The NCAA Tournament’s second weekend was, if nothing else, defining. Other than the incredible Duke-Connecticut Elite Eight contest to wrap up the action, the other advancing teams essentially left no doubt. We are left with what amounts to a phenomenal final remaining four teams vying for the 2026 NCAA championship. Just like I did a week ago, in this piece I’m going to do a bit of a review on what we’ve seen so far from a lot of the analysis I offered up going into the tournament from a trend and rating perspective, plus I will look ahead to championship weekend, offering up some futures’ wagers opinions.

Looking Back

From a trend and system perspective, there is no doubt that the one golden nugget that we’ve seen repeatedly winning was the reactionary system that I discovered last season and have been sharing round-by-round since. This is it:

NCAA Tournament Prior Game System #2
Teams that win in the NCAA’s by scoring 88 or more points have gone 61-10 SU and 44-27 ATS (62%) in the follow-up game since 2000 when favored by 6 points or more.
Steve’s thoughts: A big offensive performance can dramatically lift the confidence of a team in a tournament setting. I would think this system would be enhanced in short turnaround games.

That 44-27 ATS record was as of the start of the 2026 tournament. Over the last couple of weekends, it has gone 8-1 SU and 7-2 ATS. If neither Arizona nor Michigan qualifies for this angle in the title game on Monday, it will go into the 2027 tournament with an improved 69-11 SU and 51-29 (63.8%) record. 

There was some other very favorable analytics that extended records, including the outright winners in the Elite Eight going 4-0 ATS to move to 72-6-2 ATS since 2006, but that reactionary system was one that hopefully all of you saw at the top of each successive rounds’ analytics report and backed. 

Let’s look back at how my five ratings sets and my Shared Trait analysis fared over the first two tournament weekends.

Opening Rounds Power Ratings Results
The remaining teams in the Final Four were the 1st-, 3rd-, 6th-, and 15th-ranked teams in my final end-of-regular-season Power Ratings. Over the last 10 tournaments, only teams with PR’s of 89.5 or better have won titles. UConn started the tournament with a PR of 89, meaning they would actually land outside the normal strength zone for title winners if they are able to accomplish the feat.

Opening Rounds Effective Strength Results
The Effective Strength Ratings were a bit more successful than the Power Ratings in that the breakdown of teams to make the Final Four, as the four teams were rated 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 13th at the outset of the tournament. The threshold for historical title-worthy resumes has shown that most past title winners rank in the top 5. Again, only UConn is on the outside looking in. The other three teams are officially statistically worthy title teams by the ESRs.

Opening Rounds Bettors Ratings Results
The Bettors’ Ratings show that the #1, #4, #9, and #10 teams headed into the tournament won their respective regions. This is a very similar average to the other ratings shown so far. Michigan was #1, just like in the PR’s & ESRs, and would validate my strength metrics by winning two more games. Past title winners have landed in the top 5, meaning only Michigan and Arizona meet the criteria for winning it all on Monday by this metric.

Opening Rounds Game Grade Forecast Results
If you recall, I added these Game Grade Forecasts to the mix for the tournament two years ago. For 2026, they actually proved to be the least reliable stat model for projecting the bracket. The Final Four teams had ranks of 4, 7, 8, & 30, easily the worst of the group.

Opening Rounds Momentum Ratings Results
How important did it prove to be “hot” going into the tournament? In short, not nearly as much as a team’s body of work. In fact, it was the #2, #7, #10, and #13 teams in the Momentum metric to reach the Final Four. Historically, only the top six in this metric were title-worthy. Arizona is the only team that meets the criteria. If you recall, Michigan was 10th at the outset of the tourney.

Shared Traits Potential Final Four Chart Results
From my pre-tournament article on Shared Traits of Final Four teams, the results were pretty strong, although Duke’s crazy elimination took a lot from what would have been one of the best seasons ever for this analysis. Let’s look back quickly at the tourney results and how they played out according to those charts. 

On the potential Final Four teams chart, the four teams that won their regions all ranked in the top 11 of the tournament’s 68 teams for F4 worthiness. All of them had at least 15 (of 17 marks), with Arizona being the only one with a perfect score. That said, using this analysis, none of these teams are a particular “surprise” to still be playing.

Shared Traits Potential Champions Chart Results
As I explained in the Shared Traits article, there is a big difference between being Final Four worthy and being title worthy. The Potential Champions chart from the article also had a pretty nice start to the tournament, though it took a big hit when the top-rated team, with 16 marks, Duke, was eliminated in stunning fashion on Sunday. That said, the teams remaining, and their respective marks of being title worthy are Arizona (16), Michigan (12), Illinois (9), and Connecticut (9). Clearly, Arizona holds a nice edge here as we head into championship weekend.

