NCAA Men's College Basketball Tournament Trends - Part I
Updated: March 14, 2025
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 (1999 through 2024). I might make some references to the full history of the 64-team tournament
format which started in 1985, but the data referenced below covers 1999 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 none of this is meant to 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 1999. 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 1999.
Round of 64
The following are the won-loss records of the better seeds in the Round of 64 (1999-2024):
| Seed |
Record |
Win Pct |
| 1 |
98-2 |
98% |
| 2 |
92-8 |
92% |
| 3 |
89-11 |
89% |
| 4 |
78-22 |
78% |
| 5 |
61-39 |
61% |
| 6 |
57-43 |
57% |
| 7 |
60-40 |
60% |
| 8 |
50-50 |
50% |
- #1 seeds are 98-2 over the last 25 tournaments and 154-2 since the tournament moved to 64 teams in 1985.
The two 16 over 1 upsets have occurred in the last six 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 has 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 would make the field even stronger and test the top seeds even more.
- The #2 seeds are also strong, winning 92% in this round since 1999. However, a #15 seed has won in three of the last four
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 100 games since 1999. #3 seeds have
been particularly good since 2017, winning 26 of 28 (92.9%) Round of 64 contests. #14 seed Oakland defeated #3 Kentucky in
the 2024 tournament.
- The #4 seeds have been more upset prone than the top three seeds. #4 seeds have won 78% of their games since 1999.
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 only 61% 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 the 2023 tournament, which had many upsets, did not feature a 12 seed winner. But
#12 seeds bounced back and won two of four matchups in the the Round of 64 in 2024. 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.
- The #5, #6 and #7 seeds have have had similar performances since 1999 (all have won between 57% and 61%). Historically, the
typical 5-7 seed has been a favorite in the Round of 64 but it's never a major upset when they lose. Interestingly, in recent years
the #7 seeds are greatly outperforming the #6 seeds. Since 2011, #6 seeds are only 24-28 (46%) against the #11 seeds while the #7
seeds are 34-18 (65%) against the #10s.
- As you may have expected, the 8 vs 9 matchups have been very even with the #8 seeds winning 50% of the time since 1999. 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 (52%).
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 (1999-2024)
| Seed |
Round W-L |
Round W-L Pct |
Advance Pct |
| 1 |
83-15 |
85% |
83% |
| 2 |
59-33 |
64% |
59% |
| 3 |
57-32 |
64% |
57% |
| 4 |
48-30 |
62% |
48% |
| 5 |
35-26 |
57% |
35% |
| 6 |
24-33 |
42% |
24% |
| 7 |
20-40 |
33% |
20% |
| 8 |
11-39 |
22% |
11% |
| 9 |
6-44 |
12% |
6% |
| 10 |
17-23 |
43% |
17% |
| 11 |
19-24 |
44% |
19% |
| 12 |
13-26 |
33% |
13% |
| 13 |
4-18 |
18% |
4% |
| 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 85% of the time since 1999. All four #1 seeds advanced through two rounds in 2024
after two failed to do so in 2023.
- #2 seeds have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen 59% of the time over the past 25 tournaments. They are 37-19 (66.1%) against #7 seeds
and 25-15 (62.5%) 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 (34-18, 65.4%) than #11 seeds (25-15, 62.5%) which you might not have expected. The #14 seeds are 0-11 in the Round of 32 since
1999.
- The #4 seeds have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen 48% of the time. Predictably, #4 seeds are close to even (26-24) against #5 seeds
but 24-7 (77%) against #12 seeds.
- The #5 seeds have advanced only 35% 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 in 2023 and two reached the Sweet Sixteen last year. Number 12 seeds have advanced 13% of the time in this round while
#13s have advanced 4% 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 18-34 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 66% of the time (19-37). 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 nearly twice as often (11% vs 6%) as the #9 seeds. The 8s are 12-41 against the 1 seeds (23%) while the 9s are only 4-45
(8%) 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 (17% and 19%, respectively). The 12 seeds have had a little
less luck (13%). The #13 seed had reached Week Two (Sweet Sixteen) 4% of the time with the #15 also accomplishing that feat 4% of the time.
