Which March Madness favorites are upset-proof? Here’s what history says about the top teams
March Madness is here, and everyone is searching for unique ways to evaluate the best teams in the country. Duke, Michigan and Arizona have separated themselves atop the rankings, but teams like Florida, Houston and UConn are in the mix to win it all, as well. What can fans expect from these front-runners once the always unpredictable NCAA Tournament tips off?
One tool I’ve found useful in the past is Bart Torvik’s Profile Comparison. This historical query uses a variety of statistical markers to draw comparisons to past teams. Offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency and tempo are the biggest drivers, but other factors — 3-point attempt rate, offensive and defensive rebounding, turnover rates — contribute to the comps, as well.
All of this data helps paint a picture of how each team plays. The tool then shows each of the 10 most similar squads since 2008 and how they performed in the NCAA Tournament. No comp is perfect, but this exercise can be insightful. Did past contenders who played a similar way make deep runs, or were they prone to upsets?
Let’s examine some interesting comps for the country’s top teams. I used KenPom’s top eight teams as of March 10, then added in two wild cards of note at the end.
1. Duke
| Team | Seed | Adj. O/D/Tempo | NCAAT finish | Similarity score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
128.5/90.5/65.9 |
??? |
||
|
1 |
121.8/86.1/62.8 |
Final Four |
5.2 |
|
|
1 |
130.6/92/66 |
Final Four |
5.3 |
|
|
1 |
116.7/88.1/62.3 |
Elite Eight |
5.8 |
|
|
1 |
116.9/87.7/64.4 |
Final Four |
6.1 |
|
|
4 |
121.3/95.5/66.5 |
Elite Eight |
6.3 |
|
|
N/A |
116.1/87.7/67.4 |
Canceled |
6.3 |
|
|
2 |
118.3/91/65.3 |
Elite Eight |
6.6 |
|
|
1 |
122.1/86.4/67 |
Champion |
6.7 |
|
|
1 |
121.8/89.1/64.8 |
Champion |
7.1 |
|
|
3 |
116.9/87.1/61.5 |
Elite Eight |
7.2 |
|
|
Avg. wins = 4 |
Whew, those are some powerhouses. That 2015 Kentucky team started the year 38-0 before a Final Four loss to Wisconsin, and it is arguably the best team ever to not win a title. Last year’s Duke squad was thoroughly dominant, as well, despite its own Final Four heartbreaker against Houston.
The overall theme? This style and caliber of team is pretty close to upset-proof. Every close comp made at least the Elite Eight, and more than half made the Final Four. At full strength, Duke should be considered a heavy favorite to wind up in Indianapolis.
Of course, this outlook would get complicated if the Blue Devils are shorthanded: Point guard Caleb Foster and center Patrick Ngongba II, both key starters, are dealing with injuries that could open a window of opportunity for a spunky underdog in the Sweet 16.
2. Michigan
| Team | Seed | Adj. O/D/Tempo | NCAAT finish | Similarity score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
129.3/91.8/71.7 |
??? |
||
|
2 |
119.4/95.4/72.2 |
Round of 64 |
4.8 |
|
|
1 |
120.9/91/68 |
Elite Eight |
5.8 |
|
|
2 |
120.5/93.3/72.3 |
Sweet 16 |
5.8 |
|
|
1 |
119.6/90.4/72.2 |
Elite Eight |
5.9 |
|
|
1 |
118/93.7/72.3 |
Sweet 16 |
5.9 |
|
|
1 |
118.5/87.2/70.2 |
Runner-up |
6.1 |
|
|
1 |
120.3/89.9/72.6 |
Sweet 16 |
6.2 |
|
|
1 |
120.6/91.5/68.5 |
Sweet 16 |
6.3 |
|
|
1 |
117.7/86.9/68.5 |
Runner-up |
6.4 |
|
|
1 |
122.1/86.4/67 |
Champion |
6.6 |
|
|
Avg. wins = 3 |
The Wolverines’ higher tempo bodes well for avoiding an early upset. Only one of its 10 comparables, 2023 Arizona, failed to reach the Sweet 16, and this Michigan team is measurably better than those Wildcats on both ends of the floor.
Michigan has a high ceiling, as well, with three historical matches getting all the way to the national title game. That comes as no surprise — this team won a strong Big Ten by four games, after all — but it is beneficial to see the upside in the past, as well.
The 2017 Gonzaga team is a terrific comparison from a DNA standpoint. That year, the Zags were enormous (No. 8 nationally in average height, per KenPom) and elite in 2-point percentage on both ends of the floor. Were it not for an ankle injury to point guard Nigel Williams-Goss, Gonzaga might have beaten North Carolina in that national title game. Perhaps Michigan gets over that hump.
