Anatomy of a Final Four team in the one-and-done era
Is blue-chip talent or an experienced roster a better indicator of NCAA Tournament success?
Thanks for starting your week off with a cup of Basketball Joe. If you haven’t already, consider subscribing to get the newsletter in your inbox every Monday. Unlike an actual Cup Of Joe, it’s free! Now, let’s get to the basketball.
The implementation of the one-and-done rule in the NBA’s 2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement ushered in a new era of college basketball that began during the 2006-07 season. A new pool of talent that wasn’t previously feasible for college coaches opened up new avenues for roster construction and changed the way the sport was covered.
The NBA Draft Content Machine zeroed in on blue-chip talent and the presence of Green Room Guys™ dictated the TV schedule. For the most part, one-and-done players have been a good thing for the sport.
Times are changing though and with an increasing amount of highly touted recruits opting for alternative paths to professional basketball and the end of the one-and-done rule looming, we could see another shift in how programs build their rosters.
So what kind of impact have one-and-done players had on ultimately crowning an NCAA Tournament champion? I dove into the numbers to try to suss out whether it’s better to be talented, experienced, or a combination of both.
For every Final Four team since 2007, I’ve compiled the following data: 247 Composite Class Rank, 5-Star Recruits, One-and-Done Players, NBA Draft Picks, KenPom Experience and Experience Rank, and KenPom Minutes Continuity and Continuity Rank. You can view the data here.
This is not meant to be a definitive determination of whether the one-and-done model works or an emphasis on a certain method of roster building; this is merely an analysis to try to spot any trends on how the best teams of the last decade-plus made it deep into March. The NCAA Tournament can be a crapshoot and there’s not a one-size-fits-all method that is guaranteed to work.
Let’s dive in.
NBA talent is important, but it’s usually not from one-and-dones
Of the 13 teams that have won the NCAA Tournament, only three of them had a one-and-done on the roster. Two of those—2012 Kentucky and 2015—are the gold standard of just how well the one-and-done model can work when it goes right. The only other team to cut down the nets with a one-and-done was 2017 North Carolina.
Having NBA talent was crucial, however, even if it wasn’t in the form of a blue-chip recruit. On average, NCAA Champions had 2.25 NBA Draft picks on their roster, and 10 of the 13 champions had at least two. Only 2010 Duke and 2016 Villanova failed to have a player drafted following their title run, although three of Villanova’s players (Jalen Brunson, Mikal Bridges, Donte DiVincenzo) would go on to be selected following their 2018 title.
It’s one thing to acquire blue-chip talent, but it’s another thing to be able to build a championship contender with them as an integral part of the roster. In addition to the three teams that won the title, only four runner ups (2007 Ohio State, 2008 Memphis, 2014 Kentucky, and 2017 Gonzaga) had a one-and-done on the roster, and just 21.1% (11 of 52) of all Final Four teams since 2007 had one. However, 78.8% (41 of 52) of all Final Four teams had a player selected in the NBA Draft that summer with an average of 1.81 per team.
A deep run in March requires NBA talent more often than not, but it doesn’t necessarily come from the game’s young stars.
Which is more important: Experience or Continuity?
Note: Here are links ($) to how KenPom defines and calculates Experience and Continuity, respectively.
It’s normal to think that, in general, roster continuity would be a positive for college basketball teams. Having a roster that is familiar with itself and its coach’s system should theoretically give that team a leg up on the competition, especially as each subsequent year of experience gives players the know-how of what it takes to win in college basketball.
Based on how KenPom determines Experience, it’s almost an even split between champions that were more experienced (six of 13) or less experienced (seven of 13) than the average college basketball team during their season. For the entire dataset of Final Four teams since 2007, the average experience was 1.66 with an average rank of 171. On average, the NCAA Tournament champions’ rosters have had an average of 1.64 years per player and an average experience rank of 192.
There are clear outliers such as 2011 Connecticut, which featured a crop of underclassmen riding on the shoulders of Kemba Walker. The aforementioned 2012 Kentucky team featured the nation’s top recruiting class combined with the holdovers of the prior season’s Final Four run and the 2015 Duke team followed a similar mold with three one-and-done talents in the starting lineup.
Above-average Continuity, however, proved to be more common among those that ultimately won it all. KenPom’s method of measuring this is essentially determining what percentage of a team’s minutes are played by the same player from last season to this season. KenPom’s analysis has shown that teams with more continuity generally perform better.
That was generally the case for the championship teams. With an average Continuity of 59.6% and an average rank of 90, it’s not a shock that having a roster that had played together was to their benefit. Of the 12 championship teams that KenPom has continuity data for (it dates back to 2008), nine brought back over 50% of their minutes and ranked above the NCAA average. (Note: For what it’s worth, the 2007 Florida team won their second consecutive title with the same starting five. It’s reasonable to think that they would have rated very highly in this metric.)