Since 1999, 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.
Sweet Sixteen Wins (1999-2024)
| Seed |
Wins |
Wins/Year |
| 1 |
63 |
2.5 |
| 2 |
40 |
1.6 |
| 3 |
29 |
1.2 |
| 4 |
15 |
0.6 |
| 5 |
10 |
0.4 |
| 6 |
9 |
0.4 |
| 7 |
8 |
0.3 |
| 8 |
6 |
0.2 |
| 9 |
4 |
0.2 |
| 10 |
5 |
0.2 |
| 11 |
8 |
0.3 |
| 12 |
2 |
0.1 |
| 13 |
0 |
0.0 |
| 14 |
0 |
0.0 |
| 15 |
1 |
0.04 |
| 16 |
0 |
0.0 |
- Since 1999, a total of 63 #1 seeds have advanced to the Final Eight (2.5 per year).
- #2 seeds account for 40 Sweet Sixteen wins in the past 25 years (1.6 per year).
- #3 seeds were next with 29 appearances (just over one per year).
- The #4 and #5 seeds each advanced to the Elite Eight 15 and 10 times, respectively, between 1999 and 2024.
- 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 9, 8 and 6 times in the past 25 tournaments. 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 6-5 in this round. The #6s are 9-15 while
the #7s are 8-12. Just under one 6/7/8 seed per year reaches the Elite Eight.
- The #9, #10 and #11 seeds have advanced to the Elite Eight in similar small numbers: 4, 5 and 8 over the past 25 years.
It makes sense that the #11 seeds have had a little more success than #9 and #10 since their path in the first two rounds
cannot include a 1 or 2 seed and they wouldn't face the #1 seed until at least the Elite Eight round.
- Three teams with seeds of 12 of higher have reached the Elite Eight since 1999. #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.
Elite Eight (1999-2024)
| Seed |
# Final Fours |
| 1 |
38 |
| 2 |
19 |
| 3 |
10 |
| 4 |
9 |
| 5 |
8 |
| 6 |
0 |
| 7 |
3 |
| 8 |
5 |
| 9 |
2 |
| 10 |
1 |
| 11 |
5 |
| 12+ |
0 |
- #1 seeds have made 38 Final Four appearances in the last 25 tournaments. That's about 1.5 times per year. But the
past three years only three of 12 #1 seeds have advanced to the Final Four (Kansas in 2022, Purdue and UConn in 2024).
The 2023 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 13 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 nine and eight Final Fours, respectively, since 1999. The 2023 tournament was an anomoly
with a #4 seed, two #5 seeds and #9 reaching the Final Four. Last year, #4 Alabama reached the Final Four.
- Seeds 7 through 11 grabbed the other 16 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 had exactly one seed of 8 or higher reach the Final Four in 2021, 2022 and 2023.
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 1999:
Seed Differential (1999-2024)
| Seed Diff |
Better Seed Rec |
Win Pct |
| 1-2 |
155-133 |
53.8% |
| 3 |
133-77 |
63.3% |
| 4 |
54-29 |
65.1% |
| 5-7 |
222-124 |
64.2% |
| 8 |
138-46 |
75.0% |
| 9-10 |
99-29 |
77.3% |
| 11-13 |
198-20 |
90.8% |
| 15 |
98-2 |
98.0% |
As you might have expected, a seed advantage of 1 or 2 isn't much of an advantage as the poorer seed won 46.2%
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.
When the seed differential increases to 3, the better seed's winning percentage jumped to over 63%. Interestingly,
there really wasn't much difference in the winning percentage when the seed differential was between 4 and 7.
The seed advantage of 8 resulted in a 75% winning percentage. This category includes a lot of 1 vs 9 matchups where
the #1 seeds are 45-4 (91.8%). The 3 vs 11 and 2 vs 10 matchups are much more competitive with the better seed
winning about 63% of the time. 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 will have more to say about seeding in other analysis.
Good luck with your brackets.
Patrick Reilly
@BostonSportsHu1
