2024 March Madness Predictions – Men’s

Every year, there is so much analysis regarding who is going to win the championship, with so many “experts” and talking heads claiming there are a few teams who are going to win; that said, they’re almost never right.  Even in my case, I have 4 metrics which have provided a good indicator of success over the past several years, and I’m often more wrong than right.  This is the nature of the Men’s tournament normally, and I think it is going to be worse this year.

This season, there are 3 teams that were the Men’s side of college basketball that were considered better than any other team, in UConn, Houston, and Purdue.  The catch is that there are serious concerns with each of them, especially the latter two.  I don’t believe there is a single team that is a clear favorite, but there is one team that fares the best in most of the metrics:  Arizona.  I am predicting them beating Creighton 75-68.  That said, I would not be surprised if I get none of the Final Four teams correct for the second year in a row; it’s just one of those years.

As a note, there are four metrics that I consider on the Men’s side (there are slightly different metrics on the Women’s side):  3-point percentage, free throw percentage (both of these indicate shooting), defensive rating (indicating defense), and how many players could be drafted, especially older players (which has historically been the best indicator of these four metrics; I do a weighted sum of these favoring more years in college, where 10 is typically a sign of a contender – for reference, 8 teams have 10 points).




My Final Four

Arizona

Arizona is easily the leader in the metric of points for most players who could be drafted with 19 points (while Kentucky is only 3 points behind with 16 points, they are relying on younger players, which is usually a recipe for failure).  Outside of free throw percentage (they are 40th), they are in the top-15 for each metric of tournament teams, as they are 11th in 3-point percentage and 14th in defensive rating (if you consider the players I currently have in the top-60, they are also tied for 7th in this metric, though this isn’t necessarily as important as older players tend to rise in these rankings after the tournament).  The players who could be drafted include Pelle Larsson (senior, a skilled guard who excels on and off the ball), Caleb Love (senior, a score-first guard who is scoring more efficiently than ever), Kylan Boswell (sophomore, a great two-way combo guard who is improving as a playmaker and is already a great shooter), Keshad Johnson (redshirt senior, an athletic and versatile forward who has developed a jumper), Oumar Ballo (redshirt senior, a big who is dominant on both ends, especially in the paint), and KJ Lewis off the bench (freshman, an athletic bigger guard who has improved on both ends of the court as the season went on, especially both defensively and as a playmaker).  While you could cite 8 losses against them, I would point out the fact that 6 of them were close (though they were 5-6 in games less than 10 points, which is concerning).  They could have some difficult matchups that they need to win to get there, but think they are just so talented that I can’t go against them.

 

Creighton

This one might sound like a bit of a stretch, but this team reminds me of the 2019 Champion Virginia team on offense, as they have a few guys who are such smart and skilled players who are not great athletes (think UVA’s Kyle Guy and Ty Jerome).  That said, the biggest concern I have about Creighton is that their defense is not good (their defensive rating was 41st of tournament teams).  Their offense is really good though, as it is evident by the fact that they are 3rd in free throw percentage and 23rd in 3-point percentage among tournament teams (while not a metric I used, they also got a lot of assists, with 3 starters averaging 4 APG, which isn’t that common in college).  They are also tied for 7th with Marquette in the potential draft rankings with 11 points, which is led by Ryan Kalkbrenner (redshirt senior, an all-around skilled wing who has great size and is good shooter and playmaker), Trey Alexander (junior, a skilled wing who plays hard on both ends, though his shot has been a bit inconsistent this season in a larger role), and Ryan Kalkbrenner (senior, a great finisher in the paint who I think is a bit underrated as a drop defender).  While they have 3 other players who are good in Steven Ashworth, Mason Miller (who could be a key for them as a defender this tournament), and bench player Francisco Farabello, they largely use a 6-man rotation, something that has precedent in backfiring (most recently with Virginia Tech woman’s team in the Final Four last year, when one of their 6 players quickly got into foul trouble and remained in it all game); the good news for Creighton is that they tend to not play that fast, so they could preserve some energy that way.  Their biggest test might be against Tennessee in the second round.

