Pete Tiernan started maintaining a database on NCAA tournament teams and results in 1991 in the vain hope of finding a way to win his office bracket pool. His research covers the tournaments since the field was expanded to 64 in 1985. Here is his formula for success in finding winners:
OVERVIEW
Fifty-five of the last 72 teams to reach the Final Four have been seeded No. 1 (32 times), No. 2 (15) or No. 3 (8). While fourth-seeded teams have reached the semifinals seven times, they’re not worth picking because they usually have to beat a top seed to advance–and there isn’t a set of conditions to predict such an upset reliably.
This means you should advance all No. 1 seeds to the Elite Eight and move the 2 and 3 seeds to the Sweet Sixteen, where they square off against each other. That leaves you with five matchups to predict in the first round involving the Nos. 4 through 13 seeds. These matchups break down into two types: the toss-ups (7 vs. 10 and 8 vs. 9) and long-shot games (4 vs. 13, 5 vs. 12 and 6 vs. 11) involving potential upsets.
FIRST ROUND
If you fill out your bracket by seeds and end up with the four top seeds in the Final Four, you should know that it has never happened before.
In the No. 8-vs.-No. 9 matchup, ninth seeds have actually prevailed in 39 of the 72 games (a 54 percent winning rate). In 7-vs.-10 matchups, the seventh-seeded teams have a 43-29 record.
In the long-shot matchups, the higher seeds (4, 5 and 6) have beaten their lower-seeded opponents (13, 12 and 11, respectively) 72 percent of the time (155-61).
SECOND ROUND
The toughest game to predict in Round 2 is the No. 4 (or 13) vs. No. 5 (or 12) matchup. Fourth seeds have played fifth seeds 39 times in the last 18 tournaments and their record is a solid 24-15 (62 percent). You can improve this rate to 30-9 (77 percent) by taking No. 5 seeds that 1) score more than 77 points per game, 2) are on no better than a two-game winning streak and 3) get more than 17 percent of their scoring from the bench. No. 5 seeds with these attributes are 8-1 against No. 4 seeds.
Fourth seeds have played 12th seeds 18 times since 1985, and they’re a surprisingly mediocre 10-8 against them.
Fifth seeds have played 13th seeds 10 times since 1985 and have posted an 8-2 record. No. 12 seeds are 4-1 against No. 13 seeds..
SWEET SIXTEEN
The Sweet Sixteen matchup of the Nos. 2 and 3 seeds is a key game to predict correctly. For one thing, 2s or 3s win only 49 of the 72 games (2s winning 34 times and 3s winning 15). More important, if you get this pick wrong, you create a false matchup in the semifinals that may cause you to continue advancing the wrong team.
If you play it safe and just pick the No. 2 seeds, you’d be right a respectable 34 of 72 times..
THE ELITE EIGHT
If you’re only advancing the top three seeds to the Elite Eight, you just need to worry about two possible matchups–1-vs.-2 and 1-vs.-3 games. If you simply advanced No. 1 seeds, you’d be right in 32 of 72 games.
In 1-vs.-3 games, take top seeds unless the No. 3 seed 1) went to the previous year’s tournament, 2) scores at least 77 points a game and wins by more than seven and 3) gets more than 30 percent of its scoring from guards.
The 1-vs.-2 game is a little more complicated. For a No. 2 seed to advance, the team must 1) have appeared in at least four tourneys in a row, 2) be led by a coach who’s been to the tournament at least four times, 3) score more than 74 points a game and win by more than 10, 4) get no more than 55 percent of its scoring from guards and 5) be riding no more than a two-game pre-tourney winning streak.
FINAL FOUR
Under this system, there are only six potential matchups that could happen in the Final Four: 1 vs. 1, 1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 3, 2 vs. 2, 2 vs. 3 and 3 vs. 3. Of the 36 semifinal games played since 1985, 23 of them have involved these matchups. You would pick all 23 of these games correctly by observing some simple rules–and a few complicated ones.
In 2-vs.-3 and 2-vs.-2 matchups, take the team with a higher percentage of scoring from its backcourt.
Take the top seed in 1-vs.-3 games.
In 1-vs.-2 games, take the top seed unless the No. 2 seed 1) scores more than 77 points per game and wins by more than 10, 2) gets more than 40 percent of its scoring from guards and 3) gets no more than 28 percent of its scoring from the bench (indicating a solid starting unit).
The 1-vs.-1 games are trickier. In this matchup, eliminate any team that either doesn’t have a coach with at least three March Madness appearances or doesn’t score more than 75 points per game. In games in which both teams possess these attributes, take the No. 1 seed that gets a higher percentage of scoring from its guards.
THE TITLE GAME
In games involving different seeds, the task is simple: Pick the higher seed. Of the six final games in which the system yields these matchups, the higher seed has won all six.
