NCAA Men's College Basketball Tournament Trends - Part I
Updated: March 20, 2024
The NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament begins this week and it's time to fill out your brackets. As we all know, the
winner of the pool is not always the person who follows college basketball closely. In fact, the winner of the office
or friends pool always seems to be a person who hasn't watched a game all year and picks winners based on uniform color
and thinks Pepperdine is a children's cough syrup. The bottom line is that anyone can win the NCAA college basketball
pool with a little luck and that's what makes it so interesting.
Seeding is a powerful predictor of tournament success. This analysis looks at seeding for the past 25 NCAA Men's
Basketball Tournaments (1998 through 2023). I might make some references to the full history of the 64-team tournament
format which started in 1985, but the data referenced below cover 1998 to the present unless otherwise mentioned. I'll
also mention that the tournament expanded to 68 teams in 2011. I do not look at the four First Round matchups (often called
play-in games). My focus is only on the 64.
Disclaimer
Let me start by saying that this site does not support or encourage gambling. I have provided this information for the
amusement of college basketball fans and stat junkies like myself. If this helps you fill out your brackets that's great,
but I would never advise anyone to gamble with money that they cannot afford to lose. The beauty of the NCAA March Madness
pool is that it is very low risk with a possible high reward and the tournament is much more interesting when you have someone
to root for. The following information is based on trends in the tournament since 1998. There is no guarantee that these trends
will continue this season. More importantly, even if these trends do hold true, they give you only a slight edge. Most of what
happens in the tourney is pure chance and it takes a lot of luck to do well in your NCAA pool. Use this information at your own risk.
Rule #1 - Know Your Seeds
The first step in filling out your bracket is to understand the importance of seeding. Unless you are a complete novice to
March Madness, you know that in general the better the seed, the better the team. There are of course exceptions to this rule.
At times the committee loses its mind, but most of the time seeding is a fairly accurate representation of the quality of the teams.
Here is how the seeds have performed on a round by round basis since 1998.
Round of 64
The following are the won-loss records of the better seeds in the Round of 64 (1998-2023):
| Seed |
Record |
Win Pct |
| 1 |
98-2 |
98% |
| 2 |
92-8 |
92% |
| 3 |
89-11 |
89% |
| 4 |
78-22 |
78% |
| 5 |
62-38 |
62% |
| 6 |
58-42 |
58% |
| 7 |
58-42 |
58% |
| 8 |
52-48 |
52% |
- #1 seeds are 98-2 over the last 25 tournaments and 150-2 since the tournament moved to 64 teams in 1985.
The two 16 over 1 upsets have occurred in the last five tournaments (#1 Purdue lost to Fairleigh Dickinson in 2023 and
UMBC beat #1 Virginia in 2018).
- Note: I believe that the expansion of the tournament to 68 teams in 2011 has made the lower seeds a little stronger
and possibly been the reason for more upsets. With 68 teams, there are two 16 vs 16 First Round (play-in) games. So two
teams that would've been 15 seeds in a 64 team tournament become 16 seeds in a 68 team bracket, two teams that would've
been 14 seeds in a 64 team tourney become 15 seeds and so on. I'm a proponent of expanding the tournament to 70 or 72 teams
so that all 16 seeds will be determined via play-in. This will the field even stronger and test the top seeds even more.
- The #2 seeds are also strong, winning 92% in this round since 1998. However, a #15 seed has won in each of the
last three tournaments. Again, I think the expansion from 64 to 68 teams is making the 15 seeds a tougher challenge for the
2 seeds than they have been in the past. I also think the smaller conferences are just producing better teams these days.
- #3 seeds have performed nearly as well as the #2 seeds. They have won 89% of their games since 1998. #3 seeds have
been particularly good since 2017, winning 23 of 24 (95.8%) Round of 64 contests.
- The #4 seeds have been more upset prone than the top three seeds. #4 seeds have won 78% of their games since 1998.
During that time, at least one #13 seed has won in 18 of 25 seasons but #13 seeds have never won more than twice in the Round
of 64 in a single tournament. I typically like to pick one #13 seed per bracket.
- The #5 seeds have always had a tough time with #12 seeds. Since 1998, the 5 seeds have won 62% of the time. While 13 to 16
seeds tend to be smaller colleges who received automatic bids resulting from winning their conference, 12 seeds are often at-large
bid teams from major conferences. Surprisingly 2023, which had many upsets, did not feature a 12 seed winner. The #12 seeds have
won at least once in 20 of the last 25 tournaments. The 12s won three times in 2013, 2014 and 2019.
- #6 seeds and #7 seeds have each won 58% of their games since 1998. I wouldn't call the 6 vs 11 and 7 vs 10 games toss-ups
but it's been pretty close to that historically. #6 seeds are an even 20-20 against the #11 seeds since 2011. However, 7 seeds
are 26-14 (65%) during the 2011-2023 period.
