The March Madness Metric Maze: Decoding Polarizing Teams for 2025

The annual ritual of selecting and seeding the 68 teams for the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament is a process fraught with subjectivity and destined to leave someone feeling aggrieved. With 364 Division I programs vying for limited spots after a season of varying schedules and outcomes, the selection committee’s task is undeniably complex. This complexity only intensifies as more data points are introduced to the evaluation process. This year, the committee relies on seven distinct metrics to inform its decisions, a high number reflecting the ongoing quest for a more objective and accurate assessment of team quality.

These seven metrics are broadly categorized into two camps: predictive and results-based. Predictive metrics aim to project a team’s potential based on its performance, considering factors like offensive and defensive efficiency, adjusted for opponent strength and game location. The NCAA Evaluation Tool (NET), KenPom, ESPN’s Basketball Power Index (BPI), and the Torvik rankings fall under this umbrella. These rankings try to answer the question: "How good is this team, based on its underlying performance?"

On the other hand, results-based metrics focus on what a team has actually accomplished throughout the season. These rankings assess the difficulty of a team’s schedule and how effectively they navigated it. The KPI, ESPN’s Strength of Record (SOR), and Wins Above Bubble (WAB) comprise this category. They seek to quantify the difficulty and merit of a team’s overall resume.

Ideally, a team’s predictive and results-based rankings should align, indicating a consistent performance level reflected in both its underlying efficiency and its on-court achievements. However, in reality, disparities often arise. These discrepancies can stem from various factors, including fortunate bounces, narrow victories against weaker opponents, or dominant performances in losses against elite teams. It is these discrepancies that lead to the most intense debates within the selection committee room, particularly when considering at-large bids and seeding.

As Selection Sunday for the 2025 NCAA Tournament approaches, several teams are poised to generate significant discussion due to the divergence between their predictive and results-based metrics. These teams, hailing from both major and mid-major conferences, present unique challenges for the committee as they weigh potential versus accomplishment.

Gonzaga Bulldogs (West Coast Conference)

The Gonzaga Bulldogs, perennial powerhouses in the West Coast Conference, possess predictive metrics that suggest they are among the nation’s elite. Their offensive efficiency consistently ranks among the top 10, coupled with a top-30 defensive efficiency rating according to KenPom. A recent victory over Saint Mary’s further bolsters their credentials. However, a closer look reveals a potential flaw in their resume. While the win against Saint Mary’s represents a quality victory, their overall number of Quad 1 wins is limited. A reliance on weaker competition in the WCC could lead the committee to question their true strength when compared to teams from more challenging conferences. The key question is whether their predictive metrics can outweigh the perceived lack of high-quality wins.

Memphis Tigers (American Athletic Conference)

The Memphis Tigers offer a contrasting profile. Their results-based metrics significantly exceed their predictive metrics, largely attributable to a demanding non-conference schedule played early in the season. Although the Tigers faced stiff competition, many of their wins within the American Athletic Conference were closer than anticipated, potentially masking underlying inefficiencies. This presents a dilemma for the committee: Is Memphis a team that rose to the occasion against tough opponents, or one that benefitted from favorable outcomes despite consistent flaws? Their seeding will likely be a point of vigorous debate, with some arguing for a higher seed based on their early-season success, while others advocate for a lower placement reflecting their later struggles.

VCU Rams (Atlantic 10 Conference)

VCU presents a fascinating test case. The Rams dominated Atlantic 10 conference play, registering only two losses in 2025 and securing numerous double-digit victories. This dominance significantly improved their efficiency metrics, pushing their predictive rankings into the top 30. However, their resume is notably thin. VCU secured only one Quad 1 win, and they did not pursue a particularly challenging non-conference schedule. If VCU fails to secure the Atlantic 10’s automatic bid, their at-large candidacy will hinge on the committee’s interpretation of their performance. Will they prioritize VCU’s recent dominance and strong predictive metrics, or will they penalize the Rams for their lack of elite victories?

Oregon Ducks (Big Ten Conference)

Oregon appears to be safely positioned for an NCAA Tournament berth. However, the divergence between the Ducks’ predictive and results-based metrics introduces uncertainty regarding their seeding. Impressive non-conference wins over Alabama and Texas A&M have aged well, while a recent seven-game winning streak suggests a team trending upward. However, a mid-season five-game losing skid could raise concerns about their consistency. The committee must determine whether Oregon’s early-season quality wins and late-season surge outweigh the blemishes on their resume.

Ole Miss Rebels (Southeastern Conference)

Ole Miss benefits from playing in the always challenging Southeastern Conference. Despite closing the regular season with four losses in their last six games, their results-based rankings remain within the top 20. This indicates that the committee recognizes the strength of the SEC schedule and factors in the difficulty of achieving wins within that context. However, the late-season slide raises questions about whether Ole Miss can rediscover its early-season form and compete effectively in the NCAA Tournament.

Wake Forest Demon Deacons (Atlantic Coast Conference)

Wake Forest finds itself squarely on the bubble, largely due to an inefficient offense that weighs heavily on their predictive metrics. Late-season losses to Florida State, North Carolina State, and Virginia further hinder their chances, compounded by the struggles of the ACC as a whole. The Demon Deacons must convince the committee that their overall resume, despite its flaws, warrants inclusion in the field of 68.

Ohio State Buckeyes (Big Ten Conference)

Ohio State’s tournament hopes are uncertain. Their strong efficiency numbers, usually indicative of a tournament-caliber team, might be overshadowed by weaker results-based metrics. Playing 17 Quad 1 games showcases their willingness to compete against top competition, but their 2-7 record against the Big Ten’s elite teams raises concerns about their ability to succeed against the best. The committee must decide whether to reward Ohio State for its challenging schedule or penalize them for its struggles against top opponents.

Drake Bulldogs (Missouri Valley Conference)

Drake effectively preempted any thorny selection committee discussions by securing the Missouri Valley Conference automatic berth. While the Bulldogs’ predictive metrics were varied, their results-based metrics paint a picture of a team that exceeded expectations. Non-conference wins over Vanderbilt and Kansas State, combined with a dominant run through conference play, position Drake for a potentially higher seed than is typical for a Missouri Valley champion.

UC San Diego Tritons (Big West Conference)

UC San Diego, despite its commendable regular season performance, faces a unique hurdle. As a transitioning Division I program, they are ineligible for the NCAA Tournament unless they win the Big West Conference tournament. Should they capture the automatic bid, the Tritons could present an intriguing at-large profile in the future. Their predictive metrics vary significantly, with KenPom and NET viewing them more favorably than Torvik and BPI. Their results-based metrics, while not as strong, are bolstered by a non-conference win over Utah State and a 15-game win streak. The committee might be forced to grapple with the question of whether to prioritize a team’s potential and recent performance even with limited metrics.