Filling Out Your Bracket: The Final Four

No. 1 Seeds

Since 2000, there have been 13 games in the Final Four featuring a No. 1 seed against a non-No. 1 seed. No. 1 seeds have won an impressive 10 (77 percent) of those games. The average margin of victory in these games was the No. 1 seed winning by 6.46 points per game. Of the three losses a No. 1 seed experienced in the Final Four against a higher-seeded team, two came against a No. 2 seed and one came against a No. 3 seed. No. 1 seeds won five out of five games against teams seeded No. 4 or higher in the Final Four.

No. 2 Seeds

There have been 12 Final Four games featuring a No. 2 seed since 2000 – seven that played as the favored seed and five that played as the higher seed. No. 2 seeds won only three of the seven (43 percent) against higher seeds, and two of the five (40 percent) against No. 1 seeds. In all Final Four games involving a No. 2 seed, the average margin of victory has been for the No. 2 seed to win by 0.75 points per game.

Same Seeds

There have been five games in the NCAA Tournament this decade that have matched even seeds against each other. All of these games have had two No. 1 seeds playing, and three of them occurred in last year’s tournament (2008). The average margin of victory for the winning team is actually 10.8 points per game in these five games. The closest game of the five was a five point win by North Carolina over Illinois in the 2005 National Championship.

Conferences

Here is the breakdown of how each conference has fared in Final Four games since 2000 (wins, losses, winning percentage):

SEC: 5-2 (71 percent)
ACC: 7-5 (58 percent)
Big East: 4-3 (57 percent)
Big Ten: 5-6 (45 percent)
Conference USA: 1-1 (50 percent)
Big 12: 3-5 (38 percent)
Pac-10: 2-4 (33 percent)
Colonial: 0-1 (0 percent)

Even though the SEC has the best record as a conference, the only team with any Final Four victories in the SEC is Florida. Florida has won the national championship twice and runner-up once since 2000. Similarly, Memphis is the only representative for Conference USA and George Mason is the only representative for the Colonial Athletic Association.

Summary

• No. 1 seeds have had tremendous success against non-No. 1 seeds in the Final Four
• No. 2 seeds have struggled in Final Four games, even when they are the favored seed
• Games featuring teams of the same seed have not turned out to be very close games
• The Pac-10 and Big 12 conferences have been the worst of the power conferences in Final Four games

Filling Out Your Bracket: The Elite Eight

No. 1 Seeds

Since 2000, 26 out of 36 (72 percent) No. 1 seeds have advanced to the Elite Eight. 15 out of those 26 (58 percent), or 42 percent of the original 36, have also advanced into the Final Four.

No. 1 seeds have played No. 2 seeds 11 times in the Elite Eight, and they have won only five (45 percent) of those games. No. 1 seeds have played No. 3 seeds eight times, winning only four (50 percent). They have played five games combined in the Elite Eight against No. 6, No. 7, and No. 10 seeds and have won all of them. They have also played against a No. 11 seed twice, winning once and losing once.

Overall in Sweet Elite Eight games, No. 1 seeds have an average margin of victory of 1.77 points per game in their favor. Against only No. 2 and No. 3 seeds, this average margin is still in their advantage slightly at 0.58 points per game.

No. 2 Seeds

No. 2 seeds have advanced to the Elite Eight 15 times out of a possible 36 (42 percent) since 2000. They then have advanced to the Final Four eight (53 percent) of those times. This equates to 22 percent of the original 36 No. 2 seeds since 2000 making the Final Four.

No. 2 seeds have played No. 1 seeds 11 times, and also a No. 4 seed, No. 5 seed, No. 8 seed, and a No. 12 seed once each. Interestingly, the No. 2 seeds have fared just as well in Elite games against No. 1 seeds (winning 55 percent of the time) as they have against the higher seeds combined (winning 50 percent of the time).

Overall, No. 2 seeds have had an average margin of victory of 2.4 points per game in their favor in Elite Eight games.

Overall

Here is the breakdown of how each conference has fared in Sweet Sixteen games since 2000 (wins, losses, winning percentage):

ACC: 8-1 (89 percent)
Big Ten: 7-4 (64 percent)
SEC: 4-3 (57 percent)
Big East: 5-5 (50 percent)
Big 12: 6-8 (43 percent)
Pac-10: 4-6 (40 percent)
Other: 2-9 (18 percent)

The other conferences, besides power conferences, that have played in the Elite Eight since 2000 are the Atlantic Ten, Conference USA, MAC, CAA, and Southern Conference.

