2 vs. 15 | 84-4, 0.955
Once every five or six years, a No. 15 seed manages to knock off a No. 2 seed. The last victim was Iowa State … six tourneys ago. Winthrop darn near bumped off Tennessee last year, losing by just two at the buzzer. So the time might be right for another upset. Just don't pencil it into your bracket.
Upset watch: All the No. 15-seed Cinderellas came into the tourney winning nine of their last 10 games and at least three in a row. They all had regular-season winning percentages no higher than .800, indicating that they played their share of tough teams. And they all got balanced scoring from the backcourt and frontcourt, averaging between 37 percent and 58 percent of their scoring from guards. No. 15 seeds satisfying these three attributes are 4-9 against their No. 2-seed opponents. The rest of the No. 15 seeds are 0-75. Last year's closest No. 15 Cinderella was Winthrop -- and guess what? The Eagles had all the attributes identified above.
Upset history: Hampton over Iowa State, 2001. Coppin State over South Carolina, 1997. Santa Clara over Arizona, 1993. Richmond over Syracuse, 1991.
3 vs. 14 | 73-15, 0.830
Two out of every three tourneys are bad news for No. 3 seeds. Iowa can vouch for that. So can the 2005 Kansas squad. No. 3 seeds are nearly four times more prone to first-round upsets than No. 2 seeds. More amazing, third-seeded teams are less likely to win one game in the tourney than top seeds are to win two. (Only 12 No. 1 seeds have failed to reach the Sweet 16.) But with all due respect to the Northwestern States of the world, it still doesn't make any sense to pick No. 3 seeds to lose in Round 1. Too many have won championships to eliminate them early.
Upset watch: The No. 14 seeds most likely to spring upsets are high-scoring squads, like last year's Northwestern State, averaging more than 76.5 points a game. High-scoring teams are 13-23 (.361) while their lower-scoring counterparts are just 2-50 (.038). The telltale sign of a No. 3-seed victim is a tight margin of victory. No. 3 seeds that beat opponents by an average of less than 12 points are five times more prone to upsets (13 losses in 48 tries for a 27.1 percent upset rate) than No. 3 seeds that win by a comfortable margin (only two losses in 40 tries for an 5.0 percent upset rate).
Recent upsets: Northwestern State over Iowa, 2006. Bucknell over Kansas, 2005. Weber State over North Carolina, 1999. Richmond over South Carolina, 1998
4 vs. 13 | 70-18, 0.795
No. 4 seeds perform almost as solidly as No. 3 seeds -- and far better than No. 5 seeds. With nearly 80 percent of No. 4 seeds advancing to Round 2 -- and less than one per tourney getting upset, it's too risky to pick a No. 13 seed in Round 1. Unless you're a diehard Bradley fan … or you know what a Catamount is.
Upset watch: The key indicators of a No. 13-seed Cinderella are frontcourt scoring and coaching experience. No. 13 seeds with a tourney-tested coach that get between 53 percent and 67 percent of their points from forwards and centers -- like Vermont in 2005 -- are 9-9 (.500). That's almost four times better than more guard-oriented, rookie-coached squads (9-61, .129). Not surprisingly, No. 4 seeds are more apt to be victimized when they can't neutralize No. 13-seed frontcourts with solid backcourt scoring punch. No. 4 seeds that get less than half their scoring from guards are upset 28 percent of the time (13 of 47 games); those with better backcourt scoring have only been upset five times in 41 matchups (12 percent upset rate).
Recent upsets: Bradley over Kansas, 2006. Vermont over Syracuse, 2005. Tulsa over Dayton, 2003. UNC Wilmington over USC, 2002.
5 vs. 12 | 59-29, 0.670
The 5 vs. 12 matchup marks the point in Round 1 where it no longer pays to give higher seeds a free pass in your bracket. Over the last six years, No. 5 seeds are just 13-11 against their lower-seeded opponents. And when you consider that No.12 seeds are nearly .500 in Round 2, it isn't wise to dismiss them without first considering the factors that contribute to their opening-round success.
Upset watch: The two factors that matter most in identifying No. 12-seed spoilers are team experience and frontcourt scoring. Twelfth-seeded teams that have been to the tourney the previous year are 14-12 (.538) against No. 5 seeds; all others are 15-47 (.242). More significantly, No. 12 seeds that get 55 percent to 75 percent of their scoring from forwards and centers are 19-13 (.594); the rest are 10-46 (.179) -- more than three times worse. Better still, No. 12 seeds that have both team experience and frontcourt dominance are 9-2 (.818), while all the rest are 20-57 (.260). To pick a No. 5-seed victim, look at backcourt scoring and a lack of momentum. Fifth-seeded squads that get less than 50 percent of their points from guards and are coming into the tourney on a losing streak are just 19-14 (.576); the rest are 40-15 (.727)
Recent upsets: Texas A&M over Syracuse, 2006. Montana over Nevada, 2006. UW-Milwaukee over Alabama, 2005. Manhattan over Florida, 2004.
6 vs. 11 | 61-27, 0.693
The odds are better that a No. 6 seed will advance to Round 2 than a No. 5 seed, but that doesn't mean you should automatically ink them into your bracket. Sure, No. 6 seeds are 19-9 since 2000 -- and they're notorious No. 3-seed killers in Round 2. Still, tourney pool success usually comes from accurately identifying the No. 11- and No. 12-seed surprises. Just ask all those people who went with George Mason last year.
Upset watch: Offensive punch and victory margin are the two keys to success for No. 11 seeds. Teams that score more than 75 points a game and beat their opponents by at least six points on average are 16-16 (.500). All other No. 11 seeds are significantly worse at 11-45 (.196). Sixth-seeded upset victims tend to be high-scoring teams riding false momentum. No. 6 seeds that average more than 75 points a game and have won at least seven of their last 10 games are just 12-14 (.462) in Round 1; the rest are 49-13 (.790).
Recent upsets: George Mason over Michigan State, 2006. UW-Milwaukee over Oklahoma, 2006. Alabama-Birmingham over LSU, 2005. Central Michigan over Creighton, 2003.
7 vs. 10 | 53-35, 0.602
As close as these seeds are, it's surprising that No. 7 seeds have been so dominant in this matchup. While they win more than 60 percent of the time, No. 7 seeds still lose one or two games per tourney. The trick is to figure out the right ones to advance; picking the wrong one can make this a very damaging matchup. Anyone last year who mistakenly picked seventh-seeded Seton Hall over Wichita State while taking No. 10 Northern Iowa over Georgetown can attest to that.
Upset watch: Surprisingly, inexperience tends to level the playing field in the 7 vs. 10 matchup. Tenth-seeded teams that have gone to the Dance less than three years in a row with coaches who've made fewer than three tourney trips are 14-10 (.583); all other 10-seeds are 21-43 (.328). The most victimized No. 7 seeds lack offensive punch and backcourt scoring. Squads that score fewer than 76 points a game and get less than half their points from guards are just 9-16 (.360); the rest of the No. 7 seeds are 44-19 (.698).
Recent upsets: Alabama over Marquette, 2006. North Carolina State over California, 2006. North Carolina State over Charlotte, 2005. Nevada over Michigan State, 2004.
8 vs. 9 | 41-47, 0.466
The 8 vs. 9 matchup is the closest thing to a "pick-'em" contest in the opening round. In fact, it's the only matchup in which the lower-seeded team prevails more often. At first blush, it would seem that favoring No. 9 seeds is the way to go -- but their abysmal 3-44 record against top seeds in Round 2 is a pretty big deterrent. Of course, nobody's going to predict either of these seeds to knock off a top seed, so the value of correctly predicting this matchup is usually restricted to four points in the first round.