- As you may have expected, the 8 vs 9 matchups have been very even with the #8 seeds winning 52% of the time. If you look at
the point spreads, the #9 seeds are often the betting favorites. If you go back to 1985, the 9 seeds have won more often (51%).
Long story short - you can ignore the seed for the 8/9 games.
Round of 32
Some interesting patterns also emerged in the Round of 32.
Round of 32 Record by Seed (since 1998)
| Seed |
Round W-L |
Round W-L Pct |
Advance Pct |
| 1 |
82-16 |
83.7% |
82% |
| 2 |
58-34 |
63% |
58% |
| 3 |
57-32 |
64% |
57% |
| 4 |
48-30 |
61.5% |
48% |
| 5 |
34-28 |
54.8% |
34% |
| 6 |
24-34 |
41.4% |
24% |
| 7 |
20-38 |
34.5% |
20% |
| 8 |
12-40 |
23.1% |
12% |
| 9 |
6-42 |
12.5% |
6% |
| 10 |
18-24 |
42.9% |
18% |
| 11 |
19-23 |
45.2% |
19% |
| 12 |
13-25 |
34.2% |
13% |
| 13 |
5-17 |
22.7% |
5% |
| 14 |
0-11 |
0% |
0% |
| 15 |
4-4 |
50% |
4% |
| 16 |
0-2 |
0% |
0% |
* Advance Pct is the percentage of the time that each seed advances to the Round of 16 from the start of the tournament.
For example, if the 2 seed has a Round Win-Loss Pct of 63% and an Advance Pct of 58%, it means that 2 seeds won 63% of their games
IN the Round of 32 (they don't always get there) but only won in the Round of 64 and the Round of 32 (advancing) 58% of the time.
- #1 seeds have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen 82% of the time since 1998.
- #2 seeds have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen 58% of the time since 1998. They are 34-19 (64%) against #7 seeds and 24-15 (62%)
against #10 seeds. Number 15 seeds have won eight times in the Round of 64 during that time and, surprisingly, they have won half
of their Round of 32 games against the 7/10 seeds.
- #3 seeds have advanced to the Round of 16 nearly as often as #2 seeds (57%). They have a better success rate against #6
seeds (34-17, 67%) than #11 seeds (23-15, 61%) which you might not have expected. The #14 seeds are 0-11 in the Round of 32 since 1998.
- The #4 seeds have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen 48% of the time. Predictably, #4 seeds are close to even (26-23) against #5 seeds
but 22-7 (76%) against #12 seeds.
- The #5 seeds have advanced only 34% of the time in this round. #4 seeds advance to the Sweet Sixteen much more often than #5 seeds
not because they are much stronger than the #5 seeds but because #5 seeds have a much tougher challenge suriving the Round of 64.
Keep this in mind as you consider picking either the 4 or 5 seed in the Round of 32. However, I must add that two #5 seeds reached
the Final Four last year. Number 12 seeds have advanced 13% of the time in this round while #13s have advanced 5% of the time.
- #6 seeds have reached the Sweet Sixteen round just 24% of the time. The #6s are 7-0 vs the 14 seeds but only 17-34 against the 3s.
- #7 seeds have done nearly as well as the #6 seeds in winning their first two tournament games to move on to the Round of 16
(20% of the time). As I mentioned above, the 7s have lost to the #2 seed 64% of the time (19-34). Oddly, the #7 seeds are 1-4 against
#15 seeds. I can't explain that other than to say there is a reason it's called March Madness.
- Another strange piece of data: although the #8 and #9 seeds have nearly split their Round of 64 games, the #8 seeds have advanced
to the Sweet Sixteen twice as often (12% vs 6%) as the #9 seeds. The 8s are 12-40 against the 1 seeds (23%) while the 9s are only 4-42
(9%) against the top seed in the region. Both matchups of 9 vs 16 have gone in favor of the 9 seed.
- The 10 and 11 seeds have had similar success in reaching the Round of 16 (18% and 19%, respectively). The 12 seeds have had a little
less luck (13%). The #13 seed had reached Week Two (Sweet Sixteen) 5% of the time with the #15 doing that 4% of the time. Since 1998,
no #14 seed has reached the Sweet Sixteen. No #16 seed has ever reached the Sweet Sixteen.
Sweet Sixteen
By the time the Sweet Sixteen round is complete, most of the "Cinderella" teams have left the tournament.
- Since 1998, a total of 64 #1 seeds have advanced to the Final Eight (2.6 per year).
- #2 seeds account for 41 Sweet Sixteen wins in the past 25 years (1.6 per year).
- #3 seeds were next with 30 appearances (just over one per year).
- The #4 and #5 seeds each advanced to the Elite Eight 13 and 10 times, respectively, between 1998 and 2023.
