YOUR GUIDE TO EVERY SEED MATCH- UP – 2012- 13 EDITION:

If you consult only one source to make your bracket picks this year, this is it. Every seed match- up that has ever occurred in the 28- year history of the 64- team era is analyzed here. Want to know the factors that lead to upsets in each match- up—or which favorites are most likely to stave off darkhorse uprsings? Check out the round- by- round match- up analyses here.


ROUND ONE MATCH- UPS

Round One Scoring Margins at a Glance…



1v16 | 112- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +25.1 ppg
For 28 years and 112 games, top seeds have maintained their perfect record of dominance against 16 seeds. Rather than credit the quality of top seeds, however, efficiency numbers suggest that we should blame the ineptitude of 16 seeds—or more accurately, the very nature of the tourney selection process. Let’s face it: it’s not like the top seeds are playing the 61st through 64th best teams in the land. Based on Ken Pomeroy’s Pythag statistic, the measure a team’s overall possession- based scoring and defensive efficiency, the average 16 seed is more like the nation’s 208th best team. That quality gap between top seeds and their first- round opponents is really what explains the streak of 112 straight victories. And it isn’t going to change—unless the mechanics of the dance change.

This quality gap between the best and worst teams in the tourney also disproportionately benefits two and three seeds. Take a look at this chart of the average Pythag values for each seed heading into the tourney between 2004 and 2012:



The red bars represent the drop- off in the quality of the 13 through 16 seeds. Put it this way: the difference between a top seed playing the 61st most efficient team in the country and the 208th is like Indiana taking on Virginia Tech or Davidson this year—instead of Loyola Chicago. Could Indiana beat Virginia Tech 112 times in a row? Hmm…

Near Misses:
- 1996, Purdue 73, West Carolina 71
- 1990, Michigan State 75, Murray State 71 OT
- 1989, Oklahoma 72, East Tennessee State 71
- 1989, Georgetown 50, Princeton 49 (and Tiger partisans insist to this day that Mourning’s last- second block was a foul)

2v15 | 106- 6, .946 | Higher seed scoring margin: +16.5 ppg
From 1985 to 2011, only four 15 seeds had toppled second- seeded giants—four times in 108 chances and 27 tourneys. Then, last year, two 15 seeds sprung big surprises. Norfolk State downed a frontcourt- challenged Missouri squad, and Lehigh pulled off the biggest stunner of all, upsetting the vaunted Duke Blue Devils. So now, 15 seeds win 5.4 percent of the time in their first- round match- ups. Do you feel comfortable ruining your bracket for a five percent chance of soothsaying brilliance? I didn’t think so. Refer back to the chart with the average Pythag values of the seeds. While the gulf between one and 16 seeds is huge, it’s also pretty sizeable between two and 15 seeds. With 15 seeds, we’re still talking about teams that didn’t make the tourney on performance quality. On average, 15 seeds since 2004 have been the 145th most efficient teams in the nation.

Upset watch: All the 15 seed Cinderellas came into the tourney winning nine of their last ten games and at least three in a row. They all had regular- season records between .600 and .800, indicating that they played their share of tough teams. They scored at least 69 and had a scoring margin of 2.9 or more per game. They all had at least one senior starter and got more than 71% of their points from the starting unit. And they all got balanced scoring from the back- and frontcourt, averaging between 33 and 58% of their scoring from guards. 15 seeds satisfying all these attributes were 6- 12 against their two seed opponents. The rest of the 15 seeds were 0- 94.

Upset history:
- 2012, Norfolk State over Missouri
- 2012, Lehigh over Duke
- 2001, Hampton over Iowa State
- 1997, Coppin State over South Carolina
- 1993, Santa Clara over Arizona
- 1991, Richmond over Syracuse

3v14 | 96- 16, .857 | Higher seed scoring margin: +11.5 ppg
Three seeds have been shocked by 14 seeds in half the 28 dances of the modern era. In two years, there were two 3v14 upsets: 1986 and 1995. The most recent 14- seed uprisings occurred in 2010 and 2006, with Ohio beating Georgetown and Northwestern State downing Iowa. Amazingly, three seeds are less likely to win one game in the tourney than top seeds are to win two. (Only 14 top seeds have failed to reach the Sweet Sixteen.) But it still doesn’t make any sense to pick three seeds to lose in round one. Too many have made deep runs to eliminate them early. Just go back two years, when UConn beat 14 seed Bucknell (a perennial Cinderella darling) on its way to the 2011 title.