Toss-up tips: The key performance indicator for this matchup is team experience and victory margin. No. 8 seeds that have been to the tourney the previous year are 29-21 (.580); those that haven't are 12-26 (.316). On the other hand, No. 9 seeds with fewer than three straight tourney trips that beat their opponents by an average of less than seven points are 10-16 (.385); the rest are 37-25 (.597).
Last year's matchups: Bucknell (9) over Arkansas (8). George Washington (8) over UNC-Wilmington (9). Arizona (8) over Wisconsin (9). Kentucky (8) over UAB (9).
Round 2
| NCAA Tournament: 1 vs. 8, 9 vs. 16 bracket |
| Seed |
Wins |
Losses |
Percentage |
| 1 |
76 |
12 |
0.864 |
| 8 |
9 |
32 |
0.220 |
| 9 |
3 |
44 |
0.064 |
Round 2 is made up of four gateway matchups to the Sweet 16. The 1-8-9-16 bracket is easily the most predictable. Top seeds advance an astounding 86 percent of the time. No. 8 and No. 9 seeds pull off upsets just about every other tourney. They did it twice in 2004 (thanks to No. 8-seed Alabama and its in-state brethren No. 9-seed UAB) -- and haven't done it since. While this might suggest that they're due, it's really not worth picking them in your bracket. If you're feeling contrary, however, you're much better off picking a No. 8 than a No. 9 seed to pull off the upset.
1 vs. 8 | 32-9, 0.780
Unlike No. 9 seeds, No. 8 seeds do offer up a measure of resistance against top seeds in Round 2. In eight of the last 22 tourneys, at least one No. 8 seed has made it to the Sweet 16 (two made it in 2000 -- North Carolina and Wisconsin). What are the characteristics of these eighth-seeded giant killers? They're experienced, having gone to the tourney the previous year, and they're battle-tested, with an average victory margin of less than six points. No. 8 seeds satisfying these conditions are 7-10 (.412); all the rest are 2-22 (.083). The most likely No. 1-seed victims are either offensively challenged or inexperienced. Top seeds that score fewer than 80 points a game or didn't go to the previous year's tourney are just 9-7 (.562), while the rest are 23-2 (.920).
Recent upsets: Alabama over Stanford, 2004. UCLA over Cincinnati, 2002. North Carolina over Stanford, 2000. Wisconsin over Arizona, 2000.
1 vs. 9 | 44-3, 0.936
No. 9-seed snowballs? Welcome to hell. Incredibly, No. 9 seeds are about as likely to upset top seeds in Round 2 as No. 15 seeds are liable to knock off No. 2 seeds in Round 1. It would be a severe bracket brain cramp to advance a No. 9 seed to the Sweet 16. But if you happen to get in a debate over which No. 9 seed is most likely to knock off a top seed, pick a team that didn't go to the tourney the year before, scores more than 73 points and wins by more than seven points a game -- and has won no more than seven of its last 10 games. These ninth-seeded squads are 3-5; the rest are a big, fat 0-39.
Upset history: Alabama-Birmingham over Kentucky, 2004. Boston College over North Carolina, 1994. UTEP over Kansas, 1992.
| NCAA Tournament: 4 vs. 5, 12 vs. 13 bracket |
| Seed |
Wins |
Losses |
Percentage |
| 4 |
39 |
31 |
0.557 |
| 5 |
31 |
28 |
0.525 |
| 12 |
14 |
15 |
0.483 |
| 13 |
4 |
14 |
0.222 |
This is the most difficult of the Sweet 16 gateway brackets to predict. No other bracket has three seeds so evenly matched. Only .074 separates the winning records of the Nos. 4, 5 and 12 seeds in Round 2. Yes, the pressure is relieved by the fact that anyone coming out of this bracket plays the top seed in Round 3 -- and consistently takes it on the chin, losing 80 percent of the time. However, you don't have to look any further than last year's fourth-seeded LSU Tigers to find a team that reached the Final Four from this bracket.
4 vs. 5 | 25-21, 0.543
While No. 4 seeds have held the advantage in this matchup since 1985, No. 5 seeds have actually won six of the last seven games. Bench play and scoring offense are the two keys to determining who will prevail. No. 4 seeds that get at least 18 percent of their scoring from the bench are 20-10 (.667); those that rely more on starters are 5-11 (.312). No. 4 seeds that score more than 77 points a game are 17-9 (.654) while less prolific squads are 8-12 (.400). The same rule is a key indicator of No. 5-seed success. Those teams that average more than 77 points per game are 13-8 (.619); the rest are nearly half as successful at
8-17 (.320). To put the "77-point rule" in perspective, there have been 25 matchups in which a team scoring more than 77 points per game played one averaging less than that. In those games, the higher-scoring team is 18-7 (.720).
Recent matchups: Washington (5) over Illinois (4), 2006. (4) Louisville over (5) Georgia Tech, 2005. (5) Villanova over (4) Florida, 2005. (5) Syracuse over (4) Maryland, 2004.
4 vs. 12 | 14-10, 0.583
This matchup is closer than the disparity in seed positions indicates. The most reliable No. 4 seeds come from the "big six" conferences (the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC) and have coaches with at least four years of tourney experience. They're 12-4 (.750) while other No. 4 seeds are 2-6 (.250). The most surprising No. 12 seeds also come from the big six or are mid-majors with fewer than nine wins in their last 10 games. They're 9-6 (.600); other No. 12 seeds are 1-8 (.111).
Recent upsets: UW-Milwaukee over Boston College, 2005. Butler over Louisville, 2003. Missouri over Ohio State, 2002. Southwest Missouri State over Tennessee, 1999.
5 vs. 13 | 10-3, 0.769
Unlike No. 4 seeds, No. 5 seeds have little trouble in their Cinderella mismatch against No. 13 seeds -- despite the fact that the most recent of these matchups, last year's Pittsburgh-Bradley game, went to the underdog. Still, there's little reason to pick against No. 5 seeds -- particularly if their backcourts shoulder more than 38 percent of the scoring load. Guard-dominant No. 5 seeds are 8-1, while more frontcourt-oriented fifth-seeded teams have struggled (2-2, .500). If you get a wild hair and feel like picking an upset in this matchup, go for No. 13 seeds that get less than 48 percent of their points from guards, plus score more than 70 and give up less than 66 points a game. These 13th-seeded spoilers are 3-0; all other No. 13 seeds are 0-10.
Upset history: Bradley over Pittsburgh, 2006, Oklahoma over Charlotte, 1999. Richmond over Georgia Tech, 1988.
12 vs. 13 | 4-1, 0.800
The long-shot seeds in this bracket have squared off against each other more often than any other long-shot pairing (9 vs. 16, 10 vs. 15, 11 vs. 14) in the second round. Surprisingly, No. 12 seeds treat No. 13 seeds like pushovers, prevailing 80 percent of the time. What did the one No. 13-seed victor have that the victims didn't? Team experience. Valparaiso had been to the tourney three straight years when it knocked off Florida State in 1998. The four No. 13-seed losers had fewer than three appearances -- with only Indiana State having gone to the previous year's tourney.