3. Arizona
| Team | Seed | Adj. O/D/Tempo | NCAAT finish | Similarity score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
125.7/91.6/70.3 |
??? |
||
|
1 |
117.7/86.9/68.5 |
Runner-up |
4.8 |
|
|
2 |
117.9/88.1/67.1 |
Final Four |
5.3 |
|
|
2 |
119.1/92.3/72.4 |
Elite Eight |
5.3 |
|
|
N/A |
115.3/91.9/71.7 |
Canceled |
5.3 |
|
|
1 |
115.5/89.1/68.1 |
Elite Eight |
5.5 |
|
|
2 |
119.2/89.2/66.1 |
Elite Eight |
5.5 |
|
|
2 |
120.5/93.3/72.3 |
Sweet 16 |
5.5 |
|
|
1 |
119.6/90.4/72.2 |
Elite Eight |
5.6 |
|
|
1 |
118.5/87.2/70.2 |
Runner-up |
5.7 |
|
|
1 |
116.3/87.1/67.4 |
Final Four |
5.9 |
|
|
Avg. wins = 3.6 |
Arizona’s lack of reliance on 3-point shooting can be a Rorschach test for prognosticators. It’s a strength, in that the Wildcats are less vulnerable to cold shooting nights, but it’s a weakness because they don’t have the crutch of scoring in bunches from beyond the arc.
Compared to past teams that are dominant on both ends and generally do not bank on perimeter shooting, the profile looks like a positive one. Eight of the Wildcats’ 10 most similar teams made it to the Elite Eight, and a ninth did not get a chance at the NCAA Tournament. Four comparables made the Final Four.
The 2012 Ohio State comparison checks out. That team ranked 308th in 3-point attempt rate and 212th in 3-point percentage, instead using an up-tempo, rim-focused offense to score efficiently. Led by Jared Sullinger and Aaron Craft, that team was also fantastic defensively. Tommy Lloyd’s squad could be a lock for the Elite Eight and an incredibly strong bet to make the Final Four, at minimum.
4. Florida
| Team | Seed | Adj. O/D/Tempo | NCAAT finish | Similarity score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
127.1/92.3/70.6 |
??? |
||
|
1 |
117.7/86.9/68.5 |
Runner-up |
6 |
|
|
1 |
121.6/92.4/71.4 |
Champion |
6.1 |
|
|
2 |
120.5/93.3/72.3 |
Sweet 16 |
6.1 |
|
|
1 |
119.2/94.3/70.5 |
Sweet 16 |
6.3 |
|
|
1 |
127.8/94.2/69.9 |
Champion |
6.3 |
|
|
1 |
116.9/90.6/70.5 |
Round of 32 |
6.4 |
|
|
1 |
120.9/91/68 |
Elite Eight |
6.4 |
|
|
4 |
124.9/97.4/70.3 |
Sweet 16 |
6.5 |
|
|
1 |
119.6/90.4/72.2 |
Elite Eight |
6.6 |
|
|
2 |
117.8/95.3/71.5 |
Round of 32 |
6.7 |
|
|
Avg. wins = 3.1 |
OK, now we’re talking. Three of the closest five comparables to this Florida squad made the title game, with two winning it all — including last year’s Gators, who were anchored by the same frontcourt. This year’s group may lack the shot-making prowess of Walter Clayton, Alijah Martin and Will Richard, but the two-way blueprint remains mighty similar.
The archetype — up-tempo, extremely stout defensively — is not without its vulnerabilities, however. Both 2024 Arizona and 2024 UNC went down early despite having thoroughly dominant frontcourts, and 2021 Illinois, led by the enormous Kofi Cockburn, bowed out to a feisty (and wildly under-seeded) Loyola Chicago squad.
That aligns with a minor concern: Unlike last year, the rest of the SEC struggled badly to match Florida’s physicality up front. What happens if the Gators meet a bruising Big 12 or Big Ten team in the Sweet 16? It would be an interesting test, at the very least.
5. Illinois
| Team | Seed | Adj. O/D/Tempo | NCAAT finish | Similarity score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
3 |
132.4/98.7/65.7 |
??? |
||
|
3 |
123.5/95.6/65.5 |
Elite Eight |
5.1 |
|
|
2 |
123.2/96.7/62 |
Final Four |
6 |
|
|
1 |
126/94.5/67.1 |
Runner-up |
6.6 |
|
|
2 |
121.3/94.7/63 |
Elite Eight |
6.7 |
|
|
2 |
123.1/98.1/63 |
Round of 32 |
6.9 |
|
|
2 |
123.6/96.1/67.5 |
Sweet 16 |
6.9 |
|
|
1 |
117.9/93.7/63.9 |
Round of 64 |
7 |
|
|
3 |
126.1/97.6/66.1 |
Elite Eight |
7 |
|
|
4 |
119.3/93.4/64.8 |
Final Four |
7.1 |
|
|
3 |
121.7/97.1/66.7 |
Sweet 16 |
7.1 |
|
|
Avg. wins = 2.7 |
Illinois fans, shield your eyes from the seventh comparison on this list. You are not 2023 Purdue, you very likely will not lose in the Round of 64! Curiously, four different Purdue teams register as similar to these Illini: lethal offensively, enormous up front, but with some athleticism limitations hampering the overall outlook.
