March Madness Wrapped - Inside AD Vantage Data

AD Vantage’s signature strength is coaching and sports performance analytics, which makes March Madness basically our team’s data fever dream. With a wealth of insights at our fingertips, we dialed in the three most critical data points for men’s and women’s basketball programs ahead of the big dance – operating costs, net ranking, and CoachEffect. 

We used those data points to generate insights throughout the tournament with a few clicks. We’re recapping what we learned and sharing our trove of information with you because we believe in the strength of our platform and think our findings are that impactful. 

CoachEffect gave our AD Vantage team an exciting litmus test that the data is good, reliable, and valuable. If you need a reminder on what CoachEffect is, check out the link embedded here.

We'll bounce between different stages of the men’s and women’s tournaments. You may recognize some graphics in this article that were posted to LinkedIn, provided by the very talented Zach Watson – Thank you, Zach! 

Men’s Tournament First & Second Rounds Insights

We started the tournament by highlighting the three key data points outlined above on all teams, divided up into their regional brackets.

Some general insights about the field of 68 are below:

General Insights

• Lowest Operating Costs:

  • Prairie View A&M University ($1,556,863), CoachEffect (62.14)

• Highest Operating Costs:

  • University of Texas at Austin ($22,352,655), CoachEffect (66.55)

• Average CoachEffect:

  • Median: 70.26, Mean: 66.9

Top 5 Most Financially Efficient Programs

• McNeese State - Eliminated in First Round 

  • Spend: $3.17M | CoachEffect: 72.68 | CoachEffect Ranking (#28 of 68)

• Utah State - Eliminated in Second Round 

  • Spend: $6.41M | CoachEffect: 70.34 | CoachEffect Ranking (#39 of 68)

• South Florida - Eliminated in First Round 

  • Spend: $8.43M | CoachEffect: 73.20 | CoachEffect Ranking (#25 of 68)

• Iowa State - Eliminated in Sweet 16 

  • Spend: $10.58M | CoachEffect: 88.12 | CoachEffect Ranking (#1 of 68)

• Georgia - Eliminated in First Round 

  • Spend: $9.79M | CoachEffect: 69.12 | CoachEffect Ranking (#34 of 68)

While these programs are financially efficient, showing the biggest return on investment for program spending and CoachEffect, you may recognize that it didn’t necessarily translate to success in the tournament. That’s because in the postseason, it’s leadership (measured via CoachEffect) that carries teams through the tournament. Check out the data below as a snapshot of the field across operating expenses, CoachEffect, and net rank:

We also found that higher-seeded teams didn’t always have the stronger coaches. Here are a few upsets in the men’s First & Second Round that were aligned with CoachEffect.

At the end of the First & Second Rounds of the men’s Tournament, our CoachEffect ranking system outperformed traditional models, including higher-seed expectations and even Vegas odds:

CoachEffect - 79%

Higher seed expectations - 75%

Vegas ATS - 58%

Men’s Tournament Sweet 16 Takeaways

Despite early bracket busters like Iowa over Florida, CoachEffect rankings held up as all of the top 10 coaches by CoachEffect still advanced to the Sweet 16.

After teams clinched seats in the Sweet 16, we uncovered what we already knew to be true: CoachEffect was the most powerful data point that aligned with success in March Madness.

Women’s Tournament First & Second Rounds Insights

As a reminder, we took a look at operating costs, net rank, and CoachEffect for the field of 68. Here’s some broad context:

General Insights

• Lowest Operating Costs:

  • Southern University, Baton Rouge ($1,149,653), CoachEffect (45.3)

• Highest Operating Costs:

  • University of South Carolina ($13,112,610), CoachEffect (84.75)

• Average CoachEffect

  • Median: 69.71, Mean: 67.91

Women’s Tournament Sweet 16 Takeaways

Of the top 16 coaches based on CoachEffect, 11 moved on to the Sweet 16. 

The five programs with the strongest coaches that missed the Sweet 16 were USC, Ole Miss, Ohio State, Illinois, and WVU.

The five that replaced them - Minnesota, UNC, Michigan, Virginia, and Louisville.

Here’s a glimpse at the Sweet 16’s operating costs, net rank, and CoachEffect:

Women’s Final Four Insights

Of the top six coaches by CoachEffect, four of them advanced to the Final Four. Interestingly, the two coaches that didn’t advance further in the bracket (LSU & Duke) competed in the same region as UCLA. It begs the question – what if CoachEffect were used to determine seeding and regions? Here’s a breakdown of the top 6 coaches per CoachEffect and their outcomes:

• LSU - Eliminated in the Sweet 16, defeated by Duke

  • Kim Mulkey | CoachEffect 85.10 | CoachEffect Ranking (#1 of 68)

• South Carolina - Advanced to National Championship, defeated by UCLA

  • Dawn Staley | CoachEffect 84.75 | CoachEffect Ranking (#2 of 68)

• UT Austin - Advanced to Final Four, defeated by UCLA

  • Vic Schaefer | CoachEffect 84.02 | CoachEffect Ranking (#3 of 68)

• UConn - Advanced to Final Four, defeated by South Carolina

  • Geno Auriemma | CoachEffect 82.91 | CoachEffect Ranking (#4 of 68)

• Duke -  Advanced to Elite 8, defeated by UCLA

  • Kara Lawson | CoachEffect 82.22 |CoachEffect Ranking (#5 of 68)

• UCLA -  National Champions

  • Cori Close | CoachEffect 82.10 |CoachEffect Ranking (#6 of 68)

Holding up across both men’s and women’s tournaments shows the promise of the CoachEffect tool that can be customized across sports.

Men’s Final Four Insights

Of the top seven coaches by CoachEffect, four of them advanced to the Final Four. Here’s a breakdown of the top 6 coaches per CoachEffect and their outcomes:

• Iowa State - Eliminated in the Sweet 16, defeated by Tennessee

  • T.J. Otzelberger | CoachEffect 84.53 | CoachEffect Ranking (#1 of 68)

• Arizona - Advanced to Final Four, defeated by Michigan

  • Tommy Lloyd | CoachEffect 83.86 | CoachEffect Ranking (#2 of 68)

• Houston - Eliminated in the Sweet 16, defeated by Illinois

  • Kelvin Sampson | CoachEffect 83.64 | CoachEffect Ranking (#3 of 68)

• Duke - Eliminated in Elite Eight, defeated by UConn

  • Jon Scheyer | CoachEffect 83.22 | CoachEffect Ranking (#4 of 68)

• Michigan - National Champions

  • Dusty May | CoachEffect 82.01 |CoachEffect Ranking (#5 of 68)

• UConn -  Advanced to National Championship, defeated by Michigan

  • Dan Hurley | CoachEffect 81.20 | CoachEffect Ranking (#6 of 68)

• Illinois -  Advanced to Final Four, defeated by UConn

  • Brad Underwood | CoachEffect 80.95 | CoachEffect Ranking (#7 of 68)

What this means

Philosophers, scholars, clerics, the list goes on of people who have long waited for a way to measure leadership as a whole. Something so intangible, but highly lauded and valued that people want to study it, measure it, bottle it up.

Well, we may not have the greater societal leadership measurement figured out, but we certainly do for DI coaches.

CoachEffect provided a powerful proof point for the AD Vantage team—validating that our data isn’t just insightful, but reliable, actionable, and built to drive real decisions.

Using CoachEffect in context with our whole platform that includes net rank, operating expenses, contract information, salary benchmarking, just to name a few things, will arm athletics departments with the tools they need to run efficient and effective departments to better their programs, institutions, and local communities.