Summary

• No. 1 seeds have no advantage over No. 2 or No. 3 seeds in Elite Eight games, but it is much more difficult for a No. 2 or No. 3 seed to reach the Elite Eight than for a No. 1 seed
• No. 2 seeds have won about half of their Elite Eight games, and have actually done better when they play a No. 1 seed than when they play a higher seed
• The ACC has won eight of nine Elite Eight games since 2000
• The Big 12 and Pac 10 have relatively poor records in the Elite Eight
• Non-power conferences have had very little success in Elite Eight games since 2000

The Sweet Sixteen

No. 1 Seeds

Since 2000, 31 out of 36 (86 percent) No. 1 seeds have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen. 26 out of those 31 (84 percent), or 72 percent of the original 36, have also advanced into the Elite Eight.

No. 1 seeds have played No. 4 seeds 11 times, No. 5 seeds 14 times, No. 12 seeds 5 times, and played a No. 13 seed once in the Sweet Sixteen. They have won nine (82 percent) times against No. 4 seeds, 11 (79%) times against No. 5 seeds, and have won all six times in which they faced a No. 12 or No. 13 seed.

Overall in Sweet Sixteen games, No. 1 seeds have an average margin of victory of 7.16 points per game in their favor. Against only No. 4 and No. 5 seeds, this average margin is still in their advantage at 5.64 points per game.

No. 2 Seeds

No. 2 seeds have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen 19 times out of a possible 36 (53 percent) since 2000. They then have advanced to the Elite Eight 15 (79 percent) of those times. This equates to 42 percent of the original 36 No. 2 seeds since 2000 making the Elite Eight.

No. 2 seeds have played No. 3 seeds 11 times, No. 6 seeds seven times, and a No. 11 seed one in the Sweet Sixteen. They have won eight (73 percent) times against No. 3 seeds, six (86%) times against No. 6 seeds, and won their only game against a No. 11 seed.

Overall, No. 2 seeds have had an average margin of victory of 6.53 points per game in their favor in Sweet Sixteen games. Against No. 3 seeds they win by 5.09 points per game on average, and against No. 6 seeds they win by 8.00 points per game.

No. 3 and No. 6 Seeds

There has been 15 times since 2000 that a No. 3 or No. 6 seed has been the lower seed in a Sweet Sixteen game, meaning that the No. 2 seed was upset in the first or second round in their side of the bracket. The No. 3 or No. 6 seed has won nine of these 15 (60 percent) games. No. 3 seeds have won seven of ten (70%) games against a higher seed in the Sweet Sixteen, while No. 6 seeds have only won two of their five (40%).

In addition, a No. 3 or No. 6 seed has been the higher seed in a Sweet Sixteen game 18 times since 2000. Since they were the higher seed, this means they had to be playing a No. 2 seed. The No. 3 or No. 6 seed has won four of these 18 (22 percent) games. No. 3 seeds have won three of 11 (27%) games against No. 2 seeds in the Sweet Sixteen, while No. 6 seeds have won only one of their seven (14 percent).

No. 4 and No. 5 Seeds

There has been four times since 2000 that a No. 4 or No. 5 seed has been the lower seed in a Sweet Sixteen game, meaning that the No. 1 seed was upset in the second round in their side of the bracket. The No. 4 or No. 5 seed actually lost three of these four games. The only win came against a No. 9 seed, whereas all of the three losses came against No. 8 seeds.

In addition, a No. 4 or No. 5 seed has been the higher seed (played a No. 1 seed) in a Sweet Sixteen game 25 times since 2000. The No. 4 or No. 5 seed has won only five (20 percent) of these. No. 4 seeds have won two of 11 (18 percent) games against No. 1 seeds in the Sweet Sixteen, while No. 5 seeds have won three of their 14 (21 percent).

Overall

Here is the breakdown of how each conference has fared in Sweet Sixteen games since 2000 (wins, losses, winning percentage):

Big 12: 13-5 (72 percent)
Big Ten: 12-7 (63 percent)
Pac 10: 10-9 (53 percent)
ACC: 9-10 (47 percent)
SEC: 7-10 (41 percent)
Big East: 10-16 (38 percent)
Mid-Majors: 10-14 (42 percent)
Small Conf.: 1-1 (50 percent)

Here the Mid-Major conferences include the Atlantic Ten, Missouri Valley, WCC, CAA, Conference USA, Horizon League, MAC, WAC, and Mountain West. Small conferences include the Sun Belt and Southern Conference.

Note that there were a few Mid-Major conferences with very good Sweet Sixteen records (Atlantic Ten, Conference USA), and also a few with very bad records (Missouri Valley, Horizon, Mountain West).

Summary

• On average, three of the four No. 1 seeds have advanced to the Elite Eight each year

• If a No. 7, 8, 9, or 10 seed is able to advance to the Sweet Sixteen, then they also have a very good chance of advancing to the Elite Eight

• No. 3, 4, 5, and 6 seeds have reached the Elite Eight at a surprisingly low rate

• The Big 12 and Big Ten have fared very well in Sweet Sixteen games, while the SEC and Big East have fared poorly

Other Second Round Games

I previously considered second round match-ups featuring No. 1 and No. 2 seeds. In this entry I consider all other second round NCAA Tournament games. If all goes well for the top seeds in the first round, this would be the No. 3 vs. No. 6 and No. 4 vs No. 5 match-ups. However, upsets in this part of the bracket are very prevalent.

No. 3 Seeds

Since 2000, 34 out of 36 (94 percent) No. 3 seeds have advanced to the second round. 21 out of those 34 (62 percent), or 58 percent of the original 36, have also advanced into the Sweet Sixteen. Out of the 34 second round games, 22 have come against No. 6 seeds. No. 3 seeds have won only 12/22 (55 percent) of these games, suggesting that No. 3 and No. 6 seeds are fairly even. The other 12 second round games have come against No. 11 seeds, where No. 3 seeds won nine (75 percent) times.

Overall in second round games, No. 3 seeds have an average margin of victory of 3.59 points per game in their favor. Against No. 6 seeds, this average margin is a mere 0.41 points per game in their favor, and is in their advantage by 9.42 points per game against No. 11 seeds.

No. 4 Seeds

No. 4 seeds have advanced to the second round 28 times out of a possible 36 (78 percent) since 2000. They then have advanced to the Sweet Sixteen 14 of those 28 (50 percent) times. This equates to 39 percent of the original 36 No. 4 seeds since 2000. Of their 28 second round games, 18 have come against No. 5 seeds. No. 4 seeds have won only seven (39 percent) of these games. The percentage is most likely so far below half because of a relatively low sample size, but nonetheless the No. 4 seeds appear to have no distinct advantage against No. 5 seeds. The other 10 second round games were against No. 12 seeds, where No. 4 seeds won seven (70 percent) of those games.

Overall, No. 4 seeds have had an average margin of victory of just 0.64 points per game in their favor in second round games. Against No. 5 seeds they lose by 0.28 points per game on average, and against No. 12 seeds they win by 2.3 points per game.

No. 5 Seeds

No. 5 seeds have made the second round of the NCAA Tournament 23 times out of a possible 36 (64 percent) since 2000. They were able to advance to the Sweet Sixteen 15 of those 23 times (65 percent), meaning 42 percent of the original No. 5 seeds were able to reach the Sweet Sixteen. Notice that this is higher than the 39 percent of No. 4 seeds that were able to make it that far. Of the 23 second round games, 18 came against No. 4 seeds, where the No. 5 seeds won 11 (61 percent) games. The other five games were all against No. 13 seeds, where No. 5 seeds won four (80 percent) games.

No. 5 Seeds have an average margin of victory in their second round games of 1.87 points per game in their favor. On average against No. 4 seeds they win by 0.28 points per game on average, and against No. 13 seeds they win by 7.6 points per game.

No. 6 Seeds

Since 2000, No. 6 seeds have reached the second round 24 of a possible 36 (67 percent) times. Of those 24 tries, No. 6 seeds were able to advance further to the Sweet Sixteen 12 (58 percent) times. This means that 33 percent of all No. 6 seeds since 2000 have reached the Sweet Sixteen. Of the 24 second round games featuring No. 6 seeds, 22 of them came against No. 3 seeds. No. 6 seeds won 10 (45 percent) of those games, and also won both of their games against No. 14 seeds in the second round.

No. 6 seeds have an average margin of victory of winning by 0.54 points per game in second round games. In games against No. 3 seeds, they have lost by 0.41 points per game, and they have won by 11 points per game against No. 14 seeds.

