March Madness 2025 Stat Pack: Analyzing statistical trends for each first-round matchup

The 2025 NCAA Tournament is upon us. Here are some statistical trends to watch for in each of the 32 first-round matchups.

The 2025 NCAA Tournament is here, the Stat Pack is back (!), and chaos is on the horizon. The volatility of the event, particularly on the opening weekend, makes it precisely what it is: the. absolute. best. Nobody ever knows what will happen, and that is epitomized by the ridiculously long odds of anyone ever achieving the perfect bracket: 1 in 9,223,372,036,854,775,808.

Don’t worry; that’s the least important number we’re about to talk about. Of course, basketball is not played on a spreadsheet. Every matchup is different, every game can go any direction, and the unpredictability is, well, impossible to predict. Nevertheless, numbers can serve as a tool to identify critical areas to watch in each matchup.

Could we see a high-major team that struggles to defend the paint face a mid-major juggernaut on the interior? What about a shootout between two teams that absolutely launch 3-pointers? Or maybe a battle between teams with polar-opposite tempos? (Spoiler alert: Yes, we’ll see all of these.)

There’s no avoiding the chaos that is coming over the next few days. Still, there are always trends — whether obvious or hidden deeper in the data — that can help indicate what a matchup might look like.

With the dance floor full of title-hungry partners itching to tango, let’s dissect the statistical trends to monitor in each of the 32 first-round matchups.

More Heat Check CBB:

• Region previews: South | East | Midwest | West
• The only six national title contenders
• Why the First Four could be a tournament launchpad

South Regional (Atlanta)

No. 1 Auburn vs. No. 16 Alabama State (Thursday, 2:50 p.m. ET, CBS; Lexington)

Auburn earned the No. 1 overall seed by virtue of its tremendous quantity of high-end wins. Want to ride a team that has proven it can beat the best time and time again? Look no further. The Tigers beat 19 at-large-equivalent teams in the regular season (inclusive of conference tournament champions who would’ve made it anyway). Auburn’s impressive collection features the likes of Houston, Iowa State, Tennessee, Alabama and Kentucky. That said, this squad has lost three of its past four games, with a dip in rebounding being the difference.

The Tigers started off strong, posting a +5.8% rebounding-rate margin (team OR% minus opponent OR%) over the first 29 games of the season. During that span, the Tigers built a nearly spotless 27-2 record, losing only to KenPom No. 1 (Duke) and No. 2 (Florida). Over the past four games, however, Auburn has regressed considerably, registering a -9.0% rebounding-rate margin while giving up an average of 17.0 second-chance points. Admittedly, the nation’s best offensive-rebounding team (Texas A&M) was one of the Tigers’ final opponents. On the downside, they could see the Aggies again as soon as the Sweet 16.

As for Auburn’s first-round opponent, 16-seed Alabama State ranks just 229th in offensive rebounding rate and shouldn’t pose a major threat in that area. Where the Hornets could be dangerous is from beyond the arc. Auburn is just 6-4 against teams in the top 100 for 3-point attempt rate (22-1 otherwise); Alabama State ranks 85th — but they also rank 222nd in 3-point percentage. It would take a herculean shooting effort from the Hornets to knock off the No. 1 overall seed, but they’ll get their shots up. ASU is shooting 36.3 percent from deep over its seven-game win streak.

No. 8 Louisville vs. No. 9 Creighton (Thursday, 12:15 p.m., CBS; Lexington)

Tough draw for Creighton here. The Bluejays are facing an underseeded Louisville squad, and they must do it in Louisville’s home state. As the statistical matchups go, Creighton’s defense is consistent. Greg McDermott’s squad does not force turnovers but defends the paint at an elite level behind a star shot blocker who rarely fouls in Ryan Kalkbrenner (2.7 blocks per game vs. 1.4 fouls). Louisville ranks 19th nationally in 3-point attempt rate, though, so the Cardinals will likely try to shoot around Kalkbrenner’s looming presence.

Meanwhile, offensive inconsistencies have plagued Creighton. The Bluejays have shot an astounding 19.2% better on 2-pointers than its opponents in wins, while being just 3.4% better in losses. Kalkbrenner is again a major factor in those numbers, averaging 22.1 points in wins in contrast to 13.1 points in losses. As a team, the Bluejays also shoot 36.8% from three in wins, compared to 27.9% in losses.

Louisville’s defense, meanwhile, ranks 21st nationally in adjusted efficiency, including top-100 marks in each defensive four-factor statistic (eFG%, ORB%, TO%, FTA/FGA). The Cardinals have had their most trouble against elite finishing teams who also space the floor at volume. They are 1-5 against teams that rank top 120 in both 2-point percentage and 3-point attempt rate; Creighton ranks second and 10th in those departments, respectively.