Looking Ahead to the Final Four

As we are now down to the Final Four, let’s take a look at the updated ratings, percentage advancement chances, and some potential futures bets to consider for each region.

Seed, Team (Conference – Head Coach)

Embed from Getty Images

2. CONNECTICUT (Big East – Dan Hurley)Opponent: vs. ILLINOIS (#3, Conference: Big Ten)
Makinen Power Rating (Final Four rank): 90.2 (4)
Makinen Effective Strength Rating (Final Four rank): 21.5 (4)
Makinen Bettors’ Rating (Final Four rank): -20.2 (4)
Makinen Game Grade Forecast (Final Four rank): 18.2 (4)
Makinen Momentum Rating (Final Four rank): 17 (4)
5-Rating chance to reach Championship Game: 38.3%
5-Rating chance to reach win National Title: 10.2% 

3. ILLINOIS (Big Ten – Brad Underwood)Opponent: vs. CONNECTICUT (#2, Conference: Big East)
Makinen Power Rating (Final Four rank): 93.8 (3)
Makinen Effective Strength Rating (Final Four rank): 25.6 (3)
Makinen Bettors’ Rating (Final Four rank): -23.3 (3)
Makinen Game Grade Forecast (Final Four rank): 24.6 (3)
Makinen Momentum Rating (Final Four rank): 21.5 (3)
5-Rating chance to reach Championship Game: 61.7%
5-Rating chance to reach win National Title: 23.6%

1. MICHIGAN (Big Ten – Dusty May)Opponent: vs. ARIZONA (#1, Conference: Big 12)
Makinen Power Rating (Final Four rank): 99.3 (1)
Makinen Effective Strength Rating (Final Four rank): 30.2 (1)
Makinen Bettors’ Rating (Final Four rank): -28.3 (1)
Makinen Game Grade Forecast (Final Four rank): 27.1 (2)
Makinen Momentum Rating (Final Four rank): 25 (2)
5-Rating chance to reach Championship Game: 50.5%
5-Rating chance to reach win National Title: 33.6%

1. ARIZONA (Big 12 – Tommy Lloyd)Opponent: vs. MICHIGAN (#1, Conference: Big Ten)
Makinen Power Rating (Final Four rank): 97.7 (2)
Makinen Effective Strength Rating (Final Four rank): 27.8 (2)
Makinen Bettors’ Rating (Final Four rank): -25.8 (2)
Makinen Game Grade Forecast (Final Four rank): 29.5 (1)
Makinen Momentum Rating (Final Four rank): 28.7 (1)
5-Rating chance to reach Championship Game: 49.5%
5-Rating chance to reach win National Title: 32.6% 

Steve’s Final Four Wager recommendation: If you look back at the round-by-round tournament trends article I did, you will see that there are some very intriguing trends potentially upcoming for Monday’s title game, most notably the Big East’s amazing run of success in that game, and the Big Ten’s polar opposite performance level when they reach the sport’s biggest contest. Before then, however, we should have two highly competitive semifinal games. 

Somewhat not surprisingly, the three conferences left vying for the title have been the most successful in the upcoming round, as the Big 12, Big East, and Big Ten teams have combined to go 8-2 SU and ATS (80%) in their last 10 Final Four round games since 2018. Something has to give, and according to my strength ratings, one of these teams might not belong as much as the others. That team is UConn, and despite their incredible recent tournament success under head coach Dan Hurley, the Huskies are getting too much respect here from oddsmakers. The line opened at -1.5, and has since been bet up to -2.5 in favor of Illinois. To me, that was warranted since almost all of my metrics say the Illini should be at least a -3.5 favorite. 

Illinois is playing incredibly right now, and if you go back to my potential title contenders article from early January, you will see that they were one of the six teams I had my eye on, and they were 25-1 at the time. I’m hoping that one comes in, although I do think the winner of the other semifinal game will be an obvious favorite on Monday night. That said, I’ll take Illinois -2.5 on Saturday versus UConn, and if you are concerned about the line move already, consider that bettors have been sharp in moving lines for the Final Four games since 2015, going 13-1 SU and 9-5 ATS (64.3%) in games that have seen the point spread shift off the opener.

The post Steve Makinen’s Final Four Team Ratings and Probabilities appeared first on VSiN.