1,215 Tournament Teams Analyzed

17 Years of Data. 8 Questions. One Better Bracket.

We analyzed 1,215 tournament teams to answer the 8 questions every bracket picker asks. The data informs — you decide.

Question 1 of 8

Who's My Champion?

The Favorites — and the Contrarian Picks

76% of champions were 1-seeds. Top-4 seeds with elite offense and defense capture 88% of winners — and no champion has ever had defense worse than 100.

17 champions · 2008–202513.7× more likely than averageA+

Defense↑ Better DefensePoints allowed per 100 possessions

Offense→ Better OffensePoints scored per 100 possessions

Champion Zone — 15 of 17 Champions (88%)

Offense ≥ 112 and Defense ≤ 95. 15 of 17 champions came from this range.

Still Alive — Defense < 100

Outside the Champion Zone but clear the defense threshold. 100% of champions had defense better than 100.

Eliminated — 0 for 271

No team with defense worse than 100 has ever won the championship.

Question 2 of 8

Which Mid-Seeds Go Deep?

The Sleepers With Sweet 16 Written All Over Them

Mid-seeds (4+) peaking in their last 10 games with a top-half schedule strength reach the Sweet 16 at a 62% rate — 4.4× the base rate for their seed range. 23% make the Elite 8. This signal surfaced UConn's 2023 title run, Alabama's 2024 Final Four, and Auburn's 2019 Final Four.

53 teams · 2008–20254.4× more likely than averageA+

Last 10 Power Rating↑ PeakingOverall quality in final 10 games

Showing seeds 4–11, 33 teams

Schedule Strength→ Tougher ScheduleDifficulty of opponents faced (0-100 percentile)

Question 3 of 8

The Seed-Line Playbook

16 Games. ~7 Upsets Per Year. Here's How to Pick Them.

Since 2008, seeds 5-12 through 8-9 produced an average of 7 upsets per tournament — nearly half flip. But they’re not random. Each seed line showed different historical patterns: coaching experience (5v12), defense and coaching (6v11), team quality (7v10), or no reliable signal at all (8v9). Understanding these tendencies can help you pick more of them right.

272 games · 17 tournaments · 2008–20251.8× more likely than averageA-

Explore full scatter tool

Start with the Coach

In 5v12 games, coaching experience was the strongest historical signal — it mattered more than Power Rating in our sample.

41%

upset rate

28/68 games

Consider 1–2 upset picks— 1.5 per year — this seed line often produces at least one upset

Rule of Thumb

If the 5-seed coach is lightly tested and the game looks close by the numbers, upset risk rises. Historically, first-time coaches won only 25% of the time. Veterans (8+ appearances) won 62%.

The Evidence

5-seed coaching wins gap (+5.2) was the strongest historical upset signal across all seed lines we studied
5-seeds shooting below 50% EFG% lost 60% of the time (vs 41% base rate) — the 5-seed’s shooting efficiency is a useful secondary check
12-seeds with experienced coaches (3+ appearances) won 45% vs 33% for first-timers — the underdog’s coach matters too

What Doesn't Matter

Power Rating (PR) gap between survivors and victims was only 0.7 — too close to separate. The gap helps gauge competitiveness, not who wins
Schedule strength (SOS) was identical at 0.7 for both groups — no edge here

Based on historical tendencies, not predictive certainties. Power Rating (PR) measures team quality from adjusted efficiency.

Upset Score

41/100

Lean Chalk

FavoredUnderdog

OUTJT Toppin(Texas Tech)

Torn ACL — 21.8 PPG, 10.8 RPG. Power Rating may not reflect this loss.

Vegas

Texas Tech -7.8

Step 1: Is This Game Competitive?

95.0

77.3

Power RatingWide talent gap (17.7 pt gap)

Historically, the higher seed wins ~71% when the talent gap is this wide. Upset signals below carry less weight.

Step 2: Who Has the Edge?