Besides that 2023 Boilermakers squad, many of the other comparisons paint much rosier pictures. Sure, no team on this chart won the title, and even Illinois fans would likely admit their team’s defense is an Achilles’ heel against high-level competition. But the Illini’s supernova offense could carry them on a deep run.
6. Houston
| Team | Seed | Adj. O/D/Tempo | NCAAT finish | Similarity score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2 |
125.9/93.6/63.4 |
??? |
||
|
1 |
117.3/90.3/63.4 |
Sweet 16 |
3.7 |
|
|
5 |
116.5/88.5/63.7 |
Elite Eight |
5 |
|
|
6 |
116/93/64 |
Round of 32 |
5.6 |
|
|
1 |
119.6/86.5/63.4 |
Sweet 16 |
5.6 |
|
|
1 |
124.7/87.3/61.8 |
Runner-up |
5.7 |
|
|
3 |
114.7/93.5/59.5 |
Round of 32 |
5.8 |
|
|
2 |
114.9/88.5/66.1 |
Sweet 16 |
5.9 |
|
|
N/A |
114.5/88.4/66.2 |
Canceled |
6.3 |
|
|
2 |
120.2/91.9/63.9 |
Elite Eight |
6.4 |
|
|
2 |
119.1/91.3/64.3 |
Final Four |
6.4 |
|
|
Avg. wins = 2.6 |
Houston is Houston is Houston, with two Mick Cronin teams mixed in there (2017 Cincinnati, 2023 UCLA). It is no surprise that Kelvin Sampson’s defense-heavy, offensive rebounding juggernaut style compares favorably to itself year after year.
That profile generally has made Houston immune to an upset. The Cougars have made the Sweet 16 in six consecutive tournaments, two of which ended in Final Four trips. Their most similar teams have a high floor thanks to their physicality and advantage in shot volume. The 2014 Syracuse team, which shot 0-for-10 from 3 in the Round of 32 in a gruesome 55-53 loss to Dayton, is the lone exception.
Do these Cougars have a national title ceiling, though? Last year’s team nearly got it done, but that is the only squad from this list to even make the title game. This year’s Cougars suffered a three-game losing streak in February, adding some weight to the ceiling question. Based on the history, a high-floor, lower-upside pattern makes sense.
7. Iowa State
| Team | Seed | Adj. O/D/Tempo | NCAAT finish | Similarity score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2 |
122.7/94.8/67.2 |
??? |
||
|
3 |
119.3/93.3/68.8 |
Round of 32 |
4.1 |
|
|
3 |
115/93.2/64.9 |
Round of 32 |
4.3 |
|
|
3 |
113.9/93.3/67.5 |
Sweet 16 |
4.4 |
|
|
1 |
114.3/88.3/64.7 |
Sweet 16 |
4.5 |
|
|
4 |
113.8/88.4/64 |
Final Four |
4.6 |
|
|
3 |
115.2/92/65.6 |
Round of 32 |
4.7 |
|
|
11 |
114.5/94.7/65.6 |
Round of 64 |
4.7 |
|
|
N/A |
115.3/93.9/67.5 |
Missed |
4.7 |
|
|
7 |
115.3/94.1/64 |
Round of 32 |
4.8 |
|
|
4 |
117.3/90/68.9 |
Elite Eight |
4.8 |
|
|
Avg. wins = 1.5 |
Uh-oh. The Cyclones may have the most alarming historical precedents on this list, a bevy of No. 3 and 4 seeds that did not even make the Sweet 16. Last year’s Iowa State squad — also led by Tamin Lipsey, Josh Jefferson and Milan Momcilovic — is the closest comparable, and that squad got handled by Ole Miss in the Round of 32.
Many of these teams did not quite have the offensive punch to match their elite defenses. This year’s Cyclones have struggled at times to manufacture points if they cannot score via their defense, and they are alarmingly bad from the free-throw line as a group.
The 2013 Syracuse comp offers some hope. That Orange team throttled its first four NCAA Tournament opponents en route to the Final Four, including a 61-50 win over Cody Zeller, Victor Oladipo and No. 1 seed Indiana in the Sweet 16. That should be the blueprint for 2026 Iowa State.