 

UConn

UConn is considered by many to be the clearest team in the tournament to contend for the title, and they are probably the most balanced of the teams, as they are in the top-21 with all my metrics (3rd in draftable players, 13th in three-point percentage, 17th in defensive rating, and 21st in free throw rate).  Their entire starting lineup has draft potential, as it includes Tristen Newton (redshirt senior, a skilled guard with great size but iffy shot selection), Donovan Clingan (sophomore, an awesome traditional big who dominates the paint), Cam Spencer (redshirt senior, a wing who I think is one of the best shooters in college), Alex Karaban (redshirt sophomore, a 3-and-D sharpshooter with great size), and Stephon Castle (freshman, a talented scorer with great size, but has poor shot selection and is inconsistent).  At their best, which they have been at a lot, UConn is amazing and appears unstoppable, but I think there are ways to beat them.  Clingan doesn’t play that much (averaging fewer than 22 MPG) and will sometimes fade out of games offensively.  Further, if you can bait Newton and Castle into taking bad shots rather than making the right plays (Newton in particular is a great playmaker, so that’s a big swing), then their offense will go into a funk.  I also think that they are vulnerable when forcing Clingan into switches or to get back in transition against faster guys.  That said, I wouldn’t be shocked if they won again.

 

Houston

Honestly, I hate having Houston here.  I know that they were one of the best teams in college basketball this season (I would argue they were the best, but the NCAA is convinced that the conference tournaments mean something), but they are not the type of team that has tournament success.  While they have the best defensive rating out of all the teams in the tournament, they are not good at shooting, as they ranked 42nd in three-point percentage and 62nd in free throw percentage (the latter is a major red flag).  While they ranked 9th in draftable players, they had 8 points, which is a little lower than the cutoff for a typical champion (usually at least 10 points).  While I didn’t have this as a metric, it’s also worth noting that their two-point percentage is also atrocious, especially for a 1 seed.  Their offense goes as far as their guard combo of Jamal Shead (senior, a great playmaker with a high IQ whose shot isn’t that good) and LJ Cryer (senior, a great shooter who plays hard on both ends).  They have several other defenders who play hard and well, including Emanuel Sharp and J’Wan Roberts.  The truth is that I expect a really weird seeded team to make it out of this region, but I cannot justify any team outside of the top-4 seeds, I think Kentucky and Duke are too young, and Marquette is dealing with a serious injury.

 

Other possible teams

North Carolina

If Arizona were to not make it to the Final Four, I think UNC could win the entire thing.  They rank 5th in draftable players, 12th in free throw percentage, 20th in defensive rating, and 32nd in three-point percentage.  Keep an eye out for Harrison Ingram (junior, I think he has a lot of potential to rise on draft boards if they go far), RJ Davis (senior), Armando Bacot (redshirt senior), and Elliot Cadeau (freshman).

 

Tennessee

Prior to them being in the same region as Creighton, I thought this team could make the Final Four; they remind me a bit of 2022 Kansas with how they have a senior who could be a lottery pick, though he plays totally differently.  They rank 9th in draftable players (they only have 8 points which is typically outside of the cutoff of 10, but one player could be a lottery pick), 10th in defensive rating, 17th in free throw percentage, and 50th in three-point percentage.  Keep an eye on Dalton Knecht (redshirt senior, who could be drafted in the lottery) and Josiah-Jordan James (redshirt senior).

 

Illinois

Illinois doesn’t fare well in any metrics, but if UConn falls early, they seem like they’re the team best equipped to get out of the region.  They rank 9th in draftable players, 22nd in free throw percentage, 37th in three-point percentage, and 50th in defensive rating.  Keep an eye out for Terrence Shannon (redshirt senior, who will be eligible to play since his impending rape case is not scheduled to go to trial until May) and Coleman Hawkins (senior).