Matchup history: Gonzaga (12) beat Indiana State (13), 2001. Valparaiso (13) beat Florida State (12), 1998. George Washington (12) over Southern University (13), 1993. New Mexico State (12) over Southwest Louisiana (13), 1992. Eastern Michigan (12) over Penn State (13), 1991.
| NCAA Tournament: 3 vs. 6, 11 vs. 14 bracket |
| Seed |
Wins |
Losses |
Percentage |
| 3 |
41 |
32 |
0.562 |
| 6 |
34 |
27 |
0.557 |
| 11 |
11 |
16 |
0.407 |
| 14 |
2 |
13 |
0.133 |
The 3-6-11-14 bracket is perhaps the most difficult one to figure out in the second round. That's mainly because sixth-seeded teams are such surprising performers. While fewer No. 6 seeds make it to Round 2 than No. 3 seeds (61 to 73), they have nearly the same winning percentage as their higher-seeded foes in the second round. For that matter, they win with the same regularity as No. 4 seeds. Eleventh-seeded teams aren't slouches either. In fact, odds are that the four teams advancing from this bracket pairing will be composed of more No. 6 and 11 seeds than No. 3 seeds. One other reason why this bracket is so difficult: The stakes for getting it right are higher. More teams (36) will advance to the Elite Eight than the 4-5-12-13 bracket (20 teams) than any other. Just look at last year's results: No. 3 Florida and No. 11 George Mason not only cracked the Elite Eight; they made it to the Final Four.
3 vs. 6 | 25-24, 0.510
This is the most hotly contested matchup of the second round. It's also probably the one that bracket pool players ponder the longest, considering that No. 1 and 2 seeds usually get automatic passes to the Sweet 16 -- and the 4 vs. 5 game doesn't warrant much scrutiny since winners are served up to top seeds in Round 3 anyway. Coaching inexperience actually helps No. 6 seeds in this matchup. Sixth-seeded teams with coaches who've been to the Big Dance fewer than six times are 15-8 (.652). That compares well to a 9-17 (.346) record for No. 6 seeds with more veteran coaches. Meanwhile, less-experienced No. 3 seeds hold serve better than tourney-grizzled squads. Third-seeded teams who've been to the Dance fewer than five times in a row are 20-13 (.606); the rest are 5-11 (.312). Last year, Gonzaga fell into this category, and it got past Indiana. On the other hand, Indiana fulfilled the No. 6 seed "coaching inexperience" rule above … and ended up losing. So use these rules with care.
Recent upsets: Texas Tech over Gonzaga, 2005. Utah over Oklahoma, 2005. Vanderbilt over North Carolina State, 2004. Maryland over Xavier, 2003.
3 vs. 11 | 16-8, 0. 667
It isn't exactly a "gimme" when No. 3 seeds square off against No. 11 seeds in Round 2. Just ask North Carolina, which was victimized by George Mason last year. The best performance indicator to explain why No. 11 seeds spring upsets is pre-tourney momentum. No. 11 seeds that have won eight or fewer of their last 10 games are 8-9 in this matchup (.471); hotter 11th-seeded squads are perfectly inept at 0-7 (.000). The telltale sign of faltering No. 3 seeds is team experience. Third-seeded squads that either didn't go to the tourney the previous year or are tourney fixtures (more than six straight appearances) are 9-0; all others are 7-8. This rule worked perfectly last year: Florida has been a fixture in the tourney of late -- and it won. North Carolina only logged three straight bids -- and lost.
Recent upsets: George Mason over North Carolina, 2006. Southern Illinois over Georgia, 2002. Temple over Florida, 2001. Loyola-Marymount over Michigan, 1990.
6 vs. 14 | 10-2, 0.833
If you went out on a bracket limb and advanced a No. 14 seed into the second round, you'd be smart to eliminate it in Round 2. Then again, logic would've dictated that you never advance a No. 14 seed in the first place. So if you're still feeling reckless with this matchup, take the No. 14 seeds that beat their opponents by more than 12 points per game. They're 2-0 against No. 6 seeds; the rest of the No. 14 seeds are 0-10.
Upset history: Tennessee-Chattanooga over Illinois, 1997. Cleveland State over St. Joseph's, 1986.
11 vs. 14 | 3-0, 1.000
Anyone who's contemplating an 11 vs. 14 matchup in their bracket probably isn't reading this article to begin with -- and doesn't care that No. 11 seeds have never lost to No. 14 seeds in the second round. Washington beat Richmond in 1998, Connecticut handled Xavier in 1991 and Minnesota stopped Siena in 1989.
| NCAA Tournament: 2 vs. 7, 10 vs. 15 bracket |
| Seed |
Wins |
Losses |
Percentage |
| 2 |
55 |
29 |
0.655 |
| 7 |
16 |
37 |
0.302 |
| 10 |
17 |
18 |
0.486 |
| 15 |
0 |
4 |
0.000 |
By all rights, the 2-7-10-15 bracket should be a no-brainer -- and most bracket pool players pick it that way, giving No. 2 seeds an automatic pass to the Sweet 16. But second-seeded squads aren't nearly as reliable as top seeds in advancing beyond the second round. On average, one or two No. 7 or No. 10 seeds per tourney will take the place of No. 2 seeds. Look at last year: two No. 7 seeds, Wichita State and Georgetown, broke into the Elite Eight. You can go the safe route, cross your fingers and advance all the No. 2 seeds. Or you can observe the telltale signs of No. 7 and No. 10-seed Cinderellas and be a contrarian. The bigger the pool you're in, the more likely it is that the winner will go against the grain.
2 vs. 7 | 37-15, 0.712
Despite being the closer competitor by seed position, No. 7 seeds are surprisingly more prone to getting beat by No. 2 seeds than No. 10 seeds are. No. 7 seeds that offer the stiffest resistance are tourney-tested, having been to the previous year's dance, and have defeated their opponents by more than six points a game. These No. 7 seeds are a respectable 9-10 (.474); others are 6-27 (.182). These numbers would've been more lopsided had Wichita State and Georgetown, both of which hadn't gone to the previous year's tourney, not pulled off upsets last season.
Recent upsets: Wichita State over Tennessee, 2006. Georgetown over Ohio State, 2006. West Virginia over Wake Forest, 2005. Xavier over Mississippi State, 2004.
2 vs. 10 | 18-14, 0.562
Amazingly, No. 10 seeds nearly break even with two-seeds in the second round. Of course, the odds of a No. 10 seed winning its first two games are still just 19 percent, so it's not worth getting too excited about their propensity to topple No. 2 seeds. That said, the No. 10 seeds with the best odds of reaching the Sweet 16 come from the big six. They're 8-6 (.571), while mid-major No. 10 seeds are much less reliable at 6-12 (.333). Of course, last year both 10-seeds, Alabama and North Carolina State, were from a big six conference -- and they both lost.
Recent upsets: North Carolina State over Connecticut, 2005. Nevada over Gonzaga, 2004. Auburn over Wake Forest, 2003. Kent State over Alabama, 2002.
7 vs. 15 | 1-0, 1.000
A No. 7 seed has played a No. 15 seed only once in Round 2. In 1993, seventh-seeded Temple beat No. 15 seed Santa Clara.
10 vs. 15 | 3-0. 1.000
Tenth-seeds have pushed their overall Round 2 record almost to .500 by beating No. 15 seeds in all three of their matchups. Georgetown beat Hampton in 2001, Texas beat Coppin State in 1997 and Temple handled Richmond in 1991.
Sweet 16
| NCAA Tournament: Top-seed bracket |
| Seed |
Wins |
Losses |
Percentage |
| 1 |
61 |
15 |
0.803 |
| 4 |
14 |
25 |
0.359 |
| 5 |
5 |
26 |
0.161 |
| 8 |
6 |
3 |
0.667 |
| 9 |
1 |
2 |
0.333 |
| 12 |
1 |
13 |
0.071 |
| 13 |
0 |
4 |
0.000 |
Here's a stat for you: More top seeds advance to the Elite Eight than No. 2 seeds get to the Sweet 16 -- or No. 5 seeds win in Round 1! Heck, more No. 1 seeds get to the Elite Eight than No. 2 or 3 seeds … combined. Nearly 70 percent of top seeds -- almost three per tourney -- win their first three games. The only other seeds worth considering in this bracket are No. 4, 5 and 8 seeds. They've graduated 25 teams -- more than one per tourney -- to the fourth round. The three lower seeds have only advanced to the Elite Eight twice.