Upset watch: The 14 seeds most likely to spring upsets are high scoring squads (averaging more than 76.5 points a game) coming into the tourney with solid momentum (more than six wins in their last 10 games and at least three straight victories). They’re 13- 27 (.325) while their lower scoring, less hot counterparts are just 3- 69 (.042). If you further refined your criteria to teams relying on unbalanced scoring (more than 55% of scoring from either the frontcourt or backcourt), you’d improve your upset- picking odds about 40 percent (13- 20, .394).

The tell- tale sign of a three seed victim is a tight margin of victory, a so- so record, a so- so coach and balanced scoring. Three seeds that 1) score less than 14.5% more than their opponents, 2) have a winning percentage lower than .840, 3) have won fewer than nine of their last ten games, 4) have a coach with less than four Elite Eight trips and 5) get between 27- 67% of their points from guards are more prone to upsets (nine losses in 25 tries for a 36% upset rate). All other three seeds have only seven losses in 87 tries, for an 8% upset rate.

Last year, South Dakota State and Belmont showed signs of being 14 seed Cinderellas, while Florida State possessed the attributes of a third- seeded victim. But the Seminoles didn’t play one of the giant killers. There weren’t any 3v14 upsets last year.

Recent upsets:
- 2010, Ohio over Georgetown
- 2006, Northwestern State over Iowa
- 2005, Bucknell over Kansas
- 1999, Weber State over North Carolina
- 1998, Richmond over South Carolina


4v13 | 88- 24, .786 | Higher seed scoring margin: +9.0 ppg
Four seeds perform almost as solidly as three seeds—and far better than five seeds. With nearly 80% of four seeds advancing to round two—and less than one per tourney getting upset, it’s too risky to pick a 13 seed in round one. That said, 13 seeds have been a thorn in the side of four seeds of late. Last year, Michigan got bounced by Ohio (not Ohio State, Brady, Ohio). In 2011, Morehead State downed Louisville; in 2010, Murray State edged Vanderbilt; 2009 saw Cleveland State knock off Wake Forest; and two Cinderellas surprised four seeds in 2008—Siena knocked off Vanderbilt and San Diego shocked UConn. Even with all those surprises in the last five years, you still would’ve gone 14- 6 by giving four seeds an automatic pass to the second round.

Upset watch: The key indicators of a 13 seed Cinderella are coaching, balance, momentum and scoring margin. Thirteen seeds that 1) are led by coaches who’ve been to the dance before, 2) get between 32 and 71% of their points from guards, 3) have an average scoring margin above 4.7 points and 4) won between seven and nine of their last 10 pre- tourney games are 16- 26 (.381). All other 13 seeds are 8- 62 (.114).

The four seeds most likely to be victimized: 1) get less than half or more than 80% of their points from guards, 2) have a winning percentage worse than .840 with less than nine wins in their last ten, and 3) own a scoring margin percentage below 17%. They get upset about 40% of the time (15- 23, .395). Four seeds with better backcourts, records and scoring margins have only been upset nine times in 65 match- ups—a 13.8% upset rate.

Last year, both New Mexico State and Ohio had the attributes of 13 seed surprisers. Michigan was the only team that had the deficiencies of four seed victims. As fate would have it, Ohio the Cinderella played Michigan the victim—and beat the Wolverines.

Recent upsets:
- 2012, Ohio over Michigan
- 2011, Morehead State over Louisville
- 2010, Murray State over Vanderbilt
- 2009, Cleveland State over Wake Forest
- 2008, Siena over Vanderbilt
- 2008, San Diego over Connecticut


5v12 | 74- 38, .661 | Higher seed scoring margin: +4.6 ppg
The 5v12 match- up marks the point in round one where it no longer pays to give higher seeds a free pass in your bracket. Since 2001, five seeds are just 28- 20 against their lower seeded opponent. Last year, two 12 seeds sprung upsets. Shaka Smart’s amazing VCU Rams beat Wichita State and South Florida knocked off Temple.

Upset watch: The two factors that matter most in identifying 12 seed spoilers are team experience and frontcourt scoring. Twelfth- seeded teams that have been to the tourney the previous year are 21- 16 (.568) against five seeds; all others are 17- 58 (.227). Twelve seeds that get 55% to 75% of their scoring from forwards and centers are 24- 22 (.522). In fact, 12 seeds that possess both factors are a solid 14- 6 (.700).