No. 5 Michigan vs. No. 12 UC San Diego (Thursday, 10 p.m., TBS; Denver)

After ending the regular season on a three-game losing streak, Michigan won three games in three days. All three wins came over eventual No. 4 seeds or better, culminating in a Big Ten Tournament title. The Wolverines proved capable of winning with offense (86 points vs. Purdue, 81 vs. Maryland) and defense (53 points allowed vs. Wisconsin) alike. Now, they enter the NCAA Tournament oozing with confidence. Their reward? The Tritons of UC San Diego, who own the nation’s longest winning streak at 15 games.

Analyzing any Michigan games starts with looking at its opponent’s size. The Wolverines start 7-footers Danny Wolf and Vladislav Goldin together, but they share the floor on just 49.6% of their possessions. Wolf’s guard skills (23.3 AST%) combined with Goldin’s finishing (64.8 2P%) form a dynamic tandem, whether serving as twin towers or in a platoon. UC San Diego is not small (117th in average height), but its size is mainly in the backcourt. The Tritons do not play anyone over 6-8 in their normal rotation; resident giant Cade Pendleton, 6-10, has averaged just 5.4 minutes in 20 appearances this year.

Michigan has had more trouble with teams who let it fly from deep, which works in UCSD’s favor. The Wolverines rank 48th in 3-point defense, but they are just 14-9 when opponents attempt more than 34.5% of their shots from distance. UC San Diego ranks eighth nationally in 3-point attempt rate (49.6%); Tyler McGie and Hayden Gray have shot a combined 176-for-440 (40%) from deep around star forward Aniwaniwa Tait-Jones (19.5 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 3.7 apg).

Another note: Michigan ranks 335th nationally in TO% margin (-3.8); UC San Diego ranks best (+9.9). The Tritons can counter some of their size and rebounding disadvantages by forcing giveaways.

No. 4 Texas A&M vs. No. 13 Yale (Thursday, 7:25 p.m., TBS; Denver)

As mentioned above, Texas A&M is the best offensive rebounding team in the country. The Aggies are nearly unbeatable when they force their style of play in that area, too. They are 10-0 when securing an offensive rebounding rate over 46.2%, with wins over Auburn, Oklahoma, Purdue, Georgia and Oklahoma among those games. Yale hasn’t been often backed down from a challenge in the paint, though. The Bulldogs rank 22nd nationally in defensive rebounding rate.

It does bear noting that rebounding rates are not adjusted for opponent strength. TAMU got its rebounds against the fifth-toughest schedule in America, while Yale has played just the 214th-hardest, per KenPom. In two games against high-major competition — both losses — Yale allowed offensive rebounding rates of 20.0% to Purdue (ranked 150th in OR%) and 38.6% to Minnesota (172nd).

However, the 3-point shot could be Yale’s equalizer. The Aggies are 9-0 when its opponents shoot under 27% from three, but they are just 13-10 otherwise — including 3-5 when opponents hit the 40% mark. Texas A&M ranks 352nd in 3-point attempt rate allowed, and Yale doesn’t take many threes themselves (336th in 3PA rate). When the Bulldogs do let it fly, though, they’re hitting 38.5% of the time (ninth in D-I). Just as Yale must put a body on TAMU’s Henry Coleman on the glass, the Aggies must stay glued to John Poulakidas on 3s. The Bulldogs’ most prolific sniper (79 3PM, 39.9 3P%) enters the Big Dance having scored at least 25 points in three of his past six games.

No. 6 Ole Miss vs. No. 11 North Carolina (Friday, 4:05 p.m., TNT; Milwaukee)

North Carolina was, shall we say, a controversial selection for the NCAA Tournament. Now that the Tar Heels are in the dance, though, they shouldn’t be overlooked — and after beating the brakes off of San Diego State in the First Four, they may not be.

As far as Ole Miss is concerned, it is among the more balanced teams in the country, ranking in the top 35 for both adjusted offense and defense. The key metric to watch is defensive rebounding. The Rebels are 16-0 when holding their opponents below a 32% offensive rebounding rate, and just 6-11 when failing to do so. Among the wins while limiting second-chances were over Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Colorado State, and BYU — it’s an impressive list. Malik Dia is especially important on the glass for the Rebels, ranking 48th nationally in defensive rebounding rate.

As for North Carolina, the Tar Heels rank 204th in offensive rebounding rate and have topped that 32% threshold in just 14 of its 35 games — and only once against a KenPom top-80 opponent (Duke). However, if UNC can find its way to the free-throw line, that could swing the game. When the Heels hit a free-throw rate of 33.3, they are 16-4 on the season compared to 7-9 when they don’t. Meanwhile, they face an Ole Miss team that ranks 323rd in free-throw rate allowed (39.5) and has gone just 13-9 when opponents get up over that 33.3 mark (9-2 otherwise). Five players in the UNC rotation have individual free-throw rates over 33.3, too. Ole Miss could have trouble avoiding whistles.