1 vs. 4 | 22-10, 0.688
On the top-seed side of the Sweet 16 bracket, the most frequent matchup pits the two highest seeds against each other. No. 1 and No. 4 seeds are involved in 36 percent of the games, with top seeds winning nearly 70 percent of the time. That might sound like a lock, but it's the worst performance by a No. 1 seed in any of its matchups over the first three rounds. Just look at last year: No. 4 seed LSU knocked of top-seeded Duke, while fourth-seeded Boston College took Villanova to overtime before succumbing. No. 4 seeds thrive when they beat their foes by more than 10 points a game. They're 7-6 (.538); less dominant four seeds are 3-16 (.158). Last year proved to be a perfect microcosm of this dynamic: Fourth-seeded LSU had a victory margin above 10 and won; Boston College didn't and lost.
Recent matchups: (4) LSU over (1) Duke, 2006. (1) Villanova over (4) Boston College, 2006. (4) Louisville over (1) Washington, 2005. (1) St. Joseph's over (4) Wake Forest, 2004.
1 vs. 5 | 23-5, 0.821
Given their seed proximity, you'd think that No. 5 seeds would do nearly as well against top seeds as No. 4 seeds. In fact, they tend to be an easy mark for the big boys, pulling upsets less often than No. 8 seeds do against top seeds in the second round. What distinguishes the five top seeds that got upset? Interestingly, it's the tourney fixtures that tend to fare worse in this matchup -- maybe because they're complacent. No. 1 seeds that have been to the tourney at least five straight times are just 13-4 (.765); the less-experienced top seeds are 10-1 (.909). Here's another sign of a top-seed victim: Its name is Duke. The last three No. 1 seeds to get upset by No. 5 seeds were Blue Devils teams -- in 2000, 2002 and 2005. On the other side of the matchup, fifth-seeded Cinderellas get more than 20 percent of their scoring from the bench and are from the big six conferences. These teams are 4-10 (.286); their counterparts are 1-13 (.071). Neither of these rules would've helped in 2006. Connecticut had the tourney experience to make it susceptible to an upset, and Washington had the statistical chops to spring one. The battle of the Huskies did go to overtime -- but top seed UConn ultimately prevailed.
Upset history: Michigan State over Duke, 2005. Indiana over Duke, 2002. Florida over Duke, 2000. Mississippi State over Connecticut, 1996. Virginia over Oklahoma, 1989.
1 vs. 12 | 13-0, 1.000
Given how dominant top seeds are in the first three rounds of the tourney, it's not surprising that they're a perfect 13-0 against No. 12 seeds. It is a little eye-opening, however, that they handle their underdog opponents so easily. No. 1 seeds have beaten No. 12 seeds by an average of 13.1 points, with only four of the 13 games getting settled by single digits. Ball State came the closest to springing an upset in 1990 when the Cardinals lost to UNLV 69-67, which went on to massacre Duke in the finals, 103-73.
Recent matchups: Illinois over UW-Milwaukee, 2005. Oklahoma over Butler, 2003. Michigan State over Gonzaga, 2001. Duke over Southwest Missouri State, 1999.
1 vs. 13 | 3-0, 1.000
In the three Sweet 16 matchups between these seeds, the top seed has held serve against its long-shot opponent. Temple dispatched Dick Tarrant's pesky Richmond Spiders in 1988, Michigan State took care of Oklahoma in 1999, and Memphis rolled over a surprising Bradley squad last year.
4 vs. 8 | 2-3, 0.400
Once every five years or so, a No. 4 and No. 8 seed go head-to-head in the Sweet 16. The Cinderella No. 8 seeds are tough teams that keep the score low and close, averaging less than 80 points a game and winning by no more than eight points. Teams with these qualities are 3-0. The other two eight-seeds have fallen to their fourth-seeded foes.
Matchup history: (8) North Carolina over (4) Tennessee, 2000. (8) Wisconsin over (4) LSU, 2000. (4) Syracuse over (8) Georgia, 1996. (4) Arkansas over (8) North Carolina, 1990. (8) Auburn over (4) UNLV, 1986.
4 vs. 9 | 2-0, 0.000
The only two times these seeds have met in the Sweet 16, the favored No. 4 seeds have prevailed. Bill Self's Kansas Jayhawks beat Mike Anderson's UAB Blazers in 2004. And Bob Huggins' Cincinnati Bearcats beat Clem Haskins' UTEP Miners in 1992.
5 vs. 8 | 0-2, 0.000
No. 8 seeds have upset No. 5 seeds both times they've squared off against each other. Mark Gottfried and Alabama were the most recent to do the trick, toppling Jim Boeheim's defending champion Orange in 2004. And the first upset came in the very first year of the modern 64-team era, when Villanova's Rollie Massimino masterminded an upset of Lefty Driesell's Maryland Terps on his way to the 1985 championship.
5 vs. 9 | 0-1, 0.000
The 1994 Boston College squad, coached by Jim O'Brien, has the distinction of being the only No. 9 seed to reach the Elite Eight. It achieved the feat by knocking off Bobby Knight's fifth-seeded Hoosiers.
8 vs. 12 | 0-1, 0.000
In 2002, Quin Snyder's Missouri Tigers upset Steve Lavin's UCLA Bruins in the only 8 vs. 12 matchup of the modern tourney era.
8 vs. 13 | 1-0, 1.000
The only matchup pitting these seeds against each other occurred in 1998 when Jim Harrick's Rhode Island Rams beat Cinderella Valparaiso, led by coach Homer Drew and his son, guard Bryce Drew.
| NCAA Tournament: Two-seed bracket |
| Seed |
Wins |
Losses |
Percentage |
| 2 |
40 |
15 |
0.727 |
| 3 |
20 |
21 |
0.488 |
| 6 |
12 |
22 |
0.353 |
| 7 |
6 |
10 |
0.375 |
| 10 |
6 |
11 |
0.353 |
| 11 |
4 |
7 |
0.364 |
| 14 |
0 |
2 |
0.000 |
On the No. 2 seed side of the Sweet 16 bracket, the competition is much more balanced than its counterpart, where top seeds advance nearly 70 percent of the time. While No. 2 seeds are the most common winners, claiming 45 percent of the Elite Eight positions, the likelihood is that some other seed will advance. No. 3 and No. 6 seeds prevail in 36 percent of the matchups. In the other bracket, the No. 4 and No. 5 seeds only get to the quarterfinals 22 percent of the time. Even the Nos. 7, 10 and 11 seeds get into the act, advancing 16 teams -- twice as many as the Nos. 8, 9 and 12 seeds in the other bracket. On the other hand, No. 2 seeds are the only seed on this side of the Sweet 16 bracket with a winning record. Go figure. All this makes for one big bout of bracket-picking anguish.
