The Anatomy of a March Madness Upset

March Madness has worked hard to earn the moniker. Upset after upset, shock result after shock result, and last-second drama after last-second drama have come to define the tournament in a way that most sporting events could only dream of.

David gazumping Goliath is at the epicenter of its culture. It is what enthusiasts look forward to, it is what casuals connect with, and it is a crucial component to any successful bracket or Survivor endeavor.

It’s not always about picking the right upset either. Generally, it’s more about avoiding or mitigating pain from the ones that happen. But if you can properly predict a surprise or two, especially if you hit on a Cinderella, then you put yourself in an incredible position to summit your competition’s standings.

Upsets are inevitable in March. Some can be trickier to spot in advance than others. My job today is to help you understand what to look for when the matchups are released to determine who might be vulnerable to fall victim and who is primed to play the role of assailant.

‍

‍

Like in any other single-elimination situation, everything is always about matchups. That should be your initial guiding light when making any NCAA Tournament bracket or Survivor picks.

There is more to consider, too. I have gone deep into the details to discover the anatomy of a March Madness upset in an attempt to aid the Splash masses in their various quests for cash next month. Spotting the unexpected before it happens could be the difference between money or missing out this March.

In the last three tournaments alone, teams seeded seven seeds or worse than their opponents have come out on top on 25 occasions in any of the six rounds of the tournament in which that is possible. That has provided me with plenty of data to consider in just the recent past, which includes the modern era of the oft-used transfer portal and infusion of NIL goodies for those who can lock them down. I have sought warning signs you can spot prior to any tournament game tipping off, and in considering those 25 outcomes and a sprinkling of others from deeper in the past, I have come to some conclusions.

The Susceptibility of a Slow Tempo

Of the 25 marquee upsets in the last three NCAA Tournaments, 11 came in the first round. Of those 11, nine of the victims were ranked outside of the top 100 in T-Rank’s adjusted tempo metric on Selection Sunday: 2023 Purdue (327th tempo), 2023 Virginia (360th tempo), 2022 Kentucky (126th tempo), 2022 UConn (277th tempo), 2021 Ohio State (241st tempo), 2021 Texas (136th tempo), 2021 Purdue (258th tempo), 2021 Virginia (347th tempo), and 2021 Tennessee (241st tempo). The only two exceptions were 2023 Arizona (7th tempo) and 2022 Iowa (49th tempo).

Now, that doesn’t mean the assailant was always an up-tempo team. For example, 2022 St. Peter’s was 249th in T-Rank’s adjusted tempo, much lower than No. 2 seed Kentucky at 126, but those Peacocks ruined the Wildcats’ season, then proceeded to do the same to No. 7 seed Murray State and No. 3 seed Purdue in the subsequent rounds. My conclusion here is not that slow-tempo teams, or teams that don’t play an up-tempo style, are worse as should be picked against on principle - plenty of slow-tempo teams have seen success in the tournament, and some of the most famous Cinderellas, like 2022 St. Peter’s, preferred the pace of a snail. My conclusion is that highly-seeded teams that prefer to walk rather than run are at a bigger risk for demise.

‍

‍

This phenomenon appears to be more pronounced in the first round. When you take into account all 25 of the marquee upsets since 2021, you find more victims who were the top 100 of T-Rank’s tempo metric, such as 2023 Kansas (80th tempo), 2022 Auburn (44th tempo), and 2021 Alabama (8th tempo). Maybe this is due to improved team quality in later rounds, less surprise from first-round opponents, something else entirely, or a combination of factors. But the data clearly shows that a high portion of teams that exit March Madness in the first round thanks to major upsets often sit outside of T-Rank’s top 100 in tempo. Further, seven of the nine were beyond the top 200.

Why is this? Contrary to popular opinion, a slow tempo is a riskier way to play than high tempo. A slower pace limits the number of possessions, meaning both teams will have fewer opportunities to shoot and score. It is more difficult to make up for a cold night from the field, an opposing player has a career day, or something else goes wrong that normally wouldn’t if your chances to do so are minimized.

Some teams make it work in the tournament. Houston has generally been successful the last few years playing this way. UCLA made the Final Four in 2021 as one of the last four teams in the tournament playing this way. Virginia won it all in 2019 playing this way.

But the data is clear: slower teams populate the strong majority of the defeated in big first round upsets in recent years. Keep that in mind when determining who to ride or die with in your Splash March Madness Survivor answers.

Coaching History

The insanity of the tournament means that Hall of Fame coaches like Bill Self, Mike Krzyzewski, and Tom Izzo all have unforgettable flops within their resumes that accompany their accolades. If you coach high-level college basketball for long enough, you are all but guaranteed to suffer a devastating March defeat or two. Some coaches tend to make it more of a habit than others, though.

Rick Barnes has been a head basketball coach since the 1987-88 campaign. That is 36 completed seasons. Barnes has taken a team to the tournament in 27 of those, and 18 of those trips concluded in capitulation to a lower seed. More often than not, Barnes’s teams have fallen short of expectations in the NCAA Tournament.

Barnes is back in 2024 with another team that will enter March Madness with a favorable seed and designs on a deep run. He is one of several coaches this season hoping to turn their tournament fortunes around. 