Overall

In other articles I have considered conference records by low seed and high seed. However, since the match-ups seem to be much more even in this group, I will consider cumulative conference records. Here is the breakdown of how each conference has fared in these second round games (wins, losses, winning percentage):

Pac-10: 10-3 (77 percent)
SEC: 10-5 (67 percent)
Big East: 15-10 (60 percent)
Big Ten: 9-8 (53 percent)
Big 12: 8-9 (47 percent)
ACC: 7-12 (37 percent)
Mid-Majors: 12-16 (43 percent)
Small Conf.: 1-9 (10 percent)

Here the Mid-Major conferences include the Atlantic Ten, Missouri Valley, WCC, CAA, Conference USA, Horizon League, MAC, and Mountain West. Small conferences include the Sun Belt, America East, Big Sky, Big West, MAAC, Patriot, Southland, and Big South.

Note that the lone victory in these games for a small conference team was last year when Western Kentucky defeated San Diego. Western Kentucky was actually the favored team in this instance as a No. 12 seed playing a No. 13 seed.

Summary

• No. 4 and No. 5 seeds have essentially equal chances at reaching the Sweet Sixteen
• No. 3 and No. 6 seeds are fairly evenly matched, but No. 3 seeds have a much higher chance of winning their first round game, giving them a better chance of reaching the Sweet Sixteen
• The Pac 10 conference has fared exceptionally well in these second round games, while the ACC has done surprisingly poorly
• Small Conference teams have done extremely poorly in these match-ups

Filling Out Your Bracket: No. 1 and No. 2 Seeds in the Second Round

No. 1 and No. 2 seeds nearly always advance to the second round of the NCAA Tournament. In fact, they have done so a combined 71/72 times since the 2000 season. While No. 1 seeds and No. 2 seeds are always very strong teams, sometimes there can be a large difference in ability between the two. Thus in this article they will be considered separately. However, the two seeds have very similar opponents in the second round. No. 1 seeds face either a No. 8 or No. 9 seed, while No. 2 seeds draw either a No. 7 or No. 10 seed. I will work off of the assumption that the teams earning the seed in this range have virtually interchangeable ability, thus I will also analyze these two match-ups as combined together.

No. 1 Seeds

No. 1 Seeds have lost their second round game five times out of 36 (14%) since 2000. Four of the five teams to have defeated No. 1 seeds in the second round were No. 8 seeds and only one was a No. 9 seed (UAB over Kentucky in 2004). The average margin of victory in these second round games is for the No. 1 seed to win by 10.47 points per game.

Three of the five No. 1 seeds to have been upset in the second round were from the Pac 10 Conference. Three of the five teams to get the upset victory had won their first round game by more than 10 points. This is significant when compared to the average margin of victory in 8/9 match-ups of 1.11 points per game (in favor of No. 8 seeds). Three of the five upset teams also went on to win at least one more game in the tournament. Wisconsin and North Carolina both reached the Final Four as No. 8 seeds in 2000, and Alabama reached the Elite Eight as a No. 8 seed in 2004.

No. 2 Seeds

No. 2 seeds have lost second round games 16 out of 35 (46%) times since 2000. This rate for upsets is astonishingly high and much more prevalent than for No. 1 seeds in the second round. Nearly two of the four No. 2 seeds lose in the second round every tournament. The average margin of victory in these second round games is for the No. 2 seed to win by 2.57 points per game.

Eight of the 15 teams to upset a No. 2 seed in the second round this decade have been No. 7 seeds and seven have been No. 10 seeds. Six of the 15 teams went on to win their next game to advance to the Elite Eight, but none were able to make the Final Four. No. 7 or No. 10 seeds that were successful in upsetting No. 2 seeds also tended to have won their first round games by significant margins, averaging a 9.31 point per game victory margin.

No. 1 and No. 2 Seeds Combined

The following shows how each power conference has fared as a No. 1 or No. 2 seed since 2000:

Big 12: 12-0 (100 percent)

Pac 10: 8-3 (73 percent)

ACC: 10-4 (71 percent)

Big Ten: 5-2 (71 percent)

Big East: 6-5 (55 percent)

SEC: 5-5 (50 percent)

Other: 4-2 (66 percent)

Even though the Big 12 Conference has had the second most games this decade as a No. 1 or No. 2 seed in the second round, they have not lost in 12 opportunities. The Pac 10, ACC, and Big Ten all have had very good success as No. 1 or No. 2 seeds in the second round as well, while the Big East and SEC have each been upset fairly often in these games. Non-power conference have faired reasonably well as No. 1 and No. 2 seeds as well.