2 vs. 3 | 16-9, 0.640
Of all the matchups with a single-seed position difference in the first three rounds (8 vs. 9, 4 vs. 5, 6 vs. 7 and 12 vs. 13), this one is amazingly the second most lopsided, behind only 12 vs. 13 (4-1). It gets more lopsided if you concentrate only on No. 2 seeds that get imbalanced scoring -- more than 60 percent of their points from either the backcourt or frontcourt. These squads are 11-2 (.846); the more balanced scoring No. 2 seeds are just 5-7 (.417). If your heart's set on picking a No. 3 seed, go with one whose coach isn't a rookie to the tourney but has fewer than 10 trips to the Dance. These seeds are 7-5 (.583), while their counterparts are 2-11 (.154). Interestingly, neither of these rules would've steered you right last year. UCLA was a No. 2 seed with balanced scoring -- but still won. Gonzaga's Mark Few had the requisite number of tourney trips -- but still lost.
Recent matchups: (2) UCLA over (3) Gonzaga, 2006. (3) Arizona over (2) Oklahoma State, 2005. (2) Oklahoma State over (3) Pittsburgh, 2004. (2) Kansas over (3) Duke, 2003. (3) Marquette over (2) Pittsburgh, 2003.
2 vs. 6 | 17-5, 0.773
This matchup happens almost as frequently as the 2 vs. 3 matchup -- a testament to the resilience of No. 6 seeds in the first two rounds. Unfortunately, that resiliency doesn't seem to help them against No. 2 seeds. In fact, in 15 of the last 16 games, 2 vs. 6 tilts have gone to the favored seed, with USC's 2001 win over No. 2-seed Kentucky marking the only upset. The No. 6 seeds that tend to escape defeat are inexperienced schools (less than three straight tourney trips) with solid frontcourts (more than 45 percent of their scoring from forwards and centers). Teams with these two qualities are 5-7 (.417); the rest of the No. 6 seeds are 0-10. Last year, West Virginia had the frontcourt scoring to pull off the upset, and only lost to Texas by three, 74-71.
Upset history: USC over Kentucky, 2001. Michigan over Oklahoma State, 1992. Minnesota over Syracuse, 1990. Villanova over Kentucky, 1988. Providence over Alabama, 1987.
2 vs. 11 | 7-1, 0.875
This matchup comes around about once every three years -- and is nearly always won by the No. 2 seed. The only No. 11 seed triumph came way back in 1986, the second year of the modern tourney era, when Dale Brown's LSU Tigers knocked off Georgia Tech. What did LSU have that the other 11-seeds didn't? Tourney experience. The Tigers are the only No. 11 seed to square off with a second-seed that had been to the tourney more than two years in a row. Want a weird little factoid to impress your buddies (and who doesn't)? UConn has been in the last three 2 vs. 11 matchups, twice as a No. 2 seed and once as the No. 11 seed.
Recent matchups: (2) Connecticut over (11) Southern Illinois, 2002. (2) Connecticut over (11) Washington, 1998. (2) Duke over (11) Connecticut, 1991. (2) Duke over (11) Minnesota, 1989.
3 vs. 7 | 4-2, 0.667
Four of the six 3 vs. 7 matchups happened in the first decade of the tourney. The other two have happened in the last three dances. Last year, third seed Florida beat Georgetown, and in 2004, Xavier knocked off No. 3-seed Texas. The No. 3 seeds with frontcourts that scored more than half of their team's points are 4-0. Last year's Florida Gators were among them.
Recent matchups: (3) Florida over (7) Georgetown, 2006. (7) Xavier over (3) Texas, 2004. (7) Temple over (3) Vanderbilt, 1993. (3) Florida State over (7) Western Kentucky, 1993.
3 vs. 10 | 7-3, 0.700
Nearly every other tourney pits a No. 3 seed against an underdog No. 10 seed. The best guidance to the outcome of this matchup hinges on the team experience of the Cinderella. The three 10-seeds that were making a return trip to the Dance all won; the seven that didn't go to the previous tourney all lost.
Upset history: Kent State over Pittsburgh, 2002. Temple over Oklahoma State, 1991. LSU over DePaul, 1987.
6 vs. 7 | 3-3, 0.500
This matchup has been a tale of two eras. No. 6 seeds won the first three games and No. 7 seeds have won the last three. One dynamic has remained fairly consistent through all six head-to-head battles: The team that allows the fewest points per game has a solid 5-1 edge.
Recent matchups: (7) West Virginia over (6) Texas Tech, 2005. (7) Michigan State over (6) Maryland, 2003. (7) Tulsa over (6) Miami (Fla.), 2000. (6) Memphis State over (7) Georgia Tech, 1992.
6 vs. 10 | 4-2, 0.667
Since 2000, No. 6 seeds have asserted their dominance in what was once an even matchup. The telltale sign of a sixth-seeded winner is team experience. Schools that have been to the tourney more than five straight years are 4-0; the other two schools are 0-2. The mark of a 10th-seeded victor is scoring punch. Both No. 10 seeds that scored more than 78 points a game were 2-0 while their more offensively challenged counterparts were winless.
Matchup history: (6) Wisconsin over (10) North Carolina State, 2005. (6) Purdue over (10) Gonzaga, 2000. (6) Temple over (10) Purdue, 1999. (10) Gonzaga over (6) Florida, 1999.
7 vs. 11 | 0-3, 0.000
No. 7 seeds have had a rough time with No. 11 seeds in the Sweet 16. They've lost all three times the two seeds have gone head to head -- in 1990 when offensive juggernaut Loyola-Marymount upset Alabama, in 2001 when Temple beat Penn State, and last year when George Mason upset Wichita State.
7 vs. 14 | 1-0, 1.000
The only 7 vs. 14 matchup of the modern tourney era came just one year after the field expanded to 64 teams. A Navy squad led by David Robinson held off Cleveland State.
10 vs. 14 | 1-0, 1.000
In the only game pitting these two low seeds against each other, Pete Gillen's 10th-seeded Providence Friars avoided an upset at the hands of Tennessee-Chattanooga in 1997.
Elite Eight
| |
| Seed |
Wins |
Losses |
Percentage |
| 1 |
36 |
25 |
0.590 |
| 2 |
19 |
21 |
0.475 |
| 3 |
12 |
8 |
0.600 |
| 4 |
9 |
5 |
0.643 |
| 5 |
4 |
1 |
0.800 |
| 6 |
3 |
9 |
0.250 |
| 7 |
0 |
6 |
0.000 |
| 8 |
3 |
3 |
0.500 |
| 9 |
0 |
1 |
0.000 |
| 10 |
0 |
6 |
0.000 |
| 11 |
2 |
2 |
0.500 |
| 12 |
0 |
1 |
0.000 |
A funny thing happens on the way to the Elite Eight. The matchup that the brackets were designed to yield -- the 1 vs. 2 battle -- happens less than one-third of the time. The second most likely matchup, a 1 vs. 3 game, happens in only one of seven chances. Top seeds do their part, appearing in nearly 70 percent of the quarterfinal games. It's the other side of the bracket that's splintered. As for which seed will advance in this round, No. 1 seeds get to the Final Four almost as many times (36) as the Nos. 2, 3 and 6 seeds combined (40). And those top four seeds account for 86 percent of the Final Four combatants. So when you're slotting teams into your semifinal brackets, you wouldn't be crazy to pick two top seeds and two of the next three seeds. Of course, the big questions are: Which of those top-seeded teams should you choose? And which Nos. 2, 3 and 4 seeds should join them in the Final Four? These matchup breakdowns should help.
1 vs. 2 | 15-14, 0.517
More No. 1 seeds have their tourney run ended by No. 2 seeds in the Elite Eight than by any other opponent in any other round. Considering that only 12 top seeds lose in Round 2 and 15 in the Sweet 16, this matchup is something of a Waterloo for top-seeded teams. Still, they manage to eke out a winning record against No. 2 seeds -- mainly at the expense of inexperienced squads with coaches that lack tourney seasoning. Two-seeds with fewer than four straight tourney trips or coaches who've been to the Dance less than four times are 1-12; the more tourney-tested No. 2 seeds are 13-3. Who was the only team to buck the trend? Last year's UCLA squad. While coach Ben Howland has been to the tourney five times, the Bruins have only gone to the Dance two years in a row.