Large talent gap — these signals rarely overcome a mismatch this wide

Coach Tournament Wins

4 wins

Effective FG%

56.2%

58.5%

Shown for reference only

Upset Signals (0/2)

5-seed coach has many tournament wins (4 wins)

5-seed shooting is solid (EFG% 56.2)

Texas Tech has a commanding talent edge (95.0 vs 77.3). No upset indicators strong enough to overcome a gap this wide.

Compare Full Profiles

Upset Score

41/100

Lean Chalk

FavoredUnderdog

Vegas

Vanderbilt -11.5

Step 1: Is This Game Competitive?

93.5

74.2

Power RatingWide talent gap (19.3 pt gap)

Historically, the higher seed wins ~71% when the talent gap is this wide. Upset signals below carry less weight.

Step 2: Who Has the Edge?

Large talent gap — these signals rarely overcome a mismatch this wide

Coach Tournament Wins

1 wins

0 wins

Effective FG%

55.3%

51.0%

Shown for reference only

Upset Signals (1/2)

5-seed coach has few tournament wins (1 wins)

5-seed shooting is solid (EFG% 55.3)

The talent gap is wide (19.3 pts), but Mark Byington has just 1 tournament wins — the one factor that could matter. Lean chalk, but watch this one.

Compare Full Profiles

Upset Score

33/100

Lean Chalk

FavoredUnderdog

Vegas

Wisconsin -10.1

Step 1: Is This Game Competitive?

91.7

70.1

Power RatingWide talent gap (21.6 pt gap)

Historically, the higher seed wins ~71% when the talent gap is this wide. Upset signals below carry less weight.

Step 2: Who Has the Edge?

Large talent gap — these signals rarely overcome a mismatch this wide

Coach Tournament Wins

7 wins

0 wins

Effective FG%

54.5%

54.7%

Shown for reference only

Upset Signals (0/2)

5-seed coach has many tournament wins (7 wins)

5-seed shooting is solid (EFG% 54.5)

Wisconsin has a commanding talent edge (91.7 vs 70.1). No upset indicators strong enough to overcome a gap this wide.

Compare Full Profiles

Upset Score

13/100

Chalk

FavoredUnderdog

Vegas

St. John's -10.5

Step 1: Is This Game Competitive?

92.7

77.4

Power RatingWide talent gap (15.3 pt gap)

Historically, the higher seed wins ~71% when the talent gap is this wide. Upset signals below carry less weight.

Step 2: Who Has the Edge?

Large talent gap — these signals rarely overcome a mismatch this wide

Coach Tournament Wins

55 wins

4 wins

Effective FG%

51.0%

54.2%

Shown for reference only

Upset Signals (0/2)

5-seed coach has many tournament wins (55 wins)

5-seed shooting is solid (EFG% 51.0)

St. John's has a commanding talent edge (92.7 vs 77.4). No upset indicators strong enough to overcome a gap this wide.

Compare Full Profiles

Your 5 vs 12 Picks

Consider 1–2 upset picks. Based on coaching + metrics:

Lean Chalk

#5 Texas TechWide talent gap (18 pts)

Lean Chalk

#5 VanderbiltWide talent gap (19 pts)

Lean Chalk

#5 WisconsinWide talent gap (22 pts)

Chalk

#5 St. John'sWide talent gap (15 pts)

Historically, 41% of 5v12 games flip. Pick at least 1 upset from the highlighted games above.

Question 4 of 8

Top Seed Report Card

This Is One of the Strongest 1–4 Seed Fields Since 2008

Alabama (#4, AdjDE 102.8) and Arkansas (#4, AdjDE 101.7) are the only weak spots in an otherwise rock-solid field. Top seeds with defense worse than 100 have won just 67% of first-round games since 2008. Every other 1–4 seed cleared a Power Rating of 92 — only the 2nd time that’s happened.

272 seeds 1–4 · 2008–20251.3× more likely than averageA

Defense↑ Better DefensePoints allowed per 100 possessions

Showing seeds 1–4, 16 teams

Power Rating→ StrongerOverall team quality (0-100)

All 16 seeds 1–4 are shown. Only Alabama and Arkansas sit below the defense danger line (AdjDE > 100) — the rest of this field is historically strong.

