Shared Statistical Traits of College Basketball Contenders:

Last week, VSiN published my article on shared traits of Super Bowl champions. I use the methodology for a variety of sports, none more successful than college basketball. With that in mind, it’s time for my annual midseason college basketball shared traits of past champions piece so you can take advantage in the futures market. 

 

***Top College Basketball Betting Resources***

*Join thousands of other sports bettors and unlock access to picks, public betting splits data, & the VSiN live video broadcast by upgrading to VSiN Pro. Grab your first month for less than $10.*

I have done this in January in each of the last four years, pinpointing several teams, and the eventual title winner has been included in the piece all four years, including Connecticut last year. 

This is an ideal time to take a deeper look at the current picture in college basketball, specifically which teams are the top title contenders. It’s about halfway through the season and conference play has started. Plus, the CBB futures board hasn’t been picked over by the betting public yet because so many are still focused on the College Football Playoff title game and Super Bowl markets rather than March Madness. As such, bettors can still find some pretty strong value now in looking ahead to who could cut down the nets at San Antonio in early April. 

My Shared Traits Analysis centers on comparing current teams to past teams achieving a certain goal or level of success. While the teams and players might change from year to year, the overall resume of what it takes to be a champion does not. 

For this exercise, I take a snapshot of the key stats, rosters and strength ratings of the country’s top teams and share which ones have the most traits befitting a title contender. I pick out 12 key statistical categories and four of my personal Strength Indicators, plus a Combined Average Ranking. Here they are: 

Steve Makinen’s Power Rating
Opponent Power Rating (Schedule Strength)
Offensive Points per Game
Defensive Points per Game
Steve Makinen’s Effective Strength Indicator
Steve Makinen’s Bettors’ Rating
Steve Makinen’s Momentum Ratings
Effective Offensive Points per Possession
Effective Defensive Points per Possession
Offensive Field Goal %
Offensive 3PT Field Goal %
Rebounding Percentage
Assist to Turnover Ratio
Offensive Turnovers per Possession
Defensive Turnovers per Possession
Defensive Field Goal %
Combined Average Ranking 

After determining the national season ranks for all the Division I teams, I compared them to the champions from the last 10+ tournaments for special analysis. For each stat category, I look for minimum performance, typical national ranking and the percentile of teams that qualify within certain ranges. As a final exclamation point on the analysis, I take a Combined National Ranking of the 16 sortable categories to separate the more complete teams from the rest. 

In the past, when summarizing the findings, I have determined that my Effective Strength Indicator was the most significant. The average of the last 40 Final Four teams ranked about 15th in the country in that rating. Among the harder-core statistical categories, Effective Defensive Points per Possession was most important. Interestingly, the least important factor was Defensive Turnovers per Possession, or the ability to force turnovers on defense. If you consider that last tidbit, you’ll better understand how a team like Houston, which has been a top seed in recent tournaments, struggles to eventually reach the top. The pressure defense is the Cougars’ strength, but it hasn’t proved to be a vital characteristic of a champion. 

Shared Traits of NCAA Tournament Champions

Recent years of tournament action have shown that there is a big difference between reaching the Final Four and winning the title. Typically, only the truly elite teams accomplish the latter. Last season that point was again exacerbated, with UConn and, to a lesser degree, Purdue being the only legitimate title-worthy teams that landed in Glendale, Arizona. Here’s a look at the minimum requirements for winning a tournament championship over the last decade-plus. Just to jog your memory, these are the 10 champions and their seed during that period:

2013 LOUISVILLE (#1)
2014 CONNECTICUT (#7)
2015 DUKE (#1)
2016 VILLANOVA (#2)
2017 NORTH CAROLINA (#1)
2018 VILLANOVA (#1)
2019 VIRGINIA (#1)
2021 BAYLOR (#1)
2022 KANSAS (#1)
2023 CONNECTICUT (#4)
2024 CONNECTICUT (#1) 

Looking for clear separations in the teams’ stats/ranks, of the last 11 NCAA champions:

* Ten of them went into the tournament with a Steve Makinen Power Rating of 89 or higher.

* Nine finished the regular season with a Schedule Strength ranked in the top 46 nationally.

* Nine ranked in the top 55 in Offensive Points per Game and scored at least 72 PPG.

* Eight ranked in the top 115 in Defensive Points per Game or allowed less than 66 PPG.

* Ten had a Steve Makinen Effective Strength Indicator Rating of at least +18.5 and ranked in the top 7 nationally.

* Ten had a Steve Makinen Bettors Rating of at least -15.5 and ranked in the top 7 nationally.

* Ten had a Steve Makinen Momentum Rating ranked in the top 8 nationally

* Ten scored at least 1.185 Effective Points per Possession on offense and ranked in the top 18 nationally.

* All 11 allowed better than 0.97 Effective Points per Possession on defense and seven ranked in the top 15 nationally.

* Nine shot at least 45% from the field on the season, ranking in the top 45 nationally in FG%.

* Nine made at least 34.5% of their 3-point attempts on the season, placing them in the Top 100 of all teams.

* Nine had a Rebounding Percentage Rate of at least 52% and ranked in the top 65 of the country.

* Ten had an Assist-to-Turnover Ratio of at least 1.185, ranking in the top 55 nationally.

* Eight ranked in the country’s 100 top teams in terms of Offensive Turnovers per Possession.

* Eight ranked in the country’s 190 top teams in terms of Defensive Turnovers per Possession.

* Nine allowed opponents 42.0% or less on field goal attempts, a mark typically good enough for the top 75 in the country.