Recent matchups: (2) UCLA over (1) Memphis, 2006. (2) Oklahoma State over (1) St. Joseph's, 2004. (2) Kansas over (1) Arizona, 2003. (1) Kansas over (2) Oregon, 2002.
1 vs. 3 | 6-7, 0.462
As impressive as the performance of No. 2 seeds is against top seeds in the Elite Eight, No. 3 seeds do even better. This is the only matchup in the first four rounds of the tourney in which top seeds don't post a winning record. The No. 1 seeds that lose in this matchup tend to be sputtering heading into the tourney. Top seeds that have won less than nine of their last 10 pre-tournament games are 1-5; those that have notched nine or 10 wins are 5-2. The telltale sign of a triumphant No. 3 seed is victory margin. Third-seeded teams that win by an average of less than 10 points are 0-4; the rest are 7-2. The results of last year's Florida/Villanova matchup observed both of these rules. The top-seeded Wildcats had only won eight of their last 10 games … and joined the list of losers. The third-seeded Gators had a more than 14-point victory margin -- and were on the side of the winners.
Recent matchups: (3) Florida over (1) Villanova, 2006. (1) Illinois over (3) Arizona, 2005. (3) Marquette over (1) Kentucky, 2003. (3) Syracuse over (1) Oklahoma, 2003.
1 vs. 6 | 6-2, 0.750
When they're not struggling with No. 2 and 3 seeds, top seeds are 15-4 against the rest of the field -- 9-2 if you isolate their performance against No. 6 seeds. In this matchup, the difference between a top-seeded winner and loser is frontcourt scoring. The six top-seeded victors got at least 50 percent of their points from forwards and centers; the two losers leaned on their backcourt for more than 60 percent of their scoring. Both the sixth-seeded squads that won (Michigan in 1992 and Providence in 1987) were high-scoring teams, averaging at least 78 points a game. The No. 6-seed victims all scored fewer than 78 points per game.
Upset history: (6) Michigan over (1) Ohio State, 1992. (6) Providence over (1) Georgetown, 1987.
1 vs. 7 | 4-0, 1.000
Top seeds have no trouble with No. 7 seeds, but this matchup may be a curse for the favorites. None of the top seeds in this showdown has gone on to win the tourney. The No. 7 seed that came closest to springing an upset was Xavier, which lost by just three points to Duke in 2004.
Matchup history: Duke over Xavier, 2004. Texas over Michigan State, 2003. Michigan over Temple, 1993. Duke over Navy, 1986.
1 vs. 10 | 3-0, 1.000
Top seeds have ended the Cinderella stories of three No. 10 seeds in the Elite Eight. The games have served as a good tune-up for the No. 1 seeds; two of the three victors -- Indiana in 1987 and UConn in 1999 -- have gone on to win the tourney.
Matchup history: Connecticut over Gonzaga, 1999. North Carolina over Temple, 1991. Indiana over Louisiana State, 1987.
1 vs. 11 | 2-2, 0.500
Statistically speaking, top seeds have more trouble in the Elite Eight with 11th-seeded long-shots than they do with No. 2 seeds. That's because there have been only four matchups -- and the underdog seed has split the series. LSU's victory over Kentucky in 1986 stood as the biggest late-round upset in the 64-team era -- until George Mason duplicated the feat last year by knocking off UConn. What did the two Cinderellas have that the two losing No. 11 seeds didn't (not that you'd ever pick a No. 11 seed to advance this far)? Both George Mason and LSU had lost one game before entering the tourney; Temple and Loyola-Marymount had winning streaks coming into the Big Dance.
Matchup history: (11) George Mason over (1) Connecticut, 2006. (1) Michigan State over (11) Temple, 2001. (1) UNLV over (11) Loyola-Marymount, 1990. (11) Louisiana State over (1) Kentucky, 1986.
2 vs. 4 | 2-3, 0.400
Once every four or five years, a No. 2 seed plays a No. 4 seed in the Elite Eight -- like Texas did last year when it squared off against fourth-seeded LSU. The outcome of the game usually hinges on pre-tourney momentum. The team that's won more of its last 10 games before entering the Dance is 4-1, with only No. 4 Oklahoma State bucking the trend in 1995 when it beat a hotter Massachusetts squad. If you put more stock in recent tourney results, however, you might as well just pick the No. 4 seed in this matchup. Fourth-seeded teams have won the last three games against No. 2 seeds in the Elite Eight.
Matchup history: (4) LSU over (2) Texas, 2006. (4) Syracuse over (2) Kansas, 1996. (4) Oklahoma State over (2) Massachusetts, 1995. (2) Arkansas over (4) Virginia, 1995. (2) Duke over (4) St. John's, 1991.
2 vs. 5 | 0-2, 0.000
As close as these seeds are, you'd think there would have been more than two games over the last 21 years. You'd also think that No. 2 seeds would do better. No. 5 seeds have won both matchups, most recently in 2005 when Michigan State upset Kentucky. The other game occurred in 1996 when Mississippi State beat Cincinnati.
2 vs. 8 | 2-1, 0.667
Over the last 20 years, a No. 2 seed has squared off against a No. 8 seed only once, when Connecticut held off Alabama in 2004. The other two 2 vs. 8 matchups happened in the first two years of the modern tourney era. Villanova is the only eighth-seeded squad to come out on top against a No. 2 seed. It knocked off North Carolina on an improbable run to the 1985 championship. What set Villanova apart from the other two eight-seeds was that their coach, Rollie Massimino, had been to the Elite Eight before.
Matchup history: (2) Connecticut over (8) Alabama, 2004. (2) Louisville over (8) Auburn, 1986. (8) Villanova over (2) North Carolina, 1985.
2 vs. 12 | 1-0, 1.000
In 2002, No. 2 seed Oklahoma put an end to the longest tourney run by a No. 12 seed when the Sooners beat Big 12 rival Missouri.
3 vs. 4 | 2-1, 0.667
On those rare occasions when a No. 3 seed goes up against a No. 4 seed in the Elite Eight, the older team in terms of class composition has won each time. All three winners -- Georgia Tech, Ohio State and Seton Hall -- had more juniors and seniors in the starting lineup than the opponents.
Matchup history: (3) Georgia Tech over (4) Kansas, 2004. (4) Ohio State over (3) St. John's, 1999. (3) Seton Hall over (4) UNLV, 1989.
3 vs. 5 | 1-1, 0.500
No. 3 and No. 5 seeds have split their two games against each other in the quarterfinals. In 1989, No. 3 Michigan beat No. 5 Virginia on its way to the championship. In 2000, No. 5 Florida beat No. 3 Oklahoma State, advanced to the finals and then lost to Michigan State.
3 vs. 8 | 1-0, 1.000
No. 3 and No. 8 seeds have met just once in the Elite Eight. In 1998, third-seeded Stanford ended Rhode Island's long-shot run.
3 vs. 9 | 1-0, 1.000
The only Elite Eight matchup involving a No. 9 seed occurred more than a decade ago, in 1994, when third-seeded Florida beat Boston College.
