We’re back for another update as we continue to track the top teams across college basketball and separate the wheat from the chaff. A quick aside before we dive in…There’s an underrated storyline happening in college hoops right now as we are witnessing one of the most efficient seasons, across the board, in history. Per my archetypes, we have 16 teams in the 4 trustworthy categories at the moment. That would break the previous record of 14 teams in 2017, with the average being around 11 teams. For the record, the 2017 Elite 8 included 6 of those 14, the Final 4 featured 3 and the lone “Elite” team was Gonzaga who lost in the National title game, so the proof is in the pudding. However, we now have over half of the top-30 looking good, so it begs the question, are we allowing too many seats at the table? My answer would be, hold tight. I truly don’t think that by the end of the season we’ll be sitting with 16 teams looking good, as teams like Wisconsin, Gonzaga, Marquette and Michigan are all barely in right now. Even so, I would also point out each of the archetype’s provides a unique level of trustworthiness, as the Elite teams are far more reliable than the Solid group. What will also matter are the matchups each team has in their path, so when the bracket is unveiled we’ll have even more clarity. So, before you get all high and mighty proclaiming 16 teams is way too many to consider, hold tight there’s a lot of ball to come, and also take note of the differences between the “trustworthy” archetypes.

For those new here, a quick refresher – The goal of this entire exercise is simple, try and place the “best” teams in college basketball into Archetypal buckets, and assess their likelihood of going on a deep run in March based on where they fall. This will all be derived from years of Kenpom data (2005-2024) which I have compiled to create 8 unique archetypes that, in my opinion, will help all who take notice avoid backing a horse that falls in the first weekend, and instead, lead you to hitch your wagon to one that finds itself making a deep tourney run. What we’re not attempting to do is pick the team that comes out of nowhere and goes on a deep run, a la NC State last year.

So, we will focus on the top-30 in Kenpom as of each update. For context, entering the tournament just 8 of the 76 (10.5%) total Final 4 teams since 2005 have entered the tourney outside the top-30. Just with that we already can narrow down our focus and begin to analyze what characteristics of those teams we can identify as key indicators. On top of that we can track week over week movements and spot teams who are improving vs fading.

The 8 Archetypes are:

• Elite
• Great
• Solid
• Strong Enough
• Matadors
• Grinders
• Vanilla
• Wannabe’s

Below I will provide some context for each archetype and list the teams that fall in at the time of publishing. There will be a graphic for each category that shows the criteria and the percentage of teams who fell into that category since 2005 that made it to each round. For example, 83.9% of Elite teams have made it out of the first weekend into the Sweet 16. Juxtapose that with just 19.6% of Vanilla teams and you should catch on real quick to what we’re doing here.

This week’s update:

ELITE:

Here is where we find the cream of the crop in college basketball, as these are the teams who are top-10 in both offensive and defensive efficiency. These are exceptionally good teams, with only 1 such team over the last 2 seasons. However, we’ve already had Iowa St, Auburn and Duke land here, with both the Cyclones and Blue Devils still here this week, so it’s not looking like a year without an elite team. 84% of these teams survive the first weekend, with a whopping 42% getting to the Final 4, almost 20 points better than the next closest Archetype.

Houston and Duke remain the stalwarts in the Elite group, as they continue to play extremely efficient on both ends of the floor. Interestingly, Houston is not in line to be a 1 seed at the moment, so they could be a darkhorse entering the tourney, while also having a potentially tougher path than Duke.

GREAT:

The next couple are going to be pretty obvious but we’re notching down a peg to teams who weren’t top-10 but do happen to be top-15 on both ends of the floor. It’s pretty consistent in terms of odds of getting out of the first weekend, but does drop off decently as you go to Elite 8 and beyond. Still, with only 31 teams to have entered the tourney as “Elite” since 2005 we may find the 2nd or 3rd options this year fall here. These aren’t always your top seeds either, with 2023 UConn being a perfect example as a 4 seed falling here and winning the whole thing.

Auburn remains just a step off when it comes to defense, despite being most people’s favorite and the AP #1 they sit 3rd on our list. Still a very safe bet to get beyond the first weekend and probably an even deeper run, it just gets a bit alarming when they struggle to get stops at times. Iowa St fell off of a cliff but Florida jumped up to replace them, despite a loss to Tennessee they beat Vandy handily and have improved enough defensively to join Auburn here.

SOLID:

Following the trend here, down a peg to teams who were top-25 on both ends but outside of top-15. I will note the difference between top-20 and top-25 was negligible, with the top-20 teams much more resembling the top-25 numbers vs the top-15, so they’ve been combined.

Arizona and Maryland are both hot and ascending, while on the flip side we’re seeing Iowa St this low for the first time and we’re on the verge of losing Marquette altogether. Illinois and Michigan are also barely qualifying, helping us to have what would be a record amount of teams in the positive categories. I would expect to see fewer teams as we move forward.

STRONG ENOUGH:

This is where we start getting a little unique and into the weeds, as we’ve had to find a bucket for those that fail to land in the top-25 on both ends but are elite on one end of the floor. Conversely they aren’t horrible on the other end, so they don’t drop down to our vulnerable categories. They’re just good enough on their weaker end of the floor that their elite abilities are able to carry them with some confidence out of the first weekend. I had to find the line of demarcation, where the weakness became tangible in the results. The teams ranking above 50 over and over again stood out with early exits, so that’s where it stuck after the numbers confirmed that the teams that live in this area perform much better than those in the “Matadors” or “Grinders” categories just by limiting that weakness. Obviously, the weakness is still indicating less reliability, with nearly half as many “Strong Enough” teams reaching the Elite 8 as “Elite” teams (35% vs 67%.).

MATADORS

Now we get into the teams we have to start worrying about which are the overly unbalanced teams. This group will be the teams that can put on a show offensively but who really struggle defensively. We’ve seen time and time again this type of team lose in the first round, including top seeded teams like Kentucky (’24), Iowa (’22), and Ohio St (’21) just to name a few recent examples. The data tells us if you’re gonna be bad on one end it’s better to be worse on D than O, but it still is a stark drop off from 62% (Solid) to the Sweet 16, to just shy of 37% here.

We’re down to just the Wildcats, who have fallen from grace after picking up massive wins earlier in the season. Teams like Baylor, Wisconsin, Purdue and Gonzaga have all found themselves here at some point but have made improvements defensively lately, but they’re certainly capable of finishing here if they slip up down the stretch.

GRINDERS:

Similar to the Matador group this group of teams is very unbalanced, just on the other end of the floor. We all know teams like this, that are forced to take you to the deep waters and test your resolve. Physicality, toughness and relentless pressure on D, but they just can’t seem to score the basketball on a consistent basis. These teams historically have really struggled in March, with nearly 3/4 of them flaming out the first weekend. Some recent examples include Iowa St (’23), LSU (’22), Kansas and Tennessee (’21) among many others.

The Johnnies remain our lone grinder, but UCLA is creeping.

WANNABE’S

I classified these teams as wannabe’s because they are unbalanced, excelling on one end of the floor compared to the other but not at an elite level. They’re solid on one end and competent on the other, keeping them out of the Vanilla category thanks to their better than average ability on one end but still it is not enough to make up for their deficiency on the other.

VANILLA:

These are your purely average teams, who don’t truly excel on either end of the floor. They find ways to win and remain amongst the top-30 teams but without that true strength to lean on and without the overall elite ability they’re just kind of meh, and you see it in the numbers. With greater than 80% failing to make it out of the first weekend and nearly half checking out after just 1 game these are the last teams you want to trust come March. Some recent examples include Texas Tech (’24), Virginia/Duke/Indiana (’23) and Illinois/UConn (’22) who all failed to get out of the first weekend.