaga | 100% | 62% | 25% | 15% | 8% | 4% | 2% |
| Wisconsin | 100% | 85% | 48% | 22% | 8% | 4% | 1% |
| Illinois | 100% | 59% | 33% | 17% | 7% | 3% | 1% |
| Brigham Young | 100% | 60% | 33% | 14% | 6% | 2% | 1% |
| Texas A&M | 100% | 70% | 41% | 14% | 7% | 3% | 1% |
| Clemson | 100% | 66% | 35% | 14% | 6% | 2% | 1% |
| Kansas | 100% | 59% | 34% | 14% | 6% | 2% | 1% |
| St. John's (NY) | 100% | 82% | 44% | 17% | 7% | 2% | 1% |
| Baylor | 100% | 58% | 19% | 10% | 4% | 2% | 1% |
| Marquette | 100% | 61% | 30% | 15% | 5% | 2% | 1% |
| Connecticut | 100% | 54% | 19% | 10% | 5% | 2% | 1% |
| Michigan | 100% | 61% | 33% | 10% | 5% | 2% | 1% |
| Louisville | 100% | 52% | 16% | 9% | 4% | 2% | 1% |
| UCLA | 100% | 52% | 24% | 12% | 5% | 2% | 1% |
| Saint Mary's (CA) | 100% | 52% | 19% | 9% | 3% | 1% | 0% |
| Mississippi | 100% | 49% | 22% | 10% | 3% | 1% | 0% |
| North Carolina | 100% | 51% | 22% | 11% | 3% | 1% | 0% |
| Oregon | 100% | 64% | 28% | 8% | 3% | 1% | 0% |
| Creighton | 100% | 48% | 12% | 6% | 3% | 1% | 0% |
| Utah State | 100% | 48% | 19% | 8% | 3% | 1% | 0% |
| Mississippi State | 100% | 42% | 12% | 5% | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| Oklahoma | 100% | 46% | 14% | 7% | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| Colorado State | 100% | 57% | 23% | 7% | 3% | 1% | 0% |
| Georgia | 100% | 38% | 12% | 5% | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| Vanderbilt | 100% | 48% | 14% | 6% | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| Xavier | 100% | 37% | 15% | 6% | 2% | 1% | 0% |
| Virginia Commonwealth | 100% | 40% | 16% | 5% | 1% | 0% | 0% |
| Arkansas | 100% | 41% | 19% | 6% | 2% | 0% | 0% |
| UC San Diego | 100% | 39% | 17% | 4% | 2% | 0% | 0% |
| New Mexico | 100% | 39% | 14% | 5% | 1% | 0% | 0% |
| Drake | 100% | 32% | 9% | 4% | 1% | 0% | 0% |
| Memphis | 100% | 43% | 14% | 3% | 1% | 0% | 0% |
| McNeese State | 100% | 34% | 11% | 3% | 1% | 0% | 0% |
| High Point | 100% | 26% | 9% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Liberty | 100% | 36% | 9% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Yale | 100% | 30% | 9% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Lipscomb | 100% | 22% | 6% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| UNC Wilmington | 100% | 16% | 3% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Grand Canyon | 100% | 18% | 6% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Troy | 100% | 16% | 3% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Wofford | 100% | 17% | 4% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Akron | 100% | 16% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Omaha | 100% | 18% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Montana | 100% | 15% | 3% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Robert Morris | 100% | 7% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Norfolk State | 100% | 6% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Bryant | 100% | 11% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| SIU Edwardsville | 100% | 6% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Mount St. Mary's | 100% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Alabama State | 100% | 2% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Saint Francis (PA) | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| San Diego State | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| American | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Texas | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
South Region
Top Teams
Our adjusted net efficiency ratings — versions of what you’ll find on Sports Reference — say Duke is the best team in the country. Yet the Blue Devils don’t get the easiest path to the title game, and as such, they aren’t the most likely winner in 2025. That honor goes to Auburn. According to our metrics, Auburn is the third-best team in the tournament but the one with the easiest path to the National Championship Game.
That path likely goes through Louisville, Texas A&M, and Iowa State. The Cyclones are slight favorites over Tom Izzo’s Spartans in a potential Sweet 16 matchup. Texas A&M has to face a Yale team that beat Auburn in the first round last year and is the 10th-best three-point shooting team in the nation. And while Creighton is one of the better offensive teams, especially inside the arc, they are one of the worst in terms of shot volume, which is where Louisville excels.