- The #6, #7 and #8 seeds have had similar success (or lack thereof) getting past the Sweet Sixteen round. Those seeds have
advanced to the Elite Eight 8, 8 and 7 times. The interesting thing here is that the 8 seeds have had fewer opportunities in
this round so their Sweet Sixteen record is better. The 8s are 7-5 in this round. The 6s are 8-16 while the 7s are 8-12.
- The #9, #10 and #11 seeds have advanced to the Elite Eight in similar small numbers: 4, 5 and 7 over the past 25 years.
- Three teams with seeds of 12 of higher have reached the Elite Eight since 1998. #12 Missouri, who beat #8 UCLA in 2002,
#12 Oregon State, who beat #8 Loyola Chicago in 2021 and #15 St. Peter's who beat #3 Purdue and had the greatest upset run in
tournament history in 2022.
Elite Eight (winners advance to the Final Four)
It has been my experience that it is very difficult to win a large office pool without correctly picking at
least three of the Final Four participants. This is because most pools allocate a greater amount of points to
the later rounds. Historically, it is rare for more than two teams seeded lower than a #2 seed to reach the
Final Four. ------------------
Since 1998
| Seed |
# Final Fours |
| 1 |
37 |
| 2 |
20 |
| 3 |
12 |
| 4 |
8 |
| 5 |
8 |
| 6 |
0 |
| 7 |
3 |
| 8 |
5 |
| 9 |
2 |
| 10 |
1 |
| 11 |
4 |
| 12+ |
0 |
- #1 seeds have made 37 Final Four appearances in the last 25 tournaments. That's about 1.5 times per year. But the
past two years only one of eight #1 seeds have advanced to the Final Four (Kansas in 2022). Last year's tournament
broke a run of ten years in a row with at least one #1 seed in the Final Four.
- The #2 seeds have a mixed history. Ten times in the last 25 tournaments, there has not been a #2 seed in the Final
Four. During that time, there has not been more than two #2 seeds in the same Final Four (five times there have been two).
That leaves ten tournaments with exactly one #2 seed.
- #3 seeds have reached 12 Final Fours in 25 seasons so roughly one every two years. The #3s had a nice run, making it
six times in seven years between 1998 and 2004. But the 3s have had less success of late, getting to the Final Four just
five times since 2007.
- #4 and #5 seeds have each reached eight Final Fours since 1998. The 2023 tournament was an anomoly with a #4 seed,
two #5 seeds and #9 reaching the Final Four.
- Seeds 7 through 11 grabbed the other 15 Final Four slots during our 25 year analysis window. Though there have been
no seeds of 7 or higher in 13 of the last 25 tournaments, we have had some crazy years. Two #8 seeds (Wisconsin and North
Carolina) reached the Final Four in 2000. In 2011, #8 seed Butler and #11 VCU got there. Three years later, #7 UConn and
#8 Kentucky matched that feat. We've seen exactly one seed of 8 or higher reach the Final Four in each of the last three
tournaments.
Seed Differential
As we have seen, seeding is the greatest predictor in determining who will win tournament games. The #1
seeds have performed significantly better than #2 seeds and #2 seeds have performed much better than seeds
3 through 6. However, these numbers have also shown us that when seed differential (the difference between
the seeds of the participants in a given game) is small, the advantage for the team with the better seed
diminishes. Here are the breakdowns by seed differential since 2000:
| Seed Diff |
Better Seed Rec |
Win Pct |
| 1-2 |
104-86 |
54.7% |
| 3 |
87-50 |
63.5% |
| 4 |
38-18 |
67.9% |
| 5-7 |
152-77 |
66.4% |
| 8 |
77-28 |
73.3% |
| 9-10 |
61-15 |
80.3% |
| 11-13 |
129-11 |
92.1% |
| 15 |
64-0 |
100.0% |
As you might have expected, a seed advantage of 1 or 2 isn't much of an advantage as the poorer
seed won about 45.3% of the games. This includes a lot of #8 vs #9 games in the Round of 64 and #4 vs #5 matchups
in the Round of 32. However, the uspet percentage has decreased in the past 3 to 5 years. When the seed differential
was increased to 3, the better seed's winning percentage jumped to almost 64%. Interestingly, there really wasn't much
difference in the winning percentage when the seed differential was between 4 and 8. Having a seed advantage of 9 or 10
paid more dividends mostly because this group was dominated by the 4 vs 13 matchups in the Round of 64 (typically a top
25 team vs a conference champion from a one-bid conference or a bubble team). When the seed differential gets up to 11
or more, you're talking about a huge upset.
I'm sorry that this analysis is a lot shorter than it's been in the past. My previous updates included analysis of
road/neutral court strength, record against the RPI Top 50, record in the last 12 games, experience and Round of 64
upset profiles. I did not update those numbers this year because I need to figure out the best way to adjust for the
increasing power of seed differential.
Good luck with your brackets.
Patrick Reilly
@BostonSportsHb