Now to show how the conferences have fared in upsetting No. 1 or No. 2 seeds in the second round since 2000:

Big East: 4-4 (50 percent)

Big Ten: 3-7 (30 percent)

ACC: 2-5 (29 percent)

SEC: 2-7 (22 percent)

Pac 10: 1-4 (20 percent)

Big 12: 0-5 (0 percent)

Other: 9-18 (33 percent)

The only conference (the Big 12) not to have been upset in these games is also the only conference not to have scored any upsets in these games. The power conferences appear to be fairly even in upsetting No. 1 and No. 2 seeds in the second round, with the exception of the Big 12 and the Big East, which has found the most success in this upset role. Non-power conferences have been mores successful than most of the power conferences in getting upset wins.

Summary

• No. 2 seeds get upset a lot in the second and much more often than No. 1 seeds

• Teams that are able to beat No. 1 or No. 2 seeds in the second round often had big wins in the first round

• The Big 12 Conference has never had a team upset in the second round as a No. 1 or No. 2 seed, and has also never had a team beat a No. 1 or No. 2 seed in the second round as a higher seed

• Non-power conference teams appear just as likely to advance as lower seeds and more likely to get upsets as higher seeds in these second round games

• The Big East has had the most success upsetting No. 1 and No. 2 seeds in the second round, while the SEC and Big East have been upset the most frequently in the second round as No. 1 and No. 2 seeds

Filling Out Your Bracket: Tough First Round Picks

The hardest single games to pick correctly in the NCAA Tournament are, not surprisingly, the games pitting teams of closest numerical seed against each other. For first round games, this means the match-ups of No. 8 and No. 9 seeds, No. 7 and No. 10 seeds, and No. 6 and No. 11 seeds.

While these games are often the toughest to pick correctly, the bright side is that they often do not matter as much. Because the winner of these games usually must play a No. 1, No. 2, or No. 3 seed in the second round, most of the teams that are able to advance past the first round do not make it much further.

Of course there are plenty of exceptions. One of the most notable occurred very recently in 2006, when George Mason advanced all the way to the Final Four as a No. 11 seed, the highest number seed out of the six in consideration.

Clearly, as is the case with picking all tournament games, a wrong pick can be deadly.

No. 6 seeds vs No. 11 seeds

Since the 2000 NCAA Tournament, at least one No. 11 seed has advanced to the second round every year except one (2004). No. 11 seeds have defeated No. 6 seeds 12 times out of 36 (percent). The average margin in these games is for the No. 6 seed to win by 3.67 points.

No. 7 seeds vs. No. 10 seeds

Like the previous match-up, there has been at least one No. 10 seed to advance to the six round in every NCAA Tournament this decade except in 2006. No. 10 seeds have defeated No. 7 seeds 12 out of 36 times (33 percent), again exactly the same as the previous match-up.

Notice that six of the 12 (50 percent) No. 10 seeds that made it out of the first round also won their second round games. In fact, two of the 12 (16.7 percent) went to the Elite Eight. In comparison, only eight out of the 24 (percent) No. 7 seeds that won their first round game also won their second. Four of those 24 (16.7 percent) went to the Elite Eight.

The average margin in this first round match-up is for the No. 7 seed to win by 4.56 points. Notice that this is a larger margin of victory than in the match-up of a No. 6 seed and No. 11 seed.

Combined Match-ups: 6/11 and 7/10 games

Since the statistics from the two previous match-ups are so eerily similar, it makes sense to combine them for comparison. The easiest way to perform comparisons is to separate teams by conferences. For the purposes of this article, note that the power conferences are the ACC, Big East, Big 10, SEC, Big 12, and Pac 10. The mid-major conferences are the Atlantic 10, CAA, Conference USA, Missouri Valley, WAC, MAC, Mountain West, Horizon, and West Coast. All other conferences are considered to be small conferences.

It should be no surprise that most teams in the position of a No. 6 or No. 7 seed are from power conferences. Here is a breakdown of how each power conference has fared in these two types of first round match-ups since 2000 (conference, record, win percentage):

ACC: 8-2 (80 percent)
Big East: 9-3 (75 percent)
Big 10: 10-4 (71 percent)
SEC: 3-2 (60 percent)
Big 12: 5-4 (56 percent)
Pac 10: 3-3 (50 percent)

As a whole, power conference teams have won 68 percent (38/56) of their games as No. 6 and No. 7 seeds in the first round since 2000, while mid-major teams have won at a 62.5% (10/16) clip. There have been no small conference teams that have received No. 6 or No. 7 seeds since 2000.

