What happens in March, stays in March. Just like Vegas, March Madness has a reputation for bright lights, craziness, and winning against all odds. Every year, millions of our brackets are busted after the first weekend, and rage-inducing upsets are only becoming more and more commonplace. Just last year, we witnessed the first ever victory of a 16-seed over a 1-seed when UMBC stunned Virginia and the whole nation. There is clearly something special about college basketball in the month of March that lies beyond rational explanation. However, when it comes to picking champions, bracketology becomes much more of a science. In order to cut down the nets at the end of it all, teams must have just the right sequence of championship DNA.

While the style of different winners has varied, a common set of characteristics has prevailed. Upon analyzing at the last 15 NCAA Tournament champions, despite one glaring exception, each team entered the dance having met at least 9 of 10 of my pre-tournament criteria. These criteria, designed precisely to capture statistics that are uniquely universal among championship-winning teams relative to the majority of the nation, provide a comprehensive picture of what it takes to win in March. Ingredients in this recipe for success include proven performance, talent, experience, balance, discipline, effort, and momentum. For instance, as far as proven performance, teams that boast a top 15 RPI on Selection Sunday put themselves in a select group. With regard to talent, those with a former McDonald’s All-American on the roster separate themselves from the rest of the field. In addition, experience in the form of an upperclassmen guard in double digits and a coach with previous Final Four experience is critical come late March. If a team wants to lift the trophy, it must be balanced on both sides of the floor with top 25 adjusted offensive and defensive efficiencies. In terms of discipline, past champions have shown that coming in with a foul margin of +1 or greater and a top 50 assist to turnover ratio can work wonders in guiding teams through the tough 6-game stretch. Moreover, sufficient effort on the glass, quantitatively translated to the tune of a 52% rebound rate, is critically important, especially on the offensive end when shots are not falling. Lastly, momentum generated during conference tournaments in early March has been proven to carry over to the big stage, and it is necessary that championship contenders win at least one game in these precursory contests.

The graph below displays the extent to which these categorical realities have held true in the last 15 seasons:

Furthermore, with the exception of the unprecedented 7-seeded 2014 UConn team led by Shabazz Napier alluded to earlier, each of the past 15 national champions has met all or all but one of these 10 criteria.

As seen in the chart below, the majority have actually checked off the entirety of the prerequisites:

After having retrospectively broken down the formula associated with the ultimate achievement of March Madness, it is only natural to look ahead and make projections about the contenders most primed to win it all in this year’s edition. After having evaluated each team in the field with respect to the criteria laid out above, exactly no unblemished units remain. Each has at least one shortcoming which could potentially manifest itself in any round of the tournament. Nonetheless, with that being said, there is a clear and obvious set of frontrunners. Leading the pack, and possessing merits that place them on the same level as 40% of champions in recent history, Virginia, Gonzaga, North Carolina, and Michigan State each check off 9 of the 10 boxes. While both Gonzaga and Michigan State’s lack of a healthy McDonald’s All-American on their roster could limit their ability to spark a run when needed, Virginia could suffer from coach Tony Bennett’s lack of prior Final Four experience (especially when matched up against the likes of Hall of Famers like Coach K, Roy Williams, and Tom Izzo who have a combined 28 appearances), whereas North Carolina’s +0.6 foul margin might not be enough to keep its key players on the floor or get to the line in crunch time. In spite of these minor flaws, however, these four teams clearly have the best chance to put their names in the history books, alongside predecessors who have similarly met 9 of the 10 criteria.

I know what you are thinking: Where’s Duke? Well, while the Blue Devils evidently excel in a multitude of these standards, they fall short as a result of their unparalleled youth, lacking a top 50 assist to turnover ratio and a productive upperclassmen guard. Other teams that meet 8 of the 10 championship characteristics include Kentucky, Tennessee, and Houston. While the presence of two distinct blemishes should theoretically preclude them from winning it all according to my model, these four are the next most likely candidates to do so if it is not the first four.

Further descending the totem pole of pre-tournament qualification, the figure below depicts the stratification of teams by their number of met criteria. Notable teams failing to meet even half of the conditions include (3) Texas Tech, (5) Wisconsin, (5) Auburn, and (5) Marquette:

Overall, seeking to apply the retrospective statistical findings of the past 15 tournaments prospectively to this year’s tournament, my representative model for March calls for a Virginia, Gonzaga, North Carolina, or Michigan State 2019 national champion.