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