Look at the biggest upsets in the first round.

The team with the least D1 experience in the entire field? Fairleigh Dickinson. They were older in age, sure, but Purdue starts three upperclassmen and the National Player of the Year.

Second least D1 experience in the field? Princeton. Arizona's top 50 in the country in experience. Princeton was the better team.

Some of the *most* experienced teams in the field?
Virginia. Loses to Furman.
Maryland. Gets boatraced by a very young Alabama team.
Memphis. Loses to FAU.
Tennessee was starting four seniors and a sophomore down the stretch, and yes, they beat a younger Duke team... but lost to a younger FAU team.
etc. etc.

My point is, yes, experience is important in *some* respects-- for instance, I think it's really useful for helping teams *make* the tournament. More than half the teams in the dance were in the top 100 in D1 experience this season, and I don't think that's a coincidence. (Especially in a year where the mean age of student-athletes is the oldest it's ever been due to COVID.) I'd say odds of a Final Four team having above-average experience are fairly good, largely because the bulk of the teams in the field tend to have above-average experience.

But I don't think relative experience vs. your opponent matters *that* much in the NCAA tournament-- and I think it's fairly overblown tbh. Like, the most experienced team in last year's Final Four was Villanova, and they got routed. This year, UConn and FAU are the least experienced teams left, and I would be very unsurprised if they made it to the championship game.

It's good to have experience-- it's more important to have talent, favorable matchups, roster versatility, a good coach, shooting luck, etc. Experience falls below a lot of things on the list imo.