Final Four Guide: Illinois-UConn, Arizona-Michigan Picks

The 2026 men’s NCAA basketball tournament has delivered all the excitement and unpredictable outcomes synonymous with March, including unexpected triumphs in early rounds, last-second game-winners, and numerous memorable highlights.

The journey culminates in Indianapolis, where four teams, each a top-three seed, will compete in Saturday’s Final Four contests, vying for a spot in Monday’s ultimate national championship matchup.

ESPN’s college basketball analysts, Jeff Borzello and Myron Medcalf, have closely tracked these teams throughout the entire season. They now present their key insights into the deciding elements for the UConn-Illinois and Arizona-Michigan clashes.

Saturday, 6:09 p.m. ET

---

Insights on UConn

UConn’s path to the Final Four:

• First Round: 82-71 victory over No. 15 Furman

• Second Round: 73-57 victory over No. 7 UCLA

• Regional Semifinals: 67-63 victory over No. 3 Michigan State

• Regional Finals: 73-72 victory over No. 1 Duke

Primary determinant in UConn reaching the Final Four: The combination of Tarris Reed Jr.’s performance and the seasoned composure needed to maintain patience against a Duke squad that held a 19-point lead in the initial half has been instrumental in their advancement. Unusually for today’s college basketball, three members of their starting five have been immersed in coach Dan Hurley’s system for two or more seasons. Illinois is the sole team in Indianapolis that can boast a similar level of player continuity.

Hurley’s prowess extends beyond recruitment to player retention. Despite freshman Braylon Mullins experiencing an inconsistent season and struggling to find a steady rhythm, his five-star recruit status was well-earned. When Hurley called upon Mullins, he sank the most crucial 3-pointer of his career with only 0.4 seconds remaining, propelling UConn back to the Final Four.

Additionally, the Huskies contained Duke to an offensive efficiency of 100 points per 100 possessions in the second half, a stark contrast to the Blue Devils’ 147 points per 100 possessions in the first half. UConn demonstrated resilience and secured the win.

Player requiring an elevated performance: Solo Ball

Ball has experienced more periods of struggle than success over the last four weeks. The 6-foot-4 guard’s scoring touch has faltered, with his average dropping to 8.5 points per game in March, a decline from his 14.1 mark observed between November and February. However, when Ball operates as a primary facilitator and scorer, the Huskies demonstrably improve. He contributed 15 points in UConn’s 74-61 triumph over Illinois in November. He also posted 17 and 19 points, respectively, against nationally ranked Kansas and Florida teams in December. The Huskies transform into a different unit when his shots are falling; a resurgence from him could profoundly alter their prospects in Indianapolis.

A potential significant weakness: UConn generates fewer free throw opportunities for itself compared to the number it yields to opponents.

Dan Hurley’s squad ranks among the least effective teams in the United States at sending adversaries to the foul line, placing 307th out of 365 teams according to KenPom. Concurrently, they are also among the worst at drawing free throw attempts (306th). Across their five defeats, the Huskies collectively attempted 80 free throws, while their opponents had 128. This discrepancy is particularly pertinent for the upcoming contest because Illinois leads the nation in defensive free throw rate – meaning they send opponents to the free throw line *less* frequently than any other team – and also boasts a 78% success rate from the charity stripe, ranking 14th nationally.

UConn’s path to victory involves: Illinois has been recognized as the nation’s premier offensive team, but they also exhibited stellar defense against Houston in the Sweet 16 and Iowa in the Elite Eight. UConn will need to devise a strategy to overcome this. The Huskies possess considerable size, enabling them to employ a stifling zone defense that has effectively neutralized opponents. Both Houston and Iowa converted less than 40% of their shots inside the arc when facing Illinois, so UConn’s game plan must heavily feature Reed, who has surpassed 20 points in three of his last four appearances. The Huskies’ dominant big man excelled against Duke, and he will be crucial in the post to prevent the Fighting Illini from settling into their zone. The Huskies must also pinpoint and exploit gaps within Illinois’ defensive scheme; Reed’s offensive output will be pivotal in achieving this objective.