In finals involving top seeds, the rule is equally simple, but contrary to the lessons of previous rounds: Take the team that gets a higher percentage of scoring from its frontcourt.
More bracket tips
Pete Tiernan offers some more advice on how to fill out the bracket:
ANATOMY OF AN UPSET
Longshots win 78, or 18 percent, of the 432 games in which an upset could happen in the first round. What do these giant killers have in common? For one, they don’t tend to be 15th- or 16th-seeded teams. By eliminating these seeds from consideration, you improve your chances of picking an upset by 42 percent (a 26 percent winning rate vs. 18 percent).
That’s the easy part. Identifying the other attributes of first-round upsets isn’t so obvious. There are three characteristics–the coach’s tournament experience, the team’s scoring offense and its scoring balance–that separates Cinderellas from pushovers.
If you could choose one of these attributes to improve your odds of predicting an upset, look at scoring offense. Nos. 11-14 seeds that average more than 77 points per regular-season game are 39 of 78 in Round 1 of the tourney. That’s nearly double the winning rate of first-round underdogs. It describes exactly half of the 78 upsets, and you’re likely to find two longshots per tournament that satisfy this scoring offense rule.
FINAL FOURCASTING
Only 21 percent (15 of 72) of second-seeded teams get to the Final Four. You can more than double these odds by restricting your choices to tournament-tested No. 2 seeds with experienced coaches coming to the tournament on a hot streak.
Consider this: No second seed with fewer than four consecutive tournament appearances has made it to the Final Four. Twenty-eight have tried, and all of them have fallen by the wayside. So it you limit your choice of No. 2 seeds only to those that have had at least four consecutive invitations to the tourney, your odds of picking a Final Four team jump to 34 percent (15 of 29). That’s a 64 percent increase over the average second-seed semifinal success rate.
The same story goes for coaching experience. No. 2 seeds with coaches who haven’t been to the tournament at least four times are 0-15. Those with more experienced coaches are 15-42, for a 26 percent success rate.
IN SEARCH OF A CHAMPION
The closest thing to an absolute rule in forecasting the tourney champ involves team experience.
Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, all 18 champions were making a return trip to the dance, and 16 of 18 winners were making at least their third consecutive March Madness appearance. (Only Indiana in 1987 and Connecticut in 1999 won with just two invitations in a row.) And 15 winners had five or more consecutive trips under their belts. (Michigan State had only three in 2000.) The point is, you can almost bank on the fact that this year’s winner played in last year’s tourney–and more than likely appeared in the previous four events.
Tournament coaching experience is another factor that separates champions from the pack. Seventeen of the last 18 winners have been led by a coach who was making at least his third visit to the dance.
The only exception was Michigan in 1989–and that was an unusual circumstance, with assistant coach Steve Fisher taking over for Bill Frieder, who had accepted the head-coaching job at Arizona State only days before the tourney began.
Sixteen of 18 winners had coaches making at least their fifth appearance, and 15 champions were led by coaches with seven or more years of tourney experience.
Just how important is coaching experience in the NCAA tournament? Consider this: All but two of the last 18 champions have been led by a coach who has made at least one Elite Eight appearance. (The only exceptions were Fisher’s Wolverines and Tubby Smith’s ’98 Kentucky Wildcats.)
Another telltale sign of a tourney champion is its conference affiliation. Nearly all the NCAA champs since 1985 come from the six strongest conferences–the ACC, Big East, Big 12 (or Big Eight), Big Ten, Pac-10 or SEC. Only two teams that weren’t in the big six conferences have won the tournament: 1986 winner Louisville (Metro Conference) and Jerry Tarkanian’s UNLV Runnin’ Rebels (Big West).
SEED PROFILES
Sixth-seeded teams are the surprise seeds of the tournament. In the first round, they do as well as No. 5 seeds, winning nearly 70 percent of their games (49-23) against their 11th-seeded opponents. Upset victims among No. 6 seeds tend to be teams with better regular-season records–and therefore weaker competition. Sixth-seeded teams with a winning rate of greater than or equal to .750 are just 4-9 in the first round.
The second round is where No. 6 seeds are their most surprising. They’re 28-21 overall, better than both third and fifth seeds. Their main opponents in Round 2 are third seeds–and they beat them more often than they lose (20-19). Against No. 14 seeds, they win a solid 80 percent of the time(8-2).
Despite having to play No. 2 seeds in the Sweet Sixteen, sixth seeds have a respectable 11-17 record, better than both fourth and fifth seeds. They’re 5-14 against second-seeded teams and 6-3 against Nos. 7 and 10 seeds.
Only three No. 6 seeds have won an Elite Eight game–Providence in ’87, Kansas in ’88 and Michigan’s Fab Five in ’92 (before that win got taken away). Kansas is the only No. 6 seed to win a national championship. The Jayhawks beat Big Eight rival Oklahoma in 1988. Michigan lost to top-seeded Duke in ’92.