Reading the chart: Lower AdjDE = better defense. This metric estimates points allowed per 100 possessions, adjusted for opponent strength. A team at 95 allows roughly 5 fewer points per game than a team at 100.

This is the 2nd consecutive year every 1–4 seed cleared a Power Rating of 92 — it never happened before 2025. The NIL era may be concentrating elite talent at the top, making the favorites harder to upset but also raising the defensive floor. Before NIL, the average top-seed defense was 91.7; since 2022, it's 93.8.

The Two to Watch

Why the Defense Line Matters

These top seeds crossed the defense danger line and paid for it with first-round exits. This year's field is strong enough that only two 4-seeds are near it.

Vanderbilt 2007-08#4

PR 82.9 · Opp Shooting 49.3%

Lost 1st Round

Virginia 2022-23#4

PR 85.6 · Opp Shooting 48.3%

Lost 1st Round

Arizona 2017-18#4

PR 87.0 · Opp Shooting 49.3%

Lost 1st Round

Wichita St. 2017-18#4

PR 87.8 · Opp Shooting 49.3%

Lost 1st Round

Kentucky 2023-24#3

PR 89.3 · Opp Shooting 49.5%

Lost 1st Round

Purdue 2020-21#4

PR 89.9 · Opp Shooting 48.6%

Lost 1st Round

Vanderbilt 2009-10#4

PR 88.4 · Opp Shooting 47.0%

Lost 1st Round

Michigan 2011-12#4

PR 90.2 · Opp Shooting 48.8%

Lost 1st Round

Question 5 of 8

Cinderella Runs

These Double-Digit Seeds Could Go Deep

Unlucky teams (luck < 0) with Offense > 112 reached the Sweet 16 at a 17% rate as double-digit seeds.

Negative luck means a team won fewer games than their stats predicted — they're better than their record and seeding suggest.

81 teams · 2008–20252.8× more likely than averageA

Offense↑ Better OffensePoints scored per 100 possessions

Showing seeds 10–16, 32 teams

Luck→ LuckierWins above what their stats predict

Question 6 of 8

Play-In Teams

Don't Sleep on These 11-Seeds

Power-conference 11-seeds reach the Sweet 16 at a 25% rate — nearly double non-power conference 11-seeds.

47 power-conf teams · 2008–20251.4× more likely than averageB+

Explore full scatter tool

2026 11-Seeds

Question 7 of 8

The 16-Over-1

The Data Can't Predict Lightning Strikes

Only 2 of 68 1-seeds lost to a 16-seed — but both (Virginia 2018, Purdue 2023) showed warning signs in the data.

68 1-seeds · 2008–2025B

Explore full scatter tool

Only 2 of 68 1-seeds have lost in the first round since 2008. Both had warning signs:

Virginia 2018

Power 97.0 · Defense 85.1 · Tempo: slowest in field

Lost to UMBC — first 16-over-1 ever

Purdue 2023

Power 93.9 · Defense 94.3 · Weak D for a 1-seed

Lost to FDU — weakest D among 1-seeds that year

Both upsets had a profile: Virginia's slow tempo made digging out of a double-digit deficit extremely difficult, while Purdue had the weakest defense among that year's 1-seeds. The 2026 class looks clean — no pace outliers, and even the weakest defender (adjDE 92.3) sits below Purdue's 94.3 danger zone. The ranking below shows relative vulnerability among this year's 1-seeds, not actual upset risk.

2026 1-Seed Vulnerability

Florida

Power 97.5 · Defense 92.3 · Net 33.8

Power 97.5

Most vulnerable

Arizona

Power 97.8 · Defense 91.4 · Net 35.5

Power 97.8

Michigan

Power 98.2 · Defense 91.0 · Net 36.6

Power 98.2

Duke

Power 98.3 · Defense 90.8 · Net 37.3

Power 98.3

Safest

Question 8 of 8

What Does Vegas Think?

Consensus Betting Lines From Major US Sportsbooks

Vegas lines are the market's best guess at the true spread. See who the books favor to win it all, where they expect upsets, and which first-round games are too close to call.

Consensus lines · 2026 tournamentMarket more likely than average$$