 

Purdue

Purdue has a wide variance since they are dominant offensively, yet poor on defense and don’t have a lot of star power.  On one hand, I think they could beat anyone on their side of the bracket, which makes winning just 1 game a doable task; on the other hand, they could lose in the second round (I don’t think they’ll lose in the first round again, but I’m not optimistic about them going far).  They are 2nd in three-point percentage, 23rd in draftable players (though fare better if looking at potential 1st round picks), 35th in free throw percentage, and 40th in defensive rating.  The player to watch on this team is Zach Edey (senior); they pretty much built a team with shooting/playmaking around him.

 

Marquette

I originally had them making the Final Four, but I’m scared of having them go far if Tyler Kolek is injured.  They rank 27th in 3-point percentage, 44th in free throw percentage, 37th in defensive rating, and 7th in draftable players.  Keep an eye peeled for Oso Ighodaro (redshirt junior), Tyler Kolek (senior, if healthy), and Kam Jones (junior).

 

Kentucky

Kentucky looks so good offensively and reminds me of their 2017 team that made the Elite Eight, which is something I think they’ll replicate; that said, I can’t trust a team that is so young and bad defensively.  They rank 1st in three point percentage, 2nd in draftable players (though most of them are freshmen, some of whom don’t play much), 6th in free throw percentage, and 65th in defensive rating.  Watch out for Rob Dillingham (freshman), Reed Sheppard (freshman), Antonio Reeves (redshirt senior), D.J. Wagner (freshman), Justin Edwards (freshman), Tre Mitchell (redshirt senior), Zvonimir Ivisic (freshman), Aaron Bradshaw (freshman), and Ugonna Onyenso (sophomore), assuming that each gets enough minutes.

 

 

Potential Upsets

In the past, I have given in-depth analysis about each of these.  I will not do this because most of them are going to involve similar reasons, which include injuries (Kansas), lack of draftable players (San Diego State and Saint Mary’s), relying on a freshman (South Carolina), facing a hot shooting team (Washington State), or are just a team I don’t think is all that amazing (Iowa State).

1st Round Upsets

  • 13 Samford vs. 4 Kansas
  • 12 UAB vs. 5 San Diego State
  • 12 Crand Canyon vs. 5 Saint Mary’s
  • 11 Oregon vs. 6 South Carolina
  • 10 Drake vs. 7 Washington State
  • 10 Boise State/Colorado vs. 7 Florida
  • 10 Colorado State vs. 7 Texas

Other possible upsets:

  • 15 South Dakota St. vs. 2 Iowa State
  • 13 Yale vs. 4 Baylor
  • 12 James Madison vs. 5 Wisconsin
  • 12 McNeese vs. 5 Gonzaga
  • 11 Duquesne vs. 11 BYU
  • 11 New Mexico vs. 6 Clemson
  • 10 Nevada vs. Dayton 

 

2nd Round Upsets

  • 10 Drake vs. 2 Iowa State
  • 9 TCU vs. 1 Purdue (I’ve been back and forth on this matchup since the bracket was announced)

Other possible upsets

  • 12 UAB vs. 4 Auburn
  • 6 Clemson vs. 3 Baylor

 

Metrics

I thought it would be fun to include the rankings of the metrics I consider.  These are not in order by importance, but rather by the order I happened to have them listed in my Excel file.  Teams who lost in the First Four games are also included since I obtained this data prior to these games.