* Ten had a Combined Average Ranking of 51 or better in all of our analyzed stats.

Looking at each of these key categories and every team’s standing as of Tuesday (1/14), there is a team with a perfect 17 score, and that is Duke. This is the first time since I started doing this midseason that a team had a perfect score. There is another team with a 15, two with 14, one with 13 and two with 12. This season is also unusual in that there are two heavy favorites to win the 2025 title according to the odds on DraftKings. They are Duke at +550 and Auburn at +650. It’s a fairly safe bet to say that the eventual 2025 champion will be found among these top six teams with scores of 12 or more. Since I can take all six and still guarantee a profit should Duke win, the heavy favorite, I will keep my group at this time to those six teams at one unit apiece. You’ll see that I’ve mentioned others that I might still consider at a lesser investment. That said, if you aren’t thrilled with the prices on Duke and Auburn right now, I could see a situation of waiting until later, perhaps even at tournament time, to reconsider. I will have final season and tournament projections at that time. Again though, this has worked in four straight seasons.

DUKE (17 marks, +550): Duke is the first team to get a perfect score at midseason since I started doing this five years ago. The Blue Devils are fantastic on both sides of the court. At 14-2, they have lost only to Kentucky and Kansas, but they do own a win over Auburn and have really picked up the level of play since ACC action started. They have star power in Cooper Flagg and solid players elsewhere. The only concern one might have is the youth factor, as three of the top five minute-getters are freshmen. This team doesn’t seem nearly as volatile as the freshman-loaded one from a few years ago that featured RJ Barrett and Zion Williamson. I like their chances, but I really don’t like the price. I’d be willing to wait a bit or shop around for better than +550.

AUBURN (15 marks, +650): The major concern at this point is the health of national player of the year contender Johni Broome, who went down with an ankle injury on Saturday at South Carolina. While it doesn’t appear to be a long-term problem, the Tigers could suffer in the interim should he miss extended time. Broome is one of the most effective big men in the country and a perfect compliment to an otherwise prolific offensive lineup. Coach Bruce Pearl’s team is probably better offensively than anyone, but not as balanced as Duke or even Florida. However, at one point earlier this season, I had their power rating at 97.5, a very rare mark. This team has the chance for a very special season, and to be perfectly honest, I would put a healthy Auburn team as my personal title favorite.

HOUSTON (14 marks, +1100): I mentioned the real strength Houston always seems to bring to the table come tournament time, but for whatever reason, the offense tends to go cold when it matters most. Either that, or the Cougars run into a guard-oriented team that is fast, doesn’t turn the ball over, and is otherwise unrattled by the pressure defense. That said, based on the stats, this team fares a little better than other recent ones for coach Kelvin Sampson. In fact, I have them as the No. 10 team in the country in terms of effective offensive points per possession. Still, they have only two double-figure scorers in LJ Cryer and Emanuel Sharp at just over 14 PPG. If these two get locked down again, does Houston have what it takes to overcome? I still have my doubts, but that could change if things develop favorably over the rest of the Big 12 slate. 

FLORIDA (14 marks, +1400): Florida’s rout of Tennessee a couple of weeks ago opened a lot of bettors’ eyes about the Gators’ potential to make a run this season. Like a lot of the SEC teams seemingly, Florida looks to be a better team on the offensive end of the court, ranking sixth in the country in points scored but 31st in points allowed. Coach Todd Golden has a trio of strong scoring guards who figure to give anyone fits come tournament time. They have only lost at Kentucky, but strength of schedule ranks just 88th in the country. Their best non-conference win was over North Carolina, a talented but inconsistent team to date. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this team down in San Antonio in April, though.

IOWA STATE (13 marks, +1200): There isn’t a whole lot that Iowa State doesn’t excel at, perhaps with a minor exception of shooting the 3-pointer, as the Cyclones rank 113th in the country in deep-ball percentage. That said, they have a very balanced pro-style roster that has been well-tested this season, claiming non-conference wins over Dayton and Marquette, plus Big 12 victories over Baylor, Utah and Texas Tech in the last week alone. The lone loss came against Auburn. There is little doubt that the teams coming out of the Big 12 this season will be prepared at tournament time. With four seniors and three juniors among the top eight in minutes, this could be the season that coach T.J. Otzelberger finds his team on the big stage in April. 

KANSAS (12 marks, +2500): Because the Jayhawks have already lost three times this season, I’m not sure many serious bettors have them grouped with Duke, Auburn or Houston when it comes to chances at winning the title this year. However, this team is hanging around, getting hot and is one of the top defensive teams in the country, ranking fourth in defensive efficiency. Don’t forget, this team beat Duke back in November. Bill Self’s team is a veteran one as well, with the top four of Hunter Dickinson, Zeke Mayo, Dajuan Harris, and KJ Adams all seniors. That group boasts as much big-game experience as any team in the country. There are statistical inadequacies right now, but if this team gets it going at the right time, watch out.

Other potential considerations: Gonzaga (12 marks, +1800), Tennessee (10 marks, +1400), Michigan (10 marks, +3000)

Notable absentees from top contenders chart: Marquette (6 marks, +4000), UCLA (4 marks, +5500), St. John’s (6 marks, +5000)

Top mid-majors:
1. Gonzaga – 12 marks
2. Nevada – 7 marks
3. Yale – 7 marks
4. Liberty – 7 marks
5. St. Mary’s-CA – 6 marks
6. Utah State – 6 marks
7. Oregon State – 6 marks

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR