Most years, 2008 aside, we see chaos. We stare at the bracket for hours beforehand, hoping that something is going to grab us. Some force of nature is going to push us in the direction of getting ahead of the madness and we will be Scrooge McDuck in early April, swimming in our piles of gold coins.
Maybe I can be that force for you?
I can’t make that sort of guarantee, but I can promise you a unique way of interpreting data over an extended period of time and that has to count for something, right?
At the very least, me giving you a different angle gives you a person to point to if your bracket goes sideways, so really, you have nothing to lose.
March Madness Cinderella Watch
Could this year be exceptionally goofy? We are at the tail end of the COVID super class situation that has borderline grown adults on these college rosters and that is certainly going to have an impact, but we also have sprinkles of uniqueness all over the place.
Some old coaching faces in new places, some big-time transfers, some super elite teenagers, and some paths to success that are flat-out more favorable than others.
What does all that mean?
For me, in 2025, I think it means A LOT of good games and seemingly random results over the first two or maybe even three rounds, but a pretty predictable end point when we get to the point of handing out invites to the Final Four.
I’ll spare you the “cream rises to the top” cliches and instead focus on trying to see who fit the bill for a Cinderella like run and why I think it’s 100% acceptable to be ultra-aggressive in picking against the grain early on given this specific bracket.
Every week, I power rank all 364 Division-I college basketball teams and, of course, for the tournament, I do the same thing but for the 68 in this field. That exercise started out as a way to blend my love for statistics with my indecision as a human being – if I could have numbers make the decision for me, I would have become much more confident in what I was betting on.
So I got good at it, and here we stand – me trying to predict how 68 teams full of 18-22-year-olds are going to do over the course of 40-minute sample sizes. Calling it an inexact science would be undershooting things, but that’s the fun in it and why I built my model to take bold stands.
When I put in all the data, I found that three teams with a 4-5-6 seed this year had a top-20 grade on them while, checks notes, FIVE teams seeded 8-9-12 had such a mark. That speaks to the depth of the middle class in the sport this season and that is why I think just about any way you handle the early rounds is acceptable … if you can justify it.
That’s where I can help.
Those 8-9-12 seeds have my attention. The eight and nine seeds are interesting because their test comes early—if chalk holds, they get a top seed in Round 2. Win that game, and things open up significantly to make noise.
- Gonzaga (8-seed, Midwest): 2nd overall
- Creighton (9-seed, South): 10th overall
- UConn (8-seed, West): 20th overall
Somehow, all these teams avoided one another, and that means that I have three of the four one-seeds with a truly live opponent in the second round. Why do I think these three specific teams can make noise and threaten to win their respective regions?
Passing.
Scoring points is sexy and gets the headlines, but without a solid foundation, you’re going to struggle to find success on a consistent basis. In terms of assist rate (the percentage of buckets in which an assist is recorded), these are three of the five best teams in the field. They all have experienced ball handlers that can navigate a variety of game environments and that is more valuable than you realize this time of year.
Did you know that eight of the nine past champions ranked in the top 30 in the field in terms of assist-to-turnover ratio? Or that 25 of the past 28 Final Four teams had an assist-to-turnover ratio north of 1.20?
Assist-to-turnover ratio
- Gonzaga: 2.08
- UConn: 1.57
- Creighton: 1.39
All three of these teams are elite in this regard and, as a bonus, all have a path to winning the battle of the free points. On top of getting good looks via passing, the FT line is friendly to these three bracket-busting threats – Gonzaga and UConn both rank top-six in this field in FT%, while Creighton is the best team at keeping their opponents off the free throw line.
I have this ranked as a down year for two seasons (only two of them rank as top 25 teams for me), and that means that if these teams can spurn an early upset, they could keep the good times rolling into April.
Liberty and UC San Diego are the other two who profiled well for me from a seeding underdog position. I give both of them greater than a 40% chance to advance to the Sweet 16 and if they are playing well enough to do that, anything is possible. I detailed their specific profiles in my Double Digit Seeds piece, but it’s not tremendously different from the trio I just ran through.
MORE: March Madness Double-Digit Seed Profiles, Who’s Prime for Bracket-Busting?
Both of these teams have plus-passing metrics and have defensive marks that grade as well above average despite limitations in their level of competition.
In my initial run at the bracket through the lens of my formula, I have three of these five teams in my Sweet 16 and my fear is that I’m not being bullish enough.
College Sports Network has you covered with the latest news, analysis, insights, and trending stories in football, basketball, and more!