Upset Watch
The South Region could give us some interesting upset possibilities. We’ve already mentioned Yale, who could surprise Texas A&M with a hot shooting night. A&M is the best offensive rebounding team in the country, but they also let opponents take threes on a higher percentage of shot attempts than all but two other tournament teams. One of those teams is San Diego State, who lost their first-four game to North Carolina. The other is Yale. That’s problematic not only because Yale likes to shoot threes and is good at it, but also because the Aggies are not a good three-point shooting team, and because taking a lot of shots from outside makes offensive rebounding more difficult. Only 22% of Yahoo brackets picked Yale to advance, but they have about a 30% chance to beat Texas A&M.
The other matchup to watch is the 5-12 matchup between Michigan and UC San Diego. Michigan is a good defensive team, but they struggle to take care of the ball, with nearly a 20% turnover rate. While they are good at forcing teams to take tough shots, they don’t force many opponent turnovers. UC San Diego is almost the exact opposite. No team in the tournament forces a higher turnover rate, and only three teams are better at limiting their own turnovers. Even with the big difference in strength of schedule, we should see UC San Diego get a sizable edge in shot volume in this one, and they shoot threes at a higher rate than any other tournament team. On the other hand, Michigan’s shot quality numbers suggest they’ve suffered some bad luck this season, so any regression toward the mean could tip the scales in their favor. Yahoo bracket fillers have UC San Diego winning in 21% of cases. Our numbers suggest the likelihood is closer to 40%.
Yale and UC San Diego are both among the best teams in the nation in a metric that EvanMiya calls “Kill Shots per Game” — basically the number of unanswered 10-0 runs a team goes on per game. In other words, both Yale and UC San Diego can get hot and pull off scoring runs that put the game out of reach for their opponents. It’s important to remember these numbers reflect weaker competition than what either team is likely to see in the tourney, but that doesn’t mean we ignore the numbers altogether.
The fact that Auburn’s path to the Final 4 has some good chances of going through a 12 seed and a 13 seed is one reason our simulations like them to win more often than any other team, even though a National Championship Game matchup against Duke goes the Blue Devils’ way more than half the time.
West Region
Top Teams
The West Region features arguably the best 3 seed and the best 4 seed in the tournament. While Florida is still the favorite, a path that goes through Maryland and then possibly through Texas Tech gives the Gators lower odds than your typical No. 1 seed to make it to the final weekend. Almost 20% of Yahoo brackets have Florida winning the whole thing. We think that number should be about 10%. KenPom has the likelihood at 19%, while Neil Paine has it at about 12%. So we’re on the low end, but it’s largely because our numbers are so bullish on Maryland and Texas Tech.
For some perspective, Texas Tech is No. 3 in shot quality. They are the No. 7 team according to KenPom and Bart Torvik and the No. 10 team according to EvanMiya. Maryland is Torvik’s No. 10 team, and the No. 12 team for both KenPom and EvanMiya. While Florida ranks higher in all these systems, the fact that they could have to face both teams makes their path to the final game tenuous. Picking Florida in this region also closes off two of the top value teams for the Final 4.
And that is to say nothing of St. John’s, who have a strong profile in some ways (No. 2 in net shot volume) but look generally overseeded by many of the rankings. A potential 1-2 matchup in the Elite 8 would see St. John’s likely getting the shot volume advantage over Florida.
Upset Watch
The West Region also gives us one of the most likely upsets in the contest. Betting markets actually have the 12-seed Colorado State favored by 1.5 over the 5-seed Memphis, and our simulations agree, giving the Rams almost a 60% chance of winning.
The 6-11 matchup in the West Region is also an interesting one for upset hunters. Drake is No. 4 in the nation in net shot volume. They are the 10th-best team at forcing turnovers, and are inside the top 25 in both offensive and defensive rebounding. Drake is also among the slowest teams in the nation — if they can control the pace and limit the number of possessions, they engineer a scenario in which luck and randomness could play an outsized role, giving them potentially higher winning chances. Unfortunately Drake is not a great value pick. The simulations have them beating Missouri about 32% of the time. Yahoo brackets have them getting through more than 39% of the time. In fact, Missouri is the best value pick in terms of the likelihood of advancing to the Elite 8.
East Region
Top Teams
Duke is the No. 1 team in our ratings, as well as being the No. 1 team according to KenPom and EvanMiya. According to Torvik’s data, these are the 10 most similar tournament teams since 2008:
When six of your top-10 comps go on to win the title, we should probably take notice.
However, according to our simulations, Duke is not the most likely team to win the tournament, in large part thanks to a difficult draw in the East Region. Duke will already face a tough test in their likely Round of 32 matchup. Baylor appears badly underseeded in the 9 slot — they are No. 22 in our adjusted net efficiency ratings. Only four teams rank higher in adjusted shot quality.
If Duke gets past Baylor — the Bears win about 33% of the time in our simulations — things could get even tougher. Arizona is a strong 4 seed — the ninth-best team in the tournament according to our numbers as well as Torvik’s. They have about a 59% chance to face Duke in the Sweet 16, and they knock off the top team about 36% of the time.
They would then most likely face Alabama, the No. 5 team in the country according to EvanMiya and Torvik, and the No. 6 team according to KenPom. Alabama’s shot quality is impressive but their shot volume defense is suspect. However, they are one of the most rim-and-three heavy teams in the nation, confirming that their shot quality metrics aren’t fluky. Threes make up more than 46% of Alabama’s attempts, but they also shoot better than 59% on their two-point attempts (No. 4 in the nation; among tournament teams, only Creighton is better).
Both Arizona and Alabama rank inside the top 5 in “Kill Shots Conceded.” Neither the Wildcats nor the Crimson Tide let opponents go on scoring runs without answering back, and as such, it will be hard for Duke to pull ahead of either team. Then again, Duke is one of the best teams in the country at engineering those unanswered scoring runs.
Upset Watch
Ignoring the 8-9 matchup (where Baylor is actually the better team and is expected to win nearly 60% of the time), the East Region doesn’t give a ton of good upset options. The most intriguing is 11-seed VCU over 6-seed BYU. VCU could make a case that they are closer to a 7 seed in terms of the advanced metrics. They are among the best in the nation in shot volume, with an offensive rebound rate north of 40%. Yet BYU is one of the best in the nation in shot quality, both on offense and defense. While VCU will likely get more shot attempts than BYU, BYU’s shots will be better looks in general, and they will make VCU take difficult shots. On the other hand, only Tennessee is better than VCU in effective field goal percentage defense.
We mentioned Alabama’s defensive shot volume struggles. That could come into play against St. Mary’s in the Round of 32. The Gaels’ net shot volume of +9.1 is the best in the region, in large part thanks to their rebounding. They are the No. 2 offensive rebounding team in the country and the No. 9 defensive rebounding team.
Of course, picking against Alabama isn’t that fun because they’re one of the best-value Final 4 teams. Only 17% of Yahoo brackets have Alabama coming out of the East Region, but our sims give them about a 20% chance to make it there. No other team with such good odds of a Final 4 appearance is being underselected.
Midwest Region
Top Teams
Houston is the second-best team in the tournament according to the adjusted net efficiency ratings, but like Florida they have only about a 10% chance to win in our simulations. The problem comes down to their likely Round of 32 matchup. Gonzaga is an 8 seed, but by all accounts, they are about as good as a typical 3 seed. EvanMiya and KenPom both have Gonzaga inside the top 10, while Torvik has the Zags at No. 11. The wisdom of the crowds at Yahoo has Gonzaga in the Sweet 16 in less than 13% of brackets. We have them there about 25% of the time. Houston is still the most likely team to emerge from the Midwest — they are not only the best defensive team in the tournament but also the No. 1 three-point shooting team in the nation — but their path is harder than it should be for a 1 seed.
Purdue shows up as a top-five value team in both the Elite 8 and the Final 4. They are among the last eight teams standing in less than 10% of Yahoo brackets, but our simulations give them about a 20% chance to last that long. They are the No. 7 team in shot quality (just behind Gonzaga) and are another reason Houston’s path to the Final 4 is so difficult.
Upset Watch
The Midwest Region also gives us at least one intriguing and under-the-radar upset possibility. Yahoo brackets have McNeese State defeating Clemson only about 14% of the time, but that happened about 35% of the time in the simulations. McNeese is the No. 1 team in Kill Shots per Game, a top-10 team in net shot volume, and a top-20 team in turnover rate forced. Clemson doesn’t have many obvious weaknesses, but they aren’t the best shooting team, and could therefore struggle to make up for any shot volume deficit.
In the Round of 32, Tennessee’s only-average ball-handlers could struggle against a UCLA defense that forces turnovers at the fifth-highest rate in the country. The Volunteers have gotten to where they are largely with excellent defense, and UCLA might not challenge them much on that end. But if the Bruins win the shot volume battle, Tennessee’s defense might not be enough to avoid the upset.