FT%

  1. Clemson
  2. Alabama
  3. Creighton
  4. Texas Tech
  5. Colorado
  6. Kentucky
  7. Stetson
  8. Drake
  9. Oakland
  10. Texas
  11. Wisconsin
  12. North Carolina
  13. Nebraska
  14. Colorado State
  15. Grand Canyon
  16. Auburn
  17. Tennessee
  18. Howard
  19. Northwestern
  20. UAB
  21. Uconn
  22. Illinois
  23. BYU
  24. Baylor
  25. Boise State
  26. San Diego State
  27. Dayton
  28. NC State
  29. Montana State
  30. TCU
  31. Samford
  32. Akron
  33. Kansas
  34. Duke
  35. Purdue
  36. Gonzaga
  37. Nevada
  38. Vermont
  39. Charleston
  40. Arizona
  41. Western Kentucky
  42. Florida Atlantic
  43. Duquesne
  44. Marquette
  45. Utah State
  46. Oregon
  47. South Carolina
  48. Yale
  49. Saint Peter's
  50. Florida
  51. Long Beach State
  52. Wagner
  53. Texas A&M
  54. New Mexico
  55. James Madison
  56. South Dakota State
  57. Michigan State
  58. Grambling
  59. Morehead State
  60. Washington State
  61. Iowa State
  62. Houston
  63. McNeese State
  64. Colgate
  65. Longwood
  66. Saint Mary's (CA)
  67. Mississippi State
  68. Virginia

 

3P%

  1. Kentucky
  2. Purdue
  3. Dayton
  4. Colorado
  5. Northwestern
  6. Samford
  7. Baylor
  8. McNeese State
  9. Duke
  10. Howard
  11. Arizona
  12. Stetson
  13. Drake
  14. Uconn
  15. Montana State
  16. Alabama
  17. Texas Tech
  18. Nevada
  19. James Madison
  20. South Dakota State
  21. Virginia
  22. Texas
  23. Creighton
  24. Morehead State
  25. Colgate
  26. Michigan State
  27. Nebraska
  28. Marquette
  29. TCU
  30. Florida Atlantic
  31. Saint Mary's (CA)
  32. Clemson
  33. North Carolina
  34. Gonzaga
  35. Auburn
  36. Oakland
  37. Illinois
  38. Iowa State
  39. Wisconsin
  40. BYU
  41. Yale
  42. NC State
  43. Houston
  44. Florida
  45. Boise State
  46. Charleston
  47. Grand Canyon
  48. Vermont
  49. Longwood
  50. Tennessee
  51. Colorado State
  52. Western Kentucky
  53. Duquesne
  54. Washington State
  55. Grambling
  56. Oregon
  57. South Carolina
  58. New Mexico
  59. Saint Peter's
  60. Utah State
  61. Kansas
  62. Akron
  63. Mississippi State
  64. UAB
  65. Wagner
  66. San Diego State
  67. Long Beach State
  68. Texas A&M

 

Defensive Rating

  1. Houston
  2. Iowa State
  3. McNeese State
  4. Saint Mary's (CA)
  5. Morehead State
  6. Colgate
  7. James Madison
  8. Grand Canyon
  9. Vermont
  10. Auburn
  11. Tennessee
  12. Virginia
  13. Saint Peter's
  14. Arizona
  15. New Mexico
  16. San Diego State
  17. Uconn
  18. Western Kentucky
  19. Wagner
  20. North Carolina
  21. Akron
  22. Gonzaga
  23. Kansas
  24. Longwood
  25. Michigan State
  26. Duquesne
  27. TCU
  28. Yale
  29. Duke
  30. Samford
  31. Nevada
  32. Washington State
  33. BYU
  34. Boise State
  35. Mississippi State
  36. Nebraska
  37. Marquette
  38. Utah State
  39. Drake
  40. Purdue
  41. Creighton
  42. Colorado State
  43. Colorado
  44. Texas
  45. Grambling
  46. Dayton
  47. South Dakota State
  48. South Carolina
  49. Texas Tech
  50. Illinois
  51. Charleston
  52. Long Beach State
  53. Baylor
  54. Florida Atlantic
  55. Wisconsin
  56. Oregon
  57. NC State
  58. Texas A&M
  59. Montana State
  60. Clemson
  61. Northwestern
  62. Oakland
  63. Howard
  64. Florida
  65. Kentucky
  66. Stetson
  67. UAB
  68. Alabama

 

Draftable Players

I actually included the numbers here.  Any tiebreakers are broken by number of players who could be drafted and then seed.  A * indicates that a team feels really young despite their score.  I didn't include any team that had a 0 score.

