March Madness Model

We are two weeks away from Selection Sunday.

And I’ll be honest — I haven’t watched enough NCAA basketball to give you a clean, film-grind, analytics-heavy breakdown of who truly has it this year and who doesn’t.

So instead of pretending, I built a model.

This is a simple principles-based system built around NBA talent, experience, depth, and guard play. Let me walk you through it.

Step 1: Start With NBA Talent

I wanted a way to parse high-end talent, so I pulled the top 83 draft prospects from Tankathon’s big board (removing overseas players not affiliated with schools).

The higher a player’s draft ranking, the more points he receives.

Now — we acknowledge something important:

The best NBA prospects are not always the best college players. Ceiling and immediate impact are different things but this got us a talent pool to start with.

Step 2: Experience Multiplier

Most models lean toward youth and upside.

I went the opposite direction.

If we’re trying to win six games in three weeks, experience matters.

Experience Multiplier

FR — 0.85

SO — 1

JR — 1.25

SR — 1.5

Seniors and juniors get a meaningful bump. Freshmen take a hit. The logic is simple: experienced players handle March better.

Step 3: Depth Multiplier

It’s not just about having one guy.

If you have multiple top-83 prospects, that compounds.

Depth Multiplier: 1 player — 1 2 players — 1.1 3 players — 1.2 4 players — 1.3 5 players — 1.4

Even if the top 83 isn’t perfectly accurate, it’s at least a clean starting line for identifying legitimate talent.

Step 4: Guard Multiplier (Yes, This Is Intentional)

This is the controversial one. Guards get a 1.25 multiplier. Why?

Because in late-game, high-stress, tournament moments, I want players comfortable with the ball in their hands. We’ve seen dominant big men, sure — but guards decide tight games.

The Results

Arizona Rank 1

Brayden Burries SG FR Rank 14

Koa Peat PF FR Rank 16

Motiejus Krivas C JR Rank 50

Jaden Bradley PG SR Rank 57

Total: 299.4

Houston Rank 2

Kingston Flemings PG FR Rank 5

Chris Cenac Jr C FR Rank 21

Jojo Tugler PF JR Rank 46

Milos Uzan PG JR Rank 63

Total: 289.3

Michigan Rank 3

Yaxel Lendeborg PF SR Rank 13

Aday Mara C JR Rank 29

Morez Johnson Jr PF SO Rank 33

Total: 276.0

Uconn Rank 4

Braylon Mullins SG FR Rank 10

Alex Karaban SF SR Rank 45

Tarris Reed Jr C SR Rank 49

Solo Ball SG JR Rank 81

Total: 259.9

Illinois Rank 5

Keaton Wagler SG FR Rank 8

Zvonimir Ivisic C JR Rank 60

Tomislav Ivisic C JR Rank 62

Andrej Stojakovic SG JR Rank 72

Kylan Boswell PG SR Rank 75

Total: 253.2

Florida Rank 6

Thomas Haugh PF JR Rank 15

Alex Condon PF JR Rank 51

Rueben Chinyelu C JR Rank 52

Boogie Fland PG SO Rank 80

Total: 230.8

Duke Rank 7

Cameron Boozer PF FR Rank 1

Patrick Ngongba II C SO Rank 20

Isiah Evans SF SO Rank 39

Total: 218.9

Iowa State Rank 8

Joshua Jefferson PF SR Rank 26

Milan Momcilovic SF JR Rank 54

Tamin Lipsey PG SR Rank 56

Total: 218.0

Arkansas Rank 9

Darus Acuff PG FR Rank 6

Meleek Thomas SG FR Rank 36

Karter Knox SF SO Rank 71

Trevon Brazile PF SR Rank 77

Total: 210.6

Kentucky Rank 10

Jayden Quaintance PF SO Rank 18

Malachai Moreno C FR Rank 32

Otega Oweh SG SR Rank 64

Total: 181.7

Louisville Rank 11

Mikel Brown Jr PG FR Rank 7

Ryan Conwell SG SR Rank 47

Total: 169.5

BYU Rank 12

AJ Dybantsa SF FR Rank 3

Richie Saunders SG SR Rank 43

Total: 163.3

Kansas Rank 13

Daryn Peterson PG FR Rank 2

Flory Bidunga C SO Rank 30

Total: 157.5

Alabama Rank 14

Labaron Philon PG SO Rank 12

Amari Allen SF FR Rank 27

Total: 154.6

Baylor Rank 15

Tounde Yessoufou SF FR Rank 17

Cameron Carr SG SO Rank 24

Total: 147.5

North Carolina Rank 16

Caleb Wilson SF FR Rank 4

Henri Veesaar C JR Rank 37

Total: 141.7

Iowa Rank 17

Bennet Stirtz PG SR Rank 19

Total: 123.8

Saint Johns Rank 18

Zuby Ejiofor PF SR Rank 38

Dillon Mitchell SF SR Rank 65

Total: 110.6

From there the totals fall off quickly:

NC State — 90.5

Perdue — 84.4

Auburn — 76.2

Vanderbilt — 75.0

Washington — 72.3

Tennessee — 64.6

Texas — 63.8

USC — 60.6

Stanford — 57.4

Ohio State — 56.3

Wake Forest — 53.8

San Diego State — 53.0

Oregon — 45.7

Cincinnati — 28.5

Indiana — 28.1

Georgetown — 18.8

Miami — 16.5

Virginia — 15.3

Michigan State — 11.3

Missouri — 10.5

We’re going to fill out this bracket using our model — nothing else.

When two direct opponents face off, the better ranking advances. If it’s a ranked team versus a team not included in our model, the ranked team moves on. If neither team appears in our rankings, we follow the seed until one of “our” teams enters the matchup.

No gut feelings. No last-second flips. Just the numbers.

Buckle up — we’ll see what happens. Good luck.