No. 3 Iowa State vs. No. 14 Lipscomb (Friday, 1:30 p.m., TNT; Milwaukee)

Lipscomb is a talented offensive team that might be able to attack the minimal weaknesses in an otherwise elite Iowa State defense. The Cyclones’ defense ranks ninth nationally in adjusted efficiency, largely due to its abilities to force turnovers (14th in TO%) and limit interior scoring (51st in 2P% allowed). But Iowa State runs into issues when it can’t force turnovers against teams that light it up from three.

The Cyclones went 5-5 against teams ranked in the top 50 for offensive turnover rate, 3-point percentage, *OR* 3-point attempt rate this season (19-4 otherwise). Two of those wins came over 16-seed Omaha (156th in KenPom) and IU Indy (314th). Lipscomb, meanwhile, is one of only three teams nationwide to rank in the top 50 all three of those categories.

The Bisons are a perfect 17-0 when shooting 39% or better from deep, too. Since Charlie Williams entered the starting lineup, Lipscomb is making 5.5 more 3-pointers per game than its opponents and has gone 11-1 in those games. Jacob Ognacevic and Joe Anderson are studs, too.

On the flip side, there’s a reason why ISU is the No. 3 seed and Lipscomb is the No. 14. The Cyclones are easily the best defense that the Bisons have faced this season and could stifle their perimeter attack.

Additionally, Lipscomb will have a very difficult time slowing down Iowa State inside. The Bisons rank a pedestrian 137th nationally in 2-point defense, and even that was against easier competition. Meanwhile, the ISU offense ranks 45th in 2-point percentage and does most of its damage inside the arc. Lipscomb allowed 64.2% on 2s in its two games versus high-major competition (losses at Arkansas and Kentucky). Joshua Jefferson and Dishon Jackson could feast while Tamin Lipsey lives in the paint off the dribble.

No. 7 Marquette vs. No. 10 New Mexico (Friday, 7:25 p.m., TBS; Cleveland)

Marquette is an elite possession margin team. With the 8th-lowest offensive turnover rate and the 20th-highest defensive rate forced, the Golden Eagles boast the third-best rate margin in the country. When they are able to force their play style in that area, they are extremely hard to beat. Marquette is 20-2 when forcing turnovers on over 18% of opposing possessions, only losing to UConn and St. John’s.

Another key area to watch when Marquette is on defense is its rebounding. The Golden Eagles are not a great defensive rebounding team, ranking 244th in DR% for the season, but are notably better in wins than losses. Marquette has coughed up a 37.1% offensive rebounding rate in losses this season as opposed to limiting those chances to just 28.3% in wins.

Looking at this draw, New Mexico also ranks well in possession statistics. The Lobos aren’t quite as elite as Marquette but still rank 20th in turnover rate margin. Harkening back to the 18% turnover rate number for Marquette, UNM has only committed turnovers at such a rate in 10 of its 33 games, just once over 21%. The Lobos are better on the glass than Marquette.

It’s not necessarily stat analysis, but Donovan Dent vs. Kam Jones is an opening-round must-watch.

No. 2 Michigan State vs. No. 15 Bryant (Friday, 10 p.m., TBS; Cleveland)

Bryant comes into this contest ranked at No. 149 on KenPom. Against teams rated between 80-180, Michigan State is a perfect 7-0, winning by an average margin of 19.1 points. Meanwhile, Bryant lost its two games vs. the KenPom top 100 — Sparty ranks No. 9 — by a combined 68 points. Based on how these two have fared against similar competition to what they’ll see on Friday night: advantage, MSU.

To pull off the upset, Bryant needs things to break right on the glass on both ends of the floor.

Offensively, the Bulldogs must exhibit strong first-shot efficiency. In the America East, Bryant’s sizable size advantage culminated in a 35.3% offensive rebounding rate in league play. The Bulldogs will not have the same luxury against Michigan State, which ranks eighth nationally in defensive rebounding rate and 21st in KenPom’s effective height metric (combined size at center and power forward).

Secondly, Bryant has to end possessions on the defensive glass. The Bulldogs have not faced many strong rebounding teams but struggle when they do; they are just 4-8 against teams which rank in the top 240 in offensive rebounding rate this season. Michigan State is 31st, clearing that bar with ease.

If the Bulldogs can hold their own on the glass, though, perhaps Michigan State’s 3-point woes (30.8%, 327th nationally) will rear their head. Bryant comes in with a lot of confidence, too, having won 17 of 19.