4 vs. 6 | 2-1, 0.667
Once they slip by top seeds in the Sweet 16, No. 4 seeds are a pretty resilient bunch. In addition to going 4-4 against No. 2 and No. 3 seeds, they're a solid 5-1 against lower-seeded opponents. The only lower seed to win was Kansas in 1988 when the sixth-seeded Jayhawks and Danny Manning beat rival No. 4 Kansas State and Mitch Richmond. In the other two matchups, No. 4 Georgia Tech vs. No. 6 Minnesota in 1990 and No. 4 Cincinnati vs. No. 6 Memphis State in 1992, the higher seed held sway. In all three 4 vs. 6 matchups, the team that allowed the fewest points per game prevailed.
4 vs. 7 | 1-0, 1.000
The 2005 tourney saw the only 4 vs. 7 quarterfinal matchup in the 22 years of the 64-team era. Fourth-seeded Louisville (actually a No. 1 or 2 seed in disguise) burst No. 7 West Virginia's bubble.
4 vs. 10 | 2-0, 1.000
It's been nine tourneys since a No. 4 seed and a No. 10 seed have squared off in the quarterfinals. In 1997, No. 4 Arizona knocked off Pete Gillen's 10th-seeded Providence Friars. Then the Wildcats went on to win their only championship of the modern era. In the other 4 vs. 10 matchup seven years earlier, No. 4 Arkansas beat No. 10 Texas.
5 vs. 10 | 1-0, 1.000
A No. 5 seed has played a No. 10 seed only once in the Elite Eight. In 2002, fifth-seeded Indiana ended 10th-seeded Kent State's Cinderella run before losing to Maryland in the championship game.
6 vs. 8 | 0-1, 0.000
Here's another matchup that's only happened once. In 2000, No. 8 seed Wisconsin upended Big Ten rival Purdue.
7 vs. 8 | 0-1, 0.000
In the only Elite Eight matchup between these two middle seeds, eighth-seeded North Carolina beat No. 7 seed Tulsa in 2000 -- the same year that No. 8 seed Wisconsin beat Purdue in the only 6 vs. 8 matchup. Eerie.
Final Four
| |
| Seed |
Wins |
Losses |
Percentage |
| 1 |
19 |
17 |
0.528 |
| 2 |
10 |
9 |
0.526 |
| 3 |
8 |
4 |
0.667 |
| 4 |
2 |
7 |
0.222 |
| 5 |
2 |
2 |
0.500 |
| 6 |
2 |
1 |
0.667 |
| 8 |
1 |
2 |
0.333 |
| 11 |
0 |
2 |
0.000 |
The semifinals mark the point in the tourney where seeding offers virtually no guidance to the outcomes of matchups. For one thing, 10 of the 44 Final Four games in the modern era have involved like-seeded opponents. Second, of the 34 remaining games, the higher seed is just 20-14. In matchups where the gulf between opponents is one or two seeds, the higher seed is just 10-10; in games where the difference in seed position between opponents is more than two, the higher seed holds a solid 10-4 record. The keys to predicting the like-seeded matchups with 90 percent proficiency are conference affiliation, playing location and winning record. In general, big six conference teams with lesser records playing closer to their campus prevail. For toss-up games, where the seed difference between teams is one or two positions, frontcourt scoring accurately predicts the outcome in 14 of the 20 matchups.
1 vs. 1 | 9-9, 0.500
Of the 44 semifinal games played in the modern tourney, only nine have pitted No. 1 seeds against each other -- further confirmation that you should think twice before filling your Final Four bracket with too many top seeds. In the two games in which a No. 1 seed from the big six has played a mid-major top seed, the big six has prevailed both times. In the remaining seven games, the team playing significantly closer to its campus (a difference in distance of at least 150 miles) is 3-1. Of the three games in which the two teams were a similar distance from home, the No. 1 seed with the lower winning percentage is 3-0. Follow these three rules and you would've been 8-1 in predicting the outcome of 1 vs. 1 semifinal matchups.
Recent matchups: Maryland over Kansas, 2002. Duke over Michigan State, 1999. Kentucky over Minnesota, 1997. Kentucky over Massachusetts, 1996.
1 vs. 2 | 3-3, 0.500
Just like the 1 vs. 2 matchup in the Elite Eight, the Final Four showdown is hotly contested. The key performance indicator in the six games has been frontcourt scoring. The team that gets a higher percentage of its points from forwards and centers is 5-1. The only exception occurred in 1991, when No. 2 Duke ruined UNLV's perfect season en route to the championship.
Recent matchups: (2) Connecticut over (1) Duke, 2004. (2) Arizona over (1) Michigan State, 2001. (1) Arkansas over (2) Arizona, 1994. (1) North Carolina over (2) Kansas, 1993.
1 vs. 3 | 1-4, 0.200
The toughest matchup for top seeds in the entire tournament is in the semifinals when they face No. 3 seeds. They've only won once in five tries, when Duke broke the curse in 2001, upending third-seeded Maryland. The key to this matchup, as with the 1 vs. 2 Final Four showdown, is frontcourt scoring. The team that relies on forwards and centers for the higher percentage of its scoring load is a perfect 5-0.
Matchup history: (3) Syracuse over (1) Texas, 2003. (1) Duke over (3) Maryland, 2001. (3) Utah over (1) North Carolina, 1998. (3) North Carolina over (1) Kansas, 1991. (3) Michigan over (1) Illinois, 1989.
1 vs. 4 | 4-1, 0.800
What a difference one seed makes. Whereas top seeds struggle against No. 3 seeds, they have little trouble with No. 4 seeds, winning all but one of the five matchups. The only fourth-seeded squad to rain on a top seed's parade was Arizona in 1997, which parlayed a Final Four upset over North Carolina into a national championship. What did the Wildcats have that the other four seeds lacked? An explosive offense. Arizona was the only No. 4 seed in this matchup that actually averaged seven points per game more than its opponent.
Matchup history: (1) Illinois over (4) Louisville, 2005. (1) Connecticut over (4) Ohio State, 1999. (4) Arizona over (1) North Carolina, 1997. (1) UCLA over (4) Oklahoma State, 1995. (1) UNLV over Georgia Tech (4), 1990.
1 vs. 5 | 1-0, 1.000
The North Carolina/Michigan State Final Four game in 2005 marked the first time that a No. 5 seed played a top seed for the right to advance to the championship.
1 vs. 8 | 1-0, 1.000
Michigan State was also involved in the only 1 vs. 8 semifinal game. The top-seeded Spartans beat Big Ten rival Wisconsin on their way to the 2000 championship.
2 vs. 2 | 1-1, 0.500
Amazingly, two seeds have squared off against each other in the Final Four only once in the 22 years of the modern tourney era. It happened in 1995, when Arkansas beat North Carolina. Just like with the 1 vs. 1 matchup, proximity and winning record were reliable guides in predicting the outcome of this like-seeded game. Arkansas was playing closer to home than North Carolina and had a lower winning percentage.
2 vs. 3 | 3-2, 0.600
Surprisingly, the 2 vs. 3 matchup occurs almost as often in the Final Four as a 1 vs. 2 game. Two-seeds prevail in the best-of-five series, but by the slimmest of margins. If you took the No. 2 seed in every situation except when the No. 3 seed was from the ACC or Big East, you'd be a perfect 5-0 in predicting outcomes.
Matchup history: (3) Georgia Tech over (2) Oklahoma State, 2004. (2) Kansas over (3) Marquette, 2003. (2) Kentucky over (3) Stanford, 1998. (2) Duke over (3) Florida, 1994. (3) Seton Hall over (2) Duke, 1989.
2 vs. 4 | 1-0, 1.000
Amazingly, last year's UCLA/LSU clash marked the only time that a No. 2 seed has faced a No. 4 seed in the Final Four. The second-seeded Bruins had no trouble dispatching the Tigers, 59-45.