Teams that are seeded No. 10 or No. 11 are a much more diverse group. The majority actually comes from the most successful mid-major conferences. Here is an analysis of conference types in pulling upsets in these match-ups (category, record, win percent):

Power Conferences: 8-18 (31 percent)
Mid-Major Conferences: 14-27 (34 percent)
Small Conferences: 2-3 (40 percent)

The chances of an upset appear fairly even no matter what level of conference a team is from. However, further analysis reveals a little more. Four of the nine mid-major conferences have appeared exceptionally often as No. 10 or No. 11 seeds in this time frame.

These are the Atlantic 10, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, and West Coast Conferences. It is accurate to say these are considered the elite mid-major conferences. If the mid-major conferences are broken down like this, the elite mid-major conferences win these match-ups only 18.5 percent (5/27) of the time, while non-elite mid-major conference win at an astonishing 64 percent (9/14) clip.

It is also worth noting that ignoring the Ivy League, which seems to be far over-rated in the seeding process this decade, small conference teams are 2-1 this decade as No. 10 or No. 11 seeds.

No. 8 seeds vs No. 9 seeds

Seed-wise, these are the most even match-ups of the first round of the NCAA Tournament. Accordingly, they have also been historically the most even (and therefore most difficult to predict).

No. 9 seeds have won 17/36 (47.2 percent) of games against No. 8 seeds since 2000. The average margin in these games is very slim; for the No. 8 seed to win by 1.11 points.

No matter who wins, neither of these seeds fair very well in the second round. Only one out of 17 (6 percent) of No. 9 seeds that won their first game also won their second. Only four out of 19 (21 percent) of No. 8 seeds were able to do the same. However, three of these No. 8 seeds went to the Elite Eight and two made it all the way to the Final Four.

Since No. 8 seeds and No. 9 seeds are so even in this match-up, the conference record breakdown does not distinguish between high and low seed. Here are the records for conferences in these games that have had at least five appearances since 2000 (conference, record, win percent):

Big 12: 5-2 (71 percent)
Big 10: 5-3 (62.5 percent)
Mountain West: 3-2 (60 percent)
Atlantic 10: 4-3 (57 percent)
SEC: 6-5 (54.5 percent)
Pac 10: 4-7 (36 percent)
Big East: 2-6 (25 percent)

Overall, power conference teams have won 48 percent (23/48) of their games in this match-up since 2000, while mid-major conference teams have won 52 percent (11/21) and small conference teams have won 67 percent (2/3).

Summary

• No. 10 and No. 11 seeds each advance to the second round 1/3 of the time
• Power conference teams are more likely to win as No. 6 or No. 7 seeds
• Teams from low level mid-major conferences or small conferences are more likely to win as No. 10 or No. 11 seeds
• No. 8 seeds and No. 9 seeds have essentially equal chances of winning in the first round
• The Big 12 and Big 10 have been very successful in 8/9 match-ups, while the Pac 10 and Big East have been particularly bad
• Teams from gradually lesser conferences seem to have better odds in 8/9 match-ups

Filling Out Your Bracket: Make or Break First Round Picks

The most tricky and often most crucial games to pick in the first round of the NCAA Tournament are No. 4 seed vs. No. 13 seed and the No. 5 seed vs. No. 12 seed match-ups.
No. 4 and No. 5 seeds have shown the ability to reach the Final Four, while No. 12 and No. 13 seeds have also been able to make the Sweet Sixteen.

In the past nine NCAA tournaments, five teams have made the Sweet Sixteen as a No. 12 or No. 13 seed, and one has even reached the Elite Eight. In the same time period, three teams have reached the Final Four as a No. 4 or No. 5 seed, and two of those teams reached the Championship Game.

One of the best examples of how crucial these match-ups can be came in 2000. No. 5-seeded Florida was lucky to survive No. 12-seeded Butler in the first round by a score of 69-68, and then the Gators proceeded to advance all the way to the Championship Game.

In the 72 games played in these first round pairings since 2000, the higher seeded team has won 21 times (29% of the time). Since there are eight of these games in each NCAA Tournament’s first round, on average there are over two upsets per year in these games.

