What does it take to make the Final Four and win championships?

By RICHARD CHEEKS, Contributing Writer

For years, I have asserted that over half of the NCAA Tournament champions since 2002 have been the most efficient team in the nation that year, and that another fourth of the champions were second most efficient.  As a part of these assertions, I have also pointed out that champions usually have adjusted net efficiencies (ANE) above 0.3 points per possession for the season.  These assertions have been based on final rankings by ANE that confirm these assertions.

These assertions suggest that the team with the highest ANE value prior to the tournament has the 50% plus probability of winning the tournament in any given year, and if not #1, then #2 has about a 25% probability of winning.  However, these suggestions are not valid based on an analysis of pre-tournament and season ending ANE values for all teams.

Tournament performance that includes at least five (5) games for the highest seeded teams, and six (6) games for the rest of the field against opponents that are the best of the best changes teams’ ANE values and ANE rank, with some teams rising and others falling in these ANE based ranking.

Final Four Teams and Pre-Tourney Ranking by ANE

What do the results of the last 20 NCAA Tournaments (2002 through 2022, no Tournament in 2020) tell us about who has the best chance of advancing to the Final Four? There are some trends, and there are some exceptional tournaments in this 20-year history.  For example, in 2008, the top four pre-tourney ANE teams all advanced to the Final Four.

The #1 team won the championship, and the #3 team advanced to the championship game.  The 2011 Tournament stands at the other end of this spectrum when the #15 team (UConn) won the championship in a Final Four field consisting of the #9, #44, and #82 pre-tourney ranked teams.  In 2008, the average pre-tourney rank of the Final Four teams was 2.50 and the average pre-tourney rank of the final 4 teams in 2011 was 37.5.

The median mix of Final Four teams over these 20 tournaments has been 8.8 with a standard deviation of +/- 6.1.  Therefore, one should expect most seasons would have a final four mix of teams with an average pre-tourney ANE rank between 2.7 and 14.9.  2008 and 2011 stand as the only exceptions to this expectation.  If the expected range is reduced to +/- ½ the Standard Deviation, the range reduces to 5.8 to 11.8.

Years outside this reduced range include 2021, 2015, 2012, 2007, 2005, 2004, and 2002 on the low end, and none of the tournaments fell outside this range on the upper end, indicating a strong skew of the results toward the chalk outcomes.

When 2008 and 2011 are excluded from the analysis, the median rank of the Final Four teams is only 7.75 with a standard deviation of 3.6 (4.1-11.3 range).

Over these 20 tournaments, there have been 80 teams competing in the Final Four.

— Over 51% of these final four teams (41 of 80) have entered the tournament ranked in the top 6 by ANE.  For these twenty tournaments, 120 teams entered the tournament ranked in the top 6; therefore, 34.1% of the top six teams advanced to the fin.

• Another 28% of final four teams (22 of 80) come from the next group of rankings, #7 through #16.  For these twenty tournaments, 200 teams entered the tournament ranked between #7 and #16; therefore, 11% of teams ranked in this range advanced to the Final Four.

• The next 12 participants (12 of 80) come from the group entering the tournament ranked between #17 and #32.  For these twenty tournaments, 320 teams entered the tournament ranked between #17 and #32; therefore, under 4% of teams ranked in this range advanced to the Final Four.

• The next 7 participants (7 of 80) come from the group entering the tournament ranked between #33 and #48.  For these twenty tournaments, 320 teams entered the tournament ranked between #33 and #48; therefore, about 2% of teams ranked in this range advanced to the Final Four.

The top 48 ranked teams are a significant level of participation because in most years, the only teams ranked pre-tournament above about #45 to #48 are small conference champions who could not secure an at-large bid to play but for their conference championship.  Seventh-nine of the 80 Final Four teams over the last 20 tournaments come from conferences capable of gaining at least one at-large bid to play in the tournament.

The final spot covers all other tournament participants, ranked from #49 to the last spot to fill the field of 68 total teams.  This includes a total of 380 tournament participants over this span, and of these participants, only 1 of them has advanced to a final four (0.26%).  I suppose that VCU’s shocking Cinderella run through #57 USC, #31 Georgetown, #9 Purdue, #35 Florida State, and #3 Kansas to reach the 2011 final four to face #36 Butler will forever give hope that another true Cinderella team may appear, giving a figment of hope to small conference champions everywhere that big dreams sometimes do come true.

However, the reality for these teams remains that VCU is the only one of 380 to discover that their feet fit into Cinderella’s glass slipper to dance in the King’s ballroom.  Frankly, VCU may be the last to have that experience.  Similarly, those who have believed that Chalk will prevail and the top four teams will all meet inside that ballroom will be disappointed in their bracketology as the top 4 ANE teams have advanced to the final four in the same year only once (2008).  That outcome seems as unlikely to repeat as VCU’s Cinderella story.

So, one time in 20, none of the top 6 ANE teams advanced to the final four and one time in 20, all 4 teams came from the top 6 ANE teams.  For the remaining eighteen tournaments, six have had 1 top 6 team at the final dance, five have had 2 top 6 teams, and seven have had 3 top 6 teams.

To advance to the Final Four, I want my team to be in that top 6 grouping at the end of the regular season.

Champions and Pre-Tourney ANE Values

The eighty (80) Final Four teams have started the tournament with ANE values ranging from 0.087 points per possession to 0.374 ppp.  The average ANE value of these 80 final four teams has been 0.241 ppp, with a median of 0.249 ppp.  The average ANE of the 20 champions, 20 runners up, and 40 semi-final losers are 0.284 ppp, 0.255 ppp, and 0.237 ppp, respectively.  The top six pre-tournament ranked teams have produced the champion for 18 of the 20  tournaments.

The exceptions occurred in 2011 when UConn won with a #15 pre-tourney rank and 2014 when UConn won despite a pre-tourney rank of #25.  In addition, the top 6 pre-tournament ranked teams have produced 45% of the 20 runners-up, and the top 29 pre-tournament ranked teams have produced all but one of the 20 runners-up.  The exception was #44 Butler finishing second in 2011.

• Seven Champions entered the tournament with an ANE greater than 0.31 ppp.  The entire field of the NCAA teams between 2002 and 2022 had 24 teams with a pre-tourney ANE greater than 0.31 ppp.  Therefore, 29% of teams with this quality of play won the tournament.

• Ten Champions entered the tournament with an ANE between 0.25 ppp and 0.31 ppp.  However, the entire field of the NCAA teams between 2002 and 2022 had 120 teams with a pre-tourney ANE in this range.  Therefore, 8% of teams with this quality of play won the tournament.

• Three Champions entered the tournament with an ANE greater between 0.19 ppp and 0.25 ppp.  However, the entire field of the NCAA teams between 2002 and 2022 had 318 teams with a pre-tourney ANE in this range.  Therefore, less than 1% of teams with this quality of play won the tournament.

To have a real chance of winning the tournament, I want my team to have a pre-tourney ANE of at least 0.31 ppp, and the higher the better.