Last year, Matt Painter became the second-ever men’s Division I head coach to lead a No. 1 seed to a first round departure. No other March loss for the coach was as emphatic, but Painter has found himself on the wrong side of tournament upsets too many times to ignore the trend. In five of his 15 tournament appearances with the Boilermakers, Painter’s teams have not lived up to expectations based on their seeds. Only once since 2013 has Painter’s Purdue exceeded expectations based on its seed. The coach has reached one Elite Eight and six Sweet 16s, and teams seeded 13 or worse have been responsible for Purdue’s tournament demise for three years running.

‍

‍

Brad Underwood has never been to the Sweet 16 in seven tournament appearances. Fran McCaffery has also dodged the second weekend in all 12 of his times in the Big Dance. Both coaches have been the victim of a marquee upset in the last three years, too - Underwood’s No. 1 seed Illinois in 2021 bowed out in the second round to No. 8 seed Loyola, and McCaffery’s No. 5 seed Iowa fell on its face in the first round of the 2022 tournament to No. 12 seed Richmond. 

Greg Gard beats both of his Big Ten counterparts in being on the wrong side of marquee upsets as of late. After leading the Badgers to two Sweet 16s in his initial seasons as head coach, Gard oversaw a first round exit in 2019 as a No. 5 seed and another setback as a No. 3 seed in 2023 in the second round to No. 11 seed Iowa State. Not many other active coaches in the country can say they have been victims of such monumental disappointments twice in the last four tournaments. 

Nate Oats plays a very different style of ball, but his recent teams have been upended by opponents seeded under them. He has had Alabama in the tournament field in each of the last three seasons. Twice his Crimson Tide have tasted the second weekend, but all three tourney trips have stalled in upset fashion - in 2021 to No. 11 seed UCLA as a No. 2 seed, in 2022 to No. 11 seed Notre Dame as a No. 6 seed, and in 2023 to No. 5 seed San Diego State as a No. 1 seed. The Bruins and Aztecs went on to the Final Four after eliminating Alabama, so perhaps some poor fortune has played a role in this script. Regardless, Oats has one of the worst track records in the last few tournaments as a highly-seeded side. 

Past performance does not equate to continued success or failure. Tony Bennett has captained a handful of upset-sunken ships. He also won the 2019 national championship playing the same version of Bennettball as always. But take into account how often a coach has lost as the higher seed when evaluating who might join the list of lackluster losers in 2024. Sometimes, lightning strikes too many times to be a coincidence. 

Mismatches Make Money 

Every basketball game is different. What wins or loses a team one game might not be the same the next time out. In a single-elimination event such as the NCAA Tournament, a variety of factors determine who survives and who dies. It’s all about the matchups. 

Basketball is not a game that can be boiled down to one stat that rises above the rest. However, there are a handful that gain importance in single-game situations that should be considered in advance of predicting an upset. Rebounding percentage, turnover rate, and three-point shooting are the three biggest categories to consider. 

Maximizing possessions and minimizing mistakes are critical in the Big Dance. Dominating the glass is how UConn destroyed the tournament field last March, and teams that successfully crashed the boards usually don’t suffer upsets. Three of the top five teams in adjusted offensive rebounding percentage in the 2022-23 regular season, according to T-Rank, made it to the Sweet 16 in the 2023 tournament: Connecticut, Houston, and Tennessee. The exceptions were Kentucky, a No. 6 seed that lost in the second round as No. 6 seeds theoretically should, and Purdue in one of the biggest upsets in sports history. 

So, what was the difference between the Huskies, Cougars, and Vols and the Wildcats and Boilermakers? Turnovers. UConn, Houston, and Tennessee all ranked in the top 100 for forced turnover rate in the 2022-23 regular season. Meanwhile, Kentucky was 256th in the country, and Purdue was 330th. In Kentucky’s second round defeat to Kansas State, it lost the turnover battle, 16-8, even though KSU was sub-200 in turnover rate. But K-State was 54th in forced turnovers, and that was the difference. 

Turnovers were Purdue’s downfall as well. The Boilermakers won the rebounding battle against Fairleigh Dickinson, but they turned the ball over 16 times, leading to 15 points for the Knights. In the regular season, Fairleigh Dickinson was the 54th-best team in the country at taking care of the basketball and the 32nd-best squad at forcing opponent turnovers. That was the recipe for the second-ever No. 16 seed first round victory in the men’s tournament.

Three-point rate, offensively and defensively, is a big deal, too. Furman had the 13th-highest rate of attempts from beyond the arc in the 2022-23 regular season, and Virginia was ranked outside of the top 200 in three-point rate on both sides of the ball. In their first round game against one another, the Paladins shot 28 triples and made 10, good for a 35.7 percent rate. The Cavaliers took 12 tries from deep and hit two. That’s 16.7 percent. Virginia completely, and predictably, lost the fight from three, and it cost the Hoos the game.

‍

‍

Princeton did something similar to Arizona and Missouri. The Ivy League team held their first and second round opponents to a combined 9-of-38 (23.7 percent), stifling them from deep. Princeton was ranked 40th in the country in three-point defensive rate, and it showed. 

Anything can happen in one game. Players can make shots that they normally don't, and teams can make mistakes that they normally don’t. But in the grand scheme, these stats are the backbone of many marquee NCAA Tournament shockers, and how the favorite and underdog matchup in those categories can teach you a lot about the eventual scoreline.