On the defensive end, the primary focus begins with guarding Keaton Wagler. The Huskies have several guards capable of matching up with the 6-foot-5 freshman, who is a projected NBA draft lottery pick. UConn cannot permit the newcomer to accumulate high scoring totals.

Protecting the basket against one of Indianapolis’s physically largest teams will also be a critical factor. — Medcalf

---

Insights on Illinois

The Fighting Illini’s path to the Final Four:

• First Round: 105-70 victory over No. 14 Pennsylvania

• Second Round: 76-55 victory over No. 11 VCU

• Regional Semifinals: 65-55 victory over No. 2 Houston

• Regional Finals: 71-59 victory over No. 9 Iowa

Primary determinant in Illinois reaching the Final Four: While the Illini’s offensive efficiency is among the highest in KenPom history, it was their defensive prowess that ignited this journey to Indianapolis. They restricted VCU to 55 points and 0.83 points per possession in the second round, held Houston to 55 points and 0.94 points per possession in the Sweet 16, and limited Iowa to 59 points and 1.08 points per possession in the Elite Eight. Their rim and paint protection has been exceptionally strong, keeping all three aforementioned adversaries below 48% shooting inside the arc. (Iowa managed only seven 2-point field goals on Saturday.)

This represents a significant improvement from their defensive displays late in the regular season, when six of their final nine opponents scored at least 1.17 points per possession, contributing to five of their eight total losses during that period. While their offense has remained consistently effective, their defense suddenly elevating to a top-10 unit has been a transformative development for coach Brad Underwood’s team this season.

Player requiring an elevated performance: David Mirkovic.

Illinois undoubtedly requires Keaton Wagler to perform at a high level to secure a win in this game, but Mirkovic’s contributions on both ends of the floor will be crucial. UConn forward Alex Karaban was a defensive liability during the first half against Duke, struggling to guard Cameron Boozer (and occasionally Patrick Ngongba II) in the low post. Can Mirkovic effectively score against Karaban on the block? According to Synergy, nearly 44% of Mirkovic’s shot attempts this season originated at the rim, including 141 layup or dunk attempts.

Defensively, Mirkovic must relentlessly pursue Karaban through numerous screens and off-ball movements to prevent him from finding his offensive rhythm. When Karaban is making shots, as he did in the first three rounds of the NCAA tournament, UConn’s offensive execution operates at an entirely different level.

A potential significant weakness: Over-reliance on the 3-point shot.

Given their propensity for attempting treys, Illinois can become dependent on perimeter shooting – and if those shots aren’t falling, it would be highly advantageous for UConn. In their victories this season, the Illini are converting nearly 36% from beyond the arc; in their losses, that percentage declines to 31.8%. It’s worth noting that they have made double-digit 3-pointers in a game only once since March 3, after achieving this feat in 18 of the preceding 22 matchups. Against Iowa in the Elite Eight, they managed only 3-for-17 from long range yet still posted nearly 1.30 points per possession.

Illinois’s path to victory involves: The most critical factor will be to contain Reed – or to draw him into foul trouble. Reed has emerged as one of the most dominant big men throughout this NCAA tournament, and his capacity to score near the rim against single coverage has often compensated for the Huskies’ inconsistent perimeter shooting. However, with center Eric Reibe not performing at the level he did earlier in the season, UConn experiences a substantial setback on both offense and defense when Reed is sidelined.

Another vital aspect will be the battle beyond the 3-point line. The Huskies have only hit double-digit 3-pointers once since February 18, but they have not conceded double-digit made 3s during that same period. Illinois attempts 3-pointers at a higher frequency than almost any other team in the country, while UConn’s designated shooters – Karaban, Ball, and Mullins – have demonstrated inconsistency. The Illini could potentially outperform the Huskies in 3-point shooting.

Illinois’s defensive resurgence also needs to persist. The Illini have exhibited a top-10 defense since the outset of the NCAA tournament, yet prior to that point, they ranked outside the top 25 in adjusted defensive efficiency. They were prone to some truly poor performances against efficient offensive teams, even in February and early March. UConn, despite its perimeter inconsistencies, was the most efficient offensive unit in the Big East. — Borzello

---

UConn vs. Illinois Game Predictions

Borzello’s forecast: UConn, 74-72
Medcalf’s forecast: UConn, 77-73

Saturday, 8:49 p.m. ET

---

Insights on Arizona

The Wildcats’ path to the Final Four:

• First Round: 92-58 victory over No. 16 Long Island

• Second Round: 78-66 victory over No. 9 Utah State

• Regional Semifinals: 109-88 victory over No. 4 Arkansas

• Regional Finals: 79-64 victory over No. 2 Purdue

Primary determinant in Arizona reaching the Final Four: The Wildcats’ relentless approach in the paint has been unmatched, and this tenacity carried them through crucial moments in the NCAA tournament.

Throughout the season, Arizona ranked fifth nationwide in points scored in the paint, averaging over 42. They also led the country in free throw attempts, securing nearly 20 points per game from the foul line. Against another interior-dominant team, Arkansas, in the Sweet 16, Arizona delivered perhaps the most efficient post performance seen in March: the Wildcats amassed 60 paint points and 30 points from the free throw line, the highest combined total in an NCAA tournament game in the last two decades. Subsequently, after Purdue matched their interior play in the first half of their Elite Eight clash, the Wildcats responded with heightened urgency and asserted their dominance in the second half. Arizona concluded that game with 40 paint points and 20 free throw points, outscoring the Boilermakers by a total of 28 points in those categories.

This isn’t solely attributed to the post-scoring of Koa Peat and Motiejus Krivas or the offensive rebounding prowess of Tobe Awaka; it also stems from the aggressive drives of Jaden Bradley, Brayden Burries, and Ivan Kharchenkov. Coach Tommy Lloyd consistently emphasizes scoring in the paint, and this philosophy is reflected in every facet of his team’s offensive strategy.

Player requiring an elevated performance: Kharchenkov.

While Burries and Peat attract most of the attention, the third freshman in Arizona’s starting lineup will be pivotal in this contest. Kharchenkov has delivered an excellent performance throughout the NCAA tournament, averaging 14.0 points and 6.5 rebounds, including an 18-point, eight-rebound effort against Purdue in the Elite Eight. His physical style and aggressive offensive rebounding provide a significant boost for Arizona. He also stands out as one of the nation’s top defensive players. He will likely be assigned as the primary defender on Yaxel Lendeborg, which arguably represents Kharchenkov’s most challenging test yet. Can Kharchenkov prevent Lendeborg from securing offensive rebounds, limit his impact in transition, and restrict his effectiveness off the dribble – all while maintaining his customary energy on the offensive end? He will need to rise to this demanding occasion.

A potential significant weakness: Insufficient 3-point shooting.

This has consistently been Arizona’s most apparent vulnerability since the start of the season. Thus, one could argue that it hasn’t hindered them yet, but the Wildcats represent a significant anomaly in recent history concerning 3-point volume. They rank 363rd nationally in their rate of 3-point attempts and 361st in the proportion of their total points derived from 3-pointers, having made double-digit 3-pointers only four times all season (and only once since December 13). Their excellence in interior play and defense is so profound that they remain capable of dominating. However, the Wildcats’ offense only truly found its rhythm against Purdue when they connected on a few perimeter shots, which helped loosen up the Boilermakers’ defense in the second half of the Elite Eight. Sinking even six or seven 3-pointers could prove essential for Tommy Lloyd’s squad.

Arizona’s path to victory involves: This contest will be the ultimate clash of strengths in the interior, but Arizona is more reliant – and more adept – at dominating the boards and scoring at the basket. That will be the deciding factor here. The Wildcats are among the top five nationally in points per game scored in the paint and offensive rebound percentage, and they lead the country in free throw attempts per game. Michigan, conversely, ranks among the top five in 2-point defense, block rate, and average 2-point attempt distance allowed defensively. The Wolverines also commit fewer fouls. Can Arizona maintain its interior control against a team that can match its size and physicality?

The same scenario applies on the other end of the court. Michigan shoots over 61% inside the arc and ranks within the top 20 for paint points and second-chance points per game. Arizona will need to emerge victorious in the interior battle on both offense and defense.