To pick a five seed victim, look at backcourt scoring and a lack of momentum. Fifth- seeded squads that get between 25 and 50% of their points from guards and are coming into the tourney with fewer than three straight wins are just 27- 22 (.551); the rest are 47- 16 (.746).

In 2012, none of the five seeds had the hallmarks of upset victims. But Virginia Commonwealth had been to the dance in 2011, making their improbable run to the Final Four. So the Rams were most people’s pick to be the 12 seed Cinderella. Of course, the two losing five seeds did come from smaller conferences…and that’s another sign of a potential victim. Five seeds from non- Power conferences are just 12- 11 in their match- ups with 12 seeds.

Upsets in the last four years:
- 2012, VCU over Wichita State
- 2012, South Florida over Temple
- 2011, Richmond over Vanderbilt
- 2010, Cornell over Temple
- 2009, Arizona over Utah
- 2009, Wisconsin over Florida State
- 2009, Western Kentucky over Illinois


6v11 | 74- 38, .661 | Higher seed scoring margin: +3.7 ppg
Six seeds are just as likely to advance to round two as five seeds, but that doesn’t mean you should automatically ink them into your bracket. Over the last four years, they’re just 8- 8 against 11 seeds. 2012 also saw a split in these games, with six seeds Murray State and Cincinnati holding serve and UNLV and San Diego State losing to Colorado and North Carolina State, respectively. The fact is, 11 and 12 seeds aren’t just one- and- done Cinderellas either. Over the last decade, 12 of the 80 11 and 12 seeds have advanced to the Sweet 16—and two (George Mason and VCU) have reached the Final Four.

Upset watch: Offensive punch, scoring margin percentage, winning rate and starter experience are the keys to success for 11 seeds. Teams that score more than 73 points a game and greater than 8% more points than they allow with a record better than .640 and at least one senior starter are 25- 19 (.568). All other 11 seeds are just 13- 55 (.191).

Sixth- seeded upset victims tend to be low scoring and led by rookie or unsuccessful veteran coaches. Six seeds that average less than 73 points a game or have a coach who’s either never been to the dance or been there more than four times without an Elite Eight trip are just 33- 25 (.569) in round one; the rest are 41- 13 (.759).

Last year, none of the 11 seeds had Cinderella attributes…but all four of the six seeds had the characteristics of upset victims.

Upsets in the last five years:
- 2012, Colorado over UNLV
- 2012, North Carolina State over San Diego State
- 2011, Virginia Commonwealth over Georgetown
- 2011, Gonzaga over St. John’s
- 2011, Marquette over Xavier
- 2010, Washington over Marquette
- 2010, Old Dominion over Notre Dame
- 2009, Dayton over West Virginia
- 2008, Kansas State over USC

7v10 | 67- 45, .598 | Higher seed scoring margin: +2.7 ppg
As close as these seeds are, it’s surprising that seven seeds have been so dominant in this match- up. They win nearly 60% of the time, but they have struggled in the last four tourneys, splitting the 20 games against their tenth- seeded opponents. Despite the seeming dominance of seven seeds, it’s best to approach these match- ups as toss- up games.

Upset watch: The most victimized seven seeds lack momentum, offensive punch and coaching success. Squads that 1) have won fewer than nine of their last ten pre- tourney games, 2) average no more than 76 points per game and 3) are led by coaches with fewer than two Elite Eight trips are 19- 22 (.463); the rest of the seven seeds are 48- 23 (.676).

Tenth- seeded teams that: 1) score more than 72 points a game, 2) have an average margin better than seven points, 3) have gone to the dance less than three years in a row and 4) are led by coaches who’ve made fewer than six tourney trips are a surprising 15- 8 (.652); all other 10 seeds are 30- 57 (.345).

Last year, three teams—Notre Dame, Gonzaga and St. Mary’s—had the characteristics of seven- seed victims. None of the 10 seeds had the attributes of victimizers. The Fighting Irish and the Gaels both got beaten, while the Zags escaped an upset. Maybe it was a Celtic thing.

10 seed wins in the last three years:
- 2012, Xavier over Notre Dame
- 2012, Purdue over St. Mary’s
- 2011 Florida State over Texas A&M
- 2010, Georgia Tech over Oklahoma State
- 2010, Missouri over Clemson
- 2010, Saint Mary’s over Richmond


8v9 | 54- 58, .482 | Higher seed scoring margin: +0.6 ppