138: Trends
A look at three different trends across college basketball.
The 2024-25 college basketball season is wrapping up over the next week, so it’s a good time to examine some key trends shaping the sport and the performance of one of its blue blood programs.
Crumbling continuity
Ahead of the 2009-10 college basketball season, Butler returned almost its entire roster. Over 93% of the team’s minutes that season were played by the same players between the 2009 and 2010 seasons.
The Bulldogs advanced all the way to the National Title game and suffered a two-point loss1 to Duke despite Gordon Hayward’s half-court buzzer-beater attempt.
Between the 2009 and 2010 seasons, around 61% of the Blue Devils’ minutes were played by the same players. That championship roster included Duke’s current head coach, Jon Scheyer, and several other veteran players.
The 2025 version of the Blue Devils is a bit different. Duke starts three talented freshmen, a 22-year-old transfer from Tulane, and a junior that's played in over 100 career games. Duke’s minutes continuity (20.9%) is the lowest among any of the teams that advanced to the Final Four.
The continuity of the four teams remaining in the NCAA Tournament using data from kenpom.com showing the minutes percentage and D-I ranking out of 364 teams:
Houston: 67.4% (8th overall)
Auburn: 54.4% (40th)
Florida: 54.1% (42nd)
Duke: 20.9% (268th)
I’m confident continuity is a factor for winning games, however, there is no substitute for talent. What we do know about continuity is that it’s down across all of college basketball. The NCAA’s decision to allow players to transfer without the consequence of sitting out a season coupled with players being compensated as employees has brought seismic change.
The median minutes continuity across all of college basketball was 53.1 back in 2010. This season, the number has plummeted all the way down to 33.7%. This graph shows the decline over the past 15 seasons.
Kentucky advanced to the Sweet 16 this season without any continuity. Its former coach, John Calipari, coached an Arkansas team to the Sweet 16 with only 9.8% of minutes continuity this season. Coach Cal delivered the memorable sound bite, “I met with the team, there is no team.”
The decline in continuity troubles some fans and people that cover the sport. I find that opinion disingenuous. Because players are finally receiving the opportunities they’ve long earned but were previously denied.
Now, how we cover the player movement is stupid. We prioritize speculation over substance. We read content slop headlines like projects to be a potential destination that are total guesses.
Of course, these are guesses because the market is opaque. We’re awaiting a decision from a government that quite frankly, has far more important matters to address than legislating the glorified Homeowners Association that is the NCAA.
The decline in continuity is not ruining the sport. Player mobility and compensating players are both good things. It’s a shame we can’t formalize that these players are employees, transparently establish a market, and collectively bargain.
Until then, we’re left with sportsbook-sponsored fan fiction about recruiting and the transfer portal—just filler until basketball returns in November with real results.
Shot profiles
As for actual results, Alabama set a NCAA Tournament record with 25 made three-point shots in its 113-88 win over BYU last week. The Tide attempted 51 three-point shots and only 15 two-point shots.
Alabama has become a prime example of the shifting shot profiles in college basketball. When the Tide’s offense is rolling, it feels like every possession ends in a dunk, a made three, or a turnover—missing hardly seems like an option2.
College hoops teams are attempting three-point shots at a greater rate than ever. On average, about 34% of a team’s shots were from behind the three-point line during the 2015 season. This season that number has climbed up to 39%.
Even more fascinating is the decline in mid-range shots in the college game. The portion of two-point attempts from mid-range has also declined significantly over the past 10 seasons.
Using player logs data3 from barttorvik.com, we find that this season the three-point attempt rate (39%) is higher than the mid-range two-point rate (37.2). The graph below shows the change in the shot profiles over the past decade.
We often think of sports analytics as making the sport more complicated. The truth is useful analytics point out and verify what is obvious.
Just because three is worth more than two doesn’t mean every team should attempt a three-point shot on every possession. All three-point shots are not great shots and all mid-range shots are not bad shots. Over the course of 40 minutes or 70 possessions though, it’s logical why teams would attempt more three-point shots and fewer mid-range shots.
And while modern shot profiles are reshaping the game, some programs still find themselves clinging to the past, for better or worse.
Five decades of Carolina hoops
Fans of North Carolina basketball are down bad right now. This feels like the most angst and anxiety around the program in quite some time.
You can argue over the reasons why, but the truth is in the results.
The program has lost 75 games over the past six seasons—12 more than it did in the entire 1980s. Carolina won more ACC Tournament titles (4) in the 1990s than it has in the past 25 years combined (3 total). Fewer ACC titles, fewer NBA first-round picks4, and a lower win percentage than any other decade since 1980.
Here’s a look at Carolina’s performance, grouped by decade since 1980.
At best, Carolina is a proud program that cherishes its rich history. At worst, it’s a stubborn program clinging to the idea that past dominance guarantees future success.
One thing is clear, you are what your record says you are—past, present, or future.
🤟 Thanks for reading thus far, enjoy Final Four weekend of the men’s and women’s tournaments. As far as a recommendation this week, check out plaintextsports.com - a fast and easy way to check scores without loading an obscene amount of ads. 🤟
The box score from that 2010 title game is not easy on the eyes. The Bulldogs made just 14 of 40 two-point shots.
I don’t care for Nate Oats’ demeanor (not that you asked), but I do appreciate how his teams often play with a clear strategy. Him even referencing the expected value of shots is refreshing to hear.
Massive assist to Connor Bradley on fetching the data. Also, check out this graphic Connor put together showing the difference in three-point shooting when playing in football stadiums vs arenas. There are many selection factors when determining the impact of shooting in large football stadiums, but the effect on shooting is probably not as significant as you think.
I debated whether to include the draft picks portion on this table. I think it leaves out a ton of context, so do not take it as gospel.