Furthermore, the Wildcats must restrict Michigan’s fast-break opportunities. Tennessee is widely regarded as one of college basketball’s best teams in defensive transition – yet the Wolverines dismantled the Volunteers. Michigan averages more than 13 fast-break points per game in their wins, according to CBB Analytics, and over seven per game in their losses. They operate with incredible offensive efficiency. However, the Wolverines do not necessarily possess numerous players capable of breaking down defenses in late-shot-clock and late-game situations; if Arizona can compel them to operate almost exclusively in the half court, it will be advantageous. — Borzello

---

Insights on Michigan

The Wolverines’ path to the Final Four:

• First Round: 101-80 victory over No. 16 Howard

• Second Round: 95-72 victory over No. 9 Saint Louis

• Regional Semifinals: 90-77 victory over No. 4 Alabama

• Regional Finals: 95-62 victory over No. 6 Tennessee

Primary determinant in Michigan reaching the Final Four: The Wolverines possess the ability to rapidly accelerate and reach a performance level that few teams can emulate. Their Elite Eight triumph over Tennessee was arguably the most comprehensive performance demonstrated by any team in the NCAA tournament. Michigan outscored the Volunteers 48-26 in the initial half and limited them to merely 85 points per 100 possessions. With 10:52 left in the first half, Tennessee held a 16-15 advantage over Michigan; subsequently, the Wolverines unleashed a 33-10 surge to close out the half. Tennessee coach Rick Barnes was visibly dismayed. What can any opponent do when Michigan plays with such intensity?

The Wolverines are physically imposing, feature star players, and exhibit excellent defense – and when it’s time to dig in and fight, no team is superior. This is why Michigan advanced to Indianapolis.

Player requiring an elevated performance: Morez Johnson Jr.

Johnson has been outstanding this season, including throughout the NCAA tournament, but he will need to be a adaptable defender against an Arizona team that utilizes an eight-man rotation in this matchup. Arizona managed to initiate its comeback against Purdue partly due to the Wildcats’ ability to generate mismatches. Peat scored over smaller defenders. Burries connected on a 3-pointer as the larger Oscar Cluff pursued him. Bradley drove into the lane, compelling the Boilermakers to commit additional defenders. Defensive pairings are never static against Arizona, so Johnson will occasionally need to function like a free safety, moving across the court to provide defensive support wherever it is required.

A potential significant weakness: Offensive inefficiencies when 3-pointers are not converted.

Michigan is statistically almost perfect. The Wolverines feature three former centers in their starting lineup – each a projected first-round NBA draft selection – and they have suffered only three defeats. However, there’s a consistent element in those losses: the teams that defeated Michigan showcased exceptional perimeter defense. No team in the nation can prevent this Michigan frontcourt from influencing the game in the paint. Yet, in their defeats, Michigan collectively shot 21-for-74 (28%) from beyond the arc in those matchups. If the Wildcats can apply pressure to Michigan’s backcourt and hinder their capacity to alter the game with successful long-range shooting, that could affect the outcome.

Michigan’s path to victory involves: The Wolverines will need to compel the Wildcats to attempt shots from outside the paint and eliminate all avenues to the basket. Arizona is a truly challenging opponent when they can drive downhill, penetrate, and attack teams in the lane. The Wildcats rank among the top 10 nationally in drawing fouls and converting free throws; this has been their core strategy, and they are more proficient at it than any team in Indianapolis.

On offense, Michigan must stretch Arizona’s defense by shooting effectively from the 3-point line. The Wildcats’ four NCAA tournament opponents struggled from beyond the arc, but the Wolverines have converted 40% of their 3-pointers since March 1. If Arizona is forced to primarily focus on Michigan’s perimeter threats, it will create more space for Michigan’s Lendeborg, Johnson, and Aday Mara to operate in the paint.

Nevertheless, against an Arizona team of this caliber, Michigan might require Lendeborg to be the decisive player, delivering a high-level performance comparable to his 27-point display against Tennessee in the Elite Eight. — Medcalf

---

Arizona vs. Michigan Game Predictions

Borzello’s forecast: Arizona, 82-80
Medcalf’s forecast: Michigan, 78-76