A similar trend held true for the Final Four teams since 2008—although with a bit more variance—with 29 of the 48 (60.4%) returning at least 50% of their minutes. The overall average continuity for that dataset is 56.3% with an average rank of 137.
Having an experienced team isn’t always indicative of a team that’s been together for a few years, but there is a positive correlation between Experience and Continuity.
Experience AND Continuity is a dangerous recipe for March.
Where does recruiting factor in?
As one might expect, teams that bring back more experience aren’t as reliant on bringing in talented recruits as those with a roster that could use a little seasoning. Using the 247 Composite Team Rankings, there is a negative correlation between recruiting class ranking and Experience rank.
Granted, one specific recruiting class does not make or break a team, and it often takes years of sustained success on the recruiting trail to build a winning program. Here’s a shocking observation though: teams that recruit well do well in March.
Of the 13 champions during the one-and-done era, seven had an incoming recruiting class ranked in the top 25. Both 2012 Kentucky and 2015 Duke had the top overall classes, because duh, and only 2013 Louisville (79th) and 2019 Virginia (65th) ranked outside of the top 50.
On average, Final Four teams had an incoming recruiting class ranking of 44. For the 50 Final Four teams with 247 Recruiting Class Rankings (2008 North Carolina and 2019 Auburn were listed as N/A), 45 (90%) were ranked in the top 100, 44 (88%) in the top 75, 38 (76%) in the top 50, and 22 (44%) in the top 25. Three of the teams ranked outside of the top 100 were mid-majors: 2010 Butler (270th), 2013 Wichita State (105th), and 2018 Loyola-Chicago (103rd). The other two were 2009 Villanova (294th) and 2015 Wisconsin (130th), which also ranked 4th and 23rd in Continuity, respectively.
Recruiting rankings are subjective by nature and certainly must be taken with a grain of salt, but a strong recruiting presence is a regularity for Final Four teams. Having talented players on your roster: what a concept!
Miscellaneous tidbits
Here are a few other random data points that some may find interesting.
In 2010, Butler ranked No. 1 overall in Minutes Continuity at 93.2%. That’s the highest mark all-time in KenPom’s database.
Three championship games featured eight NBA Draft picks: Florida-Ohio State in 2007, Kansas-Memphis in 2008, and Kentucky-Kansas in 2012.
Five Final Fours were completely devoid of one-and-done players: 2009, 2010, 2013, 2018, and 2019.
Kentucky accounts for 18 of the 41 5-star freshmen that have played in the Final Four. Duke (four), (Ohio State (three), North Carolina (three), Florida (two), and Connecticut (two) are the others with multiple.
The average recruiting class rank in the 2012 Final Four was 6.8, which is the best mark of any Final Four in the one-and-done era.
Espresso Shots
We went long at the top and we’re running out of space, so we’ll keep this section short. Here are a few stories I really liked this week.
Greg Mitchell of Mid-Major Madness wrote a great feature on Shari Jones, a New Mexico State superfan that had her streak of attending 89 straight games snapped due to the pandemic.
Everyone’s attention was drawn towards Coach K and Nate Oats’s clapback this week, but Pitt’s Jeff Capel shared a similar sentiment to Coach K. I think the College Basketball Twittersphere would be better served if everyone stopped trying to get the best dunk off or trying to Well Actually everything anyone says with regard to These Unprecedented Times. Just my two cents. We’re long past the point of nuance in The Discourse.
If you missed it, you need to go watch the video of Josh Pastner presenting his team with a coronavirus piñata following their win over Nebraska on Wednesday. Ricky O’Donnell had a great write-up of how Pastner’s antics are exactly what this college basketball season deserves. Also, while we’re on the topic of Pastner, go take Mike Rutherford’s “Who Said It: Josh Pastner or Michael Scott” quiz.
Matt Brown’s Extra Points newsletter dove into the details of the upcoming WAC re-alignment, which is adding Sam Houston State, Stephen F. Austin, Lamar, Abilene Christian, and Southern Utah.
Andy Wittry’s Out of Bounds newsletter found a unique story of how Xavier managed to scramble to put together a broadcast after positive Covid tests impacted the TV production crew.
See you next Monday. Enjoy the hoops.
If you’re already a subscriber, thanks for reading, and please considering sharing with your friends and other college hoops junkies. I’d love to hit 100 subscribers by the end of the year. I’d also love to hear any tips, feedback, suggestions for topics, etc. Let’s chat on Twitter (@ChrisSchutte3).