Further, many of these games are very close regardless of who wins. The average margin in both of these first round match-ups is 6.94 points in favor of the lower-seeded team.

It is also true that No. 12 seeds do have significantly better success against No. 5 seeds than No. 13 seeds do against No. 4 seeds. No. 12 seeds have won 13 of 36 (36%) games against No. 5 seeds while No. 13 seeds have won 8 of 36 (22%) of games against No. 4 seeds. The average margin in the 5/12 match-up is 5.22 points in favor of the No. 5 seed, and the average margin in the 4/13 match-up is 8.67 points in favor of the No. 4 seed.

There are several factors that can help in trying to pick the right underdogs in these games.

One of the most important is experience. 10 of the 21 high-seeded teams to win were in at least their second consecutive NCAA Tournament appearance, and many had even more tournament experience than that. Also many of the low-seeded teams to get upset in the first round had relatively little tournament experience.

Another thing to look for is conference tendencies. Most No. 4 seeds and No. 5 seeds are power conference teams, but not always. There have been five teams from non-power conference seed No. 4 or No. 5 in this decade, and they are a mere 2-3 in these first round match-ups. All of these games have been against other non-power conference opponents.

Conversely, No. 12 and No. 13 seeds are usually non-power conference teams, but not always. Five power conference teams have been seeded No. 12 or No. 13 in this decade, and they an impressive 3-2 in these first round games, all coming against power conference opponents.

Further, some power conference teams have held up better than others in playing as the favored team in these games. The Big Ten and Pac 10 have been very successful as No. 4 or No. 5 seeds, while the SEC has been upset more than their fair share.

Here are the records for each of the power conference’s as No. 4 and No. 5 seeds in the first round since 2000: (conference, record, winning percentage)

Big Ten: 10-2 (83%)

Pac 10: 5-1 (83%)

Big East: 14-5 (74%)

ACC: 8-3 (73%)

Big 12: 4-2 (67%)

SEC: 8-5 (62%)

Similary, some non-power conferences have had much more success in pulling off upsets in these first round games than others. The Mountain West conference has had surprisingly very little success while the Missouri Valley, West Coast, and Metro Atlantic Athletic Conferences have had good records as No. 12 and No. 13 seeds in the first round.

Here are the records for each non-power conference in first round games as No. 12 and No. 13 seeds since 2000 (conference, record, winning percentage):

Missouri Valley: 3-1 (75%)

WCC: 2-1 (67%)

MAAC: 2-1 (67%)

America East: 1-1 (50%)

Big Sky: 1-1 (50%)

WAC: 2-3 (40%)

Horizon: 2-4 (33%)

MAC: 1-2 (33%)

Sun Belt: 1-3 (25%)

Big West: 1-3 (25%)

CAA: 1-5 (17%)

Mountain West: 1-9 (10%)

Big South: 0-1 (0%)

Patriot: 0-1 (0%)

Summit: 0-1 (0%)

Ivy: 0-2 (0%)

Southern: 0-3 (0%)

Atlantic Ten: 0-3 (0%)

Ohio Valley: 0-4 (0%)

Teams from conferences typically considered Mid-Major Conference fare slightly better than teams from conferences typically considered small conferences.

Mid-Major Conferences (Atlantic Ten, CAA, Horizon, MAC, Mountain West, Missouri Valley, WAC, WCC) are 12-28 (30%) as No. 12 and No. 13 seeds in the first round. Small Conferences (America East, Big Sky, Big South, Big West, Ivy, MAAC, Ohio Valley, Patriot, Southern, Summit, Sun Belt) are 6-21 (22%) as No. 12 and No. 13 seeds in the first round.

Summary

• Aim for two No. 12 and No. 13 seeds to advance to the second round, but be cautious of picking against No. 4 and No. 5 seeds that could go deep in the tournament

• Favored teams from non-power conferences are more likely to be upset and Underdog teams from power conferences are more likely to post an upset victory

• Underdog teams with NCAA Tournament experience are especially dangerous, while favored teams without much tournament experience are especially vulnerable

• Low seeded teams from the Big Ten and Pac Ten are rarely upset in these match-ups, while low seeded teams from the SEC may be the most vulnerable of the power conference teams

• High seeded teams from the Mountain West, Atlantic Ten, and Ohio Valley Conferences have been highly unsuccessful in these games, while teams from the Missouri Valley, MAAC, and West Coast Conferences have been highly successful