Methodology

How It Works

March Metrics uses publicly available data and historical pattern matching to estimate each team's tournament potential. Here's the methodology, the data behind it, and what actually predicts March success.

Ready to fill your bracket?Start with the Bracket Guide →

Power Rating (0-100)

The Power Rating is derived from Bart Torvik's Barthag metric, which estimates a team's probability of beating an average Division I team. It uses a single, elegant formula based on adjusted efficiency:

Power Rating = (AdjOE11.5 / (AdjOE11.5 + AdjDE11.5)) × 100

This produces a 0-100 scale where higher is better. A rating of 95+ puts a team in championship contender territory. Every national champion since 2008 scored at least 89.9, and the median champion scores around 96.

Barthag outperforms custom composite formulas because it naturally captures the interaction between offense and defense through the power-law exponent, without needing hand-tuned weights or normalization. The 11.5 exponent has been empirically calibrated against decades of college basketball results.

Tier Thresholds
95+ — Championship Contender (top 5-7 teams)
89-94 — Final Four Caliber (~15-20 teams)
80-88 — Sweet 16 Caliber (~15 teams)
<80 — First Round (auto-bid mid/low-majors)

Key Metrics Explained

Adj. Offensive Efficiency (adjOE)

Points scored per 100 possessions, adjusted for opponent quality. Higher is better. Champion average: ~121.

Adj. Defensive Efficiency (adjDE)

Points allowed per 100 possessions, adjusted for opponent quality. Lower is better. Champion average: ~90.

Effective Field Goal % (eFG%)

Field goal percentage adjusted for the extra value of three-pointers. Accounts for shot quality, not just volume.

Turnover Rate (TO%)

Percentage of possessions ending in a turnover. Lower is better. Ball security under tournament pressure separates survivors.

Offensive Rebound Rate (ORB%)

Percentage of available offensive rebounds secured. Creates second-chance points, which are critical in low-scoring tournament games.

Free Throw Rate (FT Rate)

Free throw attempts per field goal attempt. Getting to the line reflects aggressiveness and the ability to draw fouls.

Tempo

Possessions per game. Neither inherently good nor bad, but extreme tempo can become erratic against elite half-court defense.

Strength of Schedule (SOS)

Composite rating reflecting the difficulty of a team's schedule. Battle-tested teams historically perform better in March.

Historical Pattern Matching

Each team is compared against 17 years of tournament teams (2008-2025) using normalized Euclidean distance across seven efficiency metrics: adjOE, adjDE, tempo, eFG%, TO%, ORB%, and FT Rate. The three closest historical matches are shown, along with a similarity percentage and their actual tournament result. This provides context: if a team's closest match won a championship, that's a strong signal.

Tournament Probability Estimates

Round-by-round probabilities are estimated using a seed-based baseline modified by Power Rating and historical pattern similarity. The Power Rating maps to an "implied seed," which is blended with the actual seed to produce adjusted probabilities. These are not betting odds — they are analytical estimates designed to contextualize each team's championship path.

What Matters Most

We analyzed 1,000+ tournament teams across 17 years to find which stats actually predict March success — and which ones are just noise. This data validates the bracket guide's signal grades and methodology.

Tournament Intelligence

What Predicts March Success?

We analyzed 1,000+ tournament teams across 17 years to find which stats actually predict March success — and which ones are just noise. Click any metric to see the data.

Raw correlation with tournament advancement

What Matters Most

Ranked by correlation strength · Click any metric to explore in the scatter plot below

Based on Spearman rank correlations across 1,000+ tournament teams (2008–2025). Raw correlations with tournament advancement depth (1–7 rounds). ↓ = lower is better.

Power Rating Strongly Predicts Tournament Depth

1,000+ historical teams plotted by pre-tournament metric value (X) against actual tournament result (Y). Current-year teams shown at bottom.

Gold halo = Champion

Data Sources & Attribution

The Power Rating is based on the Barthag metric created by Bart Torvik of barttorvik.com. All efficiency data uses pre-tournament Torvik Time Machine snapshots to ensure consistency with the data available at selection time.

  • Bart Torvik / T-Rank (primary efficiency data, Barthag, and Time Machine snapshots)
  • NCAA NET Rankings (official NCAA ranking system)
  • Historical tournament results (2008-2025, 17 seasons)

About March Metrics

RH

Ryan Hinchey

Product Innovation Actuary (FSA)

As a credentialed actuary and UConn alum, Ryan applies probability modeling principles to bracket analysis. March Metrics is where analytical rigor meets basketball fandom — built end-to-end with Claude Code.

Support March Metrics

March Metrics is a labor of love — built nights and weekends with Claude Code. If it helped your bracket or you just enjoy the analytics, consider buying me a coffee.

Buy me a coffee
Disclaimer

March Metrics is an independent analytical project using publicly available data. Statistical data is sourced from Bart Torvik's T-Rank. Team logos are trademarks of their respective universities and conferences, used for identification purposes only. This site is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by any university, conference, or the NCAA. All probability estimates are for educational and entertainment purposes only — not for wagering.