  1. Arizona (19)
  2. Kentucky (16)*
  3. Uconn (14)
  4. Kansas (14)
  5. North Carolina (12)
  6. Duke (12)*
  7. Marquette (11)
  8. Creighton (11)
  9. Houston (8)
  10. Tennessee (8)
  11. TCU (8)
  12. Colorado State (8)
  13. Illinois (8)
  14. Colorado (8)
  15. Virginia (7)
  16. Florida (6)
  17. Alabama (6)
  18. Iowa State (6)*
  19. Baylor (6)*
  20. Auburn (5)
  21. Michigan State (5)
  22. Oregon (5)
  23. Purdue (4)
  24. Gonzaga (4)
  25. BYU (4)
  26. Clemson (4)
  27. Florida Atlantic (4)
  28. New Mexico (4)
  29. UAB (4)
  30. Washington State (3)
  31. Dayton (3)
  32. Texas A&M (3)
  33. Drake (3)
  34. Texas (2)*
  35. Wisconsin (2)*
  36. South Carolina (1)*

 

Bonus:  The Coin Flip Bracket

For the moment you’ve all been waiting for…or at least my mom, who loves the results of this, the annual coin flip Men’s bracket.  Normally I would say a 4 seed winning it is boring for this, but Kansas, who is riddled with injuries and already will be missing Kevin McCullar and could have a hampered Hunter Dickinson, is a pretty funny winner.  The other one I love is the team coming out of the East, which is CT’s own…Yale.




 

Who do you think will win the tournament?  Let me know in the comments!


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

2025 WNBA Mock Draft

The 2025 WNBA Draft is finally here, which means that we get my Mock Draft!  One year after a loaded draft, most draft-eligible stars returned to school for another year (likely to see what the salary structure looks like after the next collective bargaining agreement), so we have a bit of a weaker draft.  There are two players who have star upside (the top two picks) and another who I think has a chance of becoming an All-Star.  As I do with all my mock drafts, these are an aggregate of several other drafts, and do not reflect my order.   The first round considers team needs as well as the order; I did not do this for the second or third rounds because most players after the first round are selected for training camp and then don’t make the roster. With the addition of the Golden State Valkyries, there are now 13 picks in each round, with the exception of the first round; Las Vegas was stripped of their first round pick for violating league rules.   1: ...
Read more

2025 WNBA Draft Grades

The WNBA Draft is in the books, and now that I have finally gotten my ducks in a row, I am ready to discuss the grades!  While it was an interesting draft with multiple storylines, I also thought that it was a weak draft after who I thought were the top 3 players in the draft (with two, Paige Bueckers and Dominique Molonga, being the top 2 picks, and a third, Shyanne Sellers, falling to the second round).  A big part of this is due to players with eligibility waiting to see the result of next year’s new collective bargaining agreement. With my grades, I did not penalize teams if I thought they should have taken a different player (in that situation, everyone who passed on Sellers after the first two picks would have gotten a worse grade than they did), but focused on the player they did pick and what I thought about the selection and fit.   With my grades, there isn’t an exact formula, but I prioritized first round picks, then second round picks, and then third round pi...
Read more

2025 NBA Mock Draft 1

Every year, I release 3 mock drafts prior to the NBA Draft, and this is the first!  This has been considered an elite class due to the projected top-2 picks, but how polarizing players are starting at the potential 3 rd pick will make this a very interesting draft cycle. All of my drafts are aggregates of several drafts and are intended to give an idea of what the draft is looking like at this point in time (while I would love it if I am right on several picks in the mock, there’s movement that I won’t know about until during the draft).  While I account for need in certain picks (more so in the first round, especially the lottery), these are not a reflection of what I think of each pick or how I would rank the prospects.  The picks are divided into three sections:  for the lottery, I provided vitals, in depth analysis, comparison, and the fit with the team.  For the remaining first round picks, I provided vitals, brief analysis, and compa...
Read more