2 vs. 5 | 0-1, 0.000
In 2002, Indiana sprung a mild upset when the fifth-seeded Hoosiers upended Oklahoma in the only 2 vs. 5 matchup of the 64-team era.
2 vs. 6 | 1-1, 0.500
These seeds haven't played each other in the Final Four since 1988, when Kansas and Danny Manning upset Duke on their way to Larry Brown's only NCAA championship. The year before that, No. 2-seed Syracuse staved off Providence.
2 vs. 8 | 0-1, 0.000
The first four years of the modern tourney era saw some of the Final Four's funkiest matchups. Here's another one: In 1985, No. 8-seed Villanova beat No. 2-seed Memphis State before its date with destiny against Georgetown.
2 vs. 11 | 1-0, 1.000
One year after the improbable Memphis State/Villanova matchup, No. 11-seed LSU lost to No. 2 Louisville, which went on to beat Duke in the 1986 final.
3 vs. 4 | 1-0, 1.000
In 1990, just six years into the 64-team era, the only 3 vs. 4 semifinal matchup saw No. 3 Duke hold off Arkansas. Duke's reward for the victory was the privilege of getting steamrolled by UNLV, 103-73, in the finals.
3 vs. 11 | 1-0, 1.000
If you thought it was amazing that last year's 2 vs. 4 matchup was the only time the two seeds squared off in the 22-year history of the modern era, how's this for uncanny? The other matchup in the 2006 Final Four was also a first. In the only 3 vs. 11 semifinal matchup in the 64-team era, No. 3 Florida trounced No. 11 George Mason, 73-58.
4 vs. 5 | 1-0, 1.000
In 1996, No. 4-seed Syracuse beat Mississippi State in the modern tourney's only 4 vs. 5 semifinal matchup. The Orange lost to Kentucky in the finals.
4 vs. 6 | 0-1, 0.000
In 1996, Michigan's Fab Five -- a No. 6 seed that could've been a No. 2 seed -- beat fourth-seeded Cincinnati. The Wolverines then got trounced by Duke, 71-51, in the finals.
5 vs. 8 | 1-0, 1.000
2000 marked the only year of the modern tourney era that had two No. 8 seeds in the Final Four. In addition to the 1 vs. 8 matchup between Michigan State and Wisconsin, fifth-seeded Florida squared off against No. 8 North Carolina and beat the Tar Heels. The Gators wound up losing to MSU in the finals.
Championship
| |
| Seed |
Wins |
Losses |
Percentage |
| 1 |
12 |
7 |
0.632 |
| 2 |
4 |
6 |
0.400 |
| 3 |
3 |
5 |
0.375 |
| 4 |
1 |
1 |
0.500 |
| 5 |
0 |
2 |
0.000 |
| 6 |
1 |
1 |
0.500 |
| 8 |
1 |
0 |
1.000 |
As little an impact as seeding had on Final Four outcomes, you'd think it wouldn't make a difference in the finals. Not so. Of the 18 championship games involving teams with different seeds, the higher seed has won 12 of them. Since 1990, higher seeds are 11-3 against their lower-seeded opponents. (With its win over the No. 2-seed Bruins, No. 3 Florida is among those three victors.) Another surprising fact about the finals is that the matchup the brackets were intended to yield -- a 1 vs. 1 showdown -- has happened only three times in 22 years, the last such game occurring in 2005 when North Carolina beat Illinois. The only other like-seeded matchup involved No. 3 seeds Michigan and Seton Hall in 1989. The Wolverines' frontcourt scoring was a key to their victory -- as it was in two of the other three like-seeded showdowns. The bottom line: If you went with the higher seed in championship games and the team with the better frontcourt in like-seeded battles, your prediction rate would be 68 percent (15-7).
1 vs. 1 | 3-3, 0.500
About one in seven tournaments features two heavyweight top seeds going toe-to-toe. Since it happened two years ago when North Carolina bumped off Illinois, the law of averages says it won't happen for a few seasons. Interestingly, the top seed with the most imbalanced scoring between its frontcourt and backcourt has won in each of these showdowns. In 1993, North Carolina used its strong frontcourt (which accounted for 66 percent of its points during the regular season) to knock off Michigan. In 1999, UConn had a scoring mismatch with its backcourt (63 percent of its scoring) and took care of Duke. In 2005, it was North Carolina's dominant frontcourt (71 percent of its scoring) that held sway over an outmanned Illini squad.
1 vs. 2 | 4-1, 0.800
Strange that seeding should have such an impact between two close seeds in the finals. Top seeds treat No. 2 seeds like one of those lowly seeds they face in the early rounds, beating them 80 percent of the time. The only No. 2 seed to buck the trend is Louisville, which beat Duke in the 1986 championship game. Actually, a more reliable performance indicator in this matchup is backcourt scoring. The squad that gets a higher percentage of its points from guards is 5-0.
Matchup history: (1) Duke over (2) Arizona, 2001. (1) UCLA over (2) Arkansas, 1995. (1) Arkansas over (2) Duke, 1994. (1) Indiana over (2) Syracuse, 1987. (2) Louisville over (1) Duke, 1986.
1 vs. 3 | 1-0, 1.000
You'd think a 1 vs. 3 championship game would've happened more than once. For Duke fans, once might be enough, considering how soundly UNLV throttled them, 103-73, in the 1990 finals. The Blue Devils would get their revenge the following year, when they ruined UNLV's perfect season in the 1991 semifinals.
1 vs. 4 | 1-1, 0.500
The two 1 vs. 4 championship games happened in successive years -- and they both involved a top-seeded Kentucky squad. In 1996, Kentucky took care of Syracuse, but the following year, the Wildcats were upset in overtime by fourth-seeded Arizona.
1 vs. 5 | 2-0, 1.000
The two 1 vs. 5 finals matchups came two years apart. Michigan State beat Florida in 2000, and Maryland handled Indiana in 2002.
1 vs. 6 | 1-1, 0.500
If it weren't for Villanova's upset of Georgetown in 1985, Kansas could lay claim to springing the biggest championship upset of the modern tourney era. The Jayhawks beat top-seeded Oklahoma in 1988. Four years later, Michigan's Fab Five tried to duplicate the feat but were thumped by Duke.
1 vs. 8 | 0-1, 0.000
In the first year of the modern tourney era, the championship game saw its most unlikely matchup -- and most surprising outcome. Eighth-seeded upstart Villanova toppled overwhelming favorite Georgetown, 66-64, playing a nearly flawless game that included 90 percent shooting in the second half.
2 vs. 3 | 3-2, 0.600
Florida's win over second-seeded UCLA tightened this matchup, which, along with 1 vs. 2 final games, is the most popular championship seed pairing. The first No. 3 seed to beat a No. 2 seed in the finals is Syracuse, which knocked off Kansas in 2003. (Syracuse also holds the distinction of being the only champion that hadn't gone to the previous year's tourney.) The key to this matchup is scoring balance. The squad with the smallest percentage gap between its frontcourt and backcourt scoring has won all five games.
Matchup history: (3) Florida over (2) UCLA, 2006. (2) Connecticut over (3) Georgia Tech, 2004. (3) Syracuse over (2) Kansas, 2003. (2) Kentucky over (3) Utah, 1998. (2) Duke over (3) Kansas, 1991.
3 vs. 3 | 1-1, 0.500
The only other like-seeded finals matchup of the 64-team era besides the three 1 vs. 1 tilts saw Michigan squeak by Seton Hall in overtime in 1989.
Freelance writer Pete Tiernan has been studying the NCAA Tournament for 17 years. E-mail him here. Or go to www.bracketscience.com and check out the BracketMaster, which lets you do your own bracket analysis.