8. Purdue
| Team | Seed | Adj. O/D/Tempo | NCAAT finish | Similarity score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2 |
131.6/101.5/65 |
??? |
||
|
3 |
123.5/95.6/65.5 |
Elite Eight |
4 |
|
|
4 |
122.6/95.3/63.5 |
Runner-up |
5 |
|
|
2 |
116.4/95.4/62.4 |
Elite Eight |
5.1 |
|
|
2 |
123.2/96.7/62 |
Final Four |
5.1 |
|
|
4 |
125.6/99.4/65.2 |
Sweet 16 |
5.2 |
|
|
2 |
123.4/97.1/66.7 |
Round of 64 |
5.3 |
|
|
3 |
126.1/97.6/66.1 |
Elite Eight |
5.6 |
|
|
5 |
118.5/96.8/64.1 |
Sweet 16 |
5.7 |
|
|
1 |
122.5/96.7/68.7 |
Final Four |
5.8 |
|
|
N/A |
117.5/97.4/65.2 |
Canceled |
5.8 |
|
|
Avg. wins = 2.9 |
Given the perception around Purdue and its sometimes-flimsy defense, I anticipated the Boilermakers’ profile to be one that is prone to getting knocked out early. In fact, the opposite appears true, with more comparables going to the Final Four (three) than falling short of the Sweet 16 (one).
Seeing two previous Purdue squads on this list makes a lot of sense, especially last year’s Boilers, which were also led by Braden Smith, Fletcher Loyer and Trey Kaufman-Renn.
Even though it plays pretty slowly, Purdue’s offense is so wildly efficient that it should be able to get through the early rounds unscathed. The Boilermakers’ athletic limitations tend to show up against better competition, particularly teams with big wings that can score off the bounce.
Bonus Round: Here’s a look at comps for two more notable teams in this year’s field.
UConn
| Team | Seed | Adj. O/D/Tempo | NCAAT finish | Similarity score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
2 |
123.8/95.5/65 |
??? |
||
|
3 |
111.7/90.7/62 |
Round of 32 |
4.1 |
|
|
5 |
116.5/88.5/63.7 |
Elite Eight |
4.4 |
|
|
3 |
116.9/87.1/61.5 |
Elite Eight |
4.7 |
|
|
2 |
113.7/88.8/61.3 |
Round of 32 |
4.7 |
|
|
3 |
116.6/91.6/65.7 |
Sweet 16 |
4.7 |
|
|
2 |
116.4/95.4/62.4 |
Elite Eight |
4.8 |
|
|
N/A |
114.5/88.4/66.2 |
Canceled |
4.8 |
|
|
1 |
117.3/90.3/63.4 |
Sweet 16 |
4.8 |
|
|
6 |
116/93/64 |
Round of 32 |
4.9 |
|
|
7 |
117.9/94.3/65.1 |
Round of 32 |
5 |
|
|
Avg. wins = 1.9 |
UConn’s season-ending loss at Marquette raised red flags about the Huskies, but the warning signs were already there in their profile. Their slow tempo and nightly disadvantage at the free-throw line could spell trouble earlier in the NCAA Tournament than expected.
Given the Huskies’ struggles during Big East play, maybe that should not be a shock. UConn played a lot of close games against foes that will not see the postseason, showing a clear tendency to play down to competition.
The ceiling also does not appear high. No team in this sample ever made the Final Four, and making it to Indianapolis is surely the expectation for head coach Dan Hurley. It will take some special wizardry from Hurley and his staff, though these Huskies did rack up some extremely impressive victories in nonconference play.
Miami (Ohio)
| Team | Seed | Adj. O/D/Tempo | NCAAT finish | Similarity score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
11 |
117.1/107.3/70.1 |
??? |
||
|
N/A |
108/101.8/70.8 |
Missed |
3.5 |
|
|
14 |
109.5/101.1/72 |
Round of 64 |
3.7 |
|
|
N/A |
111.4/101.5/69.4 |
Missed |
3.9 |
|
|
N/A |
113.7/102.2/68.2 |
Missed |
3.9 |
|
|
N/A |
109.5/101.7/70.5 |
Missed |
4 |
|
|
N/A |
105.9/104.1/71.6 |
Missed |
4 |
|
|
N/A |
112.4/105.1/70.8 |
Missed |
4.1 |
|
|
N/A |
106.9/99.5/70.5 |
Missed |
4.3 |
|
|
N/A |
108.3/99.5/71.2 |
Missed |
4.3 |
|
|
15 |
107.6/99.3/67.5 |
Round of 32 |
4.4 |
Likely to the surprise of no one, teams similar to the RedHawks rarely even make the NCAA Tournament. Their shaky defenses consistently get exposed amid their up-tempo playing style, even at the conference tournament level.
But as we have learned all season, nothing about this Miami team is conventional. They have a special ability to summon highly effective two-way basketball down the stretch of close games, having won four overtime games and five other games decided by three points or fewer. Even with that fringe Lehigh comparison (you may recall that CJ McCollum-led team that upset Duke), the historical outlook is not strong. Do not tell that to the RedHawks, though.
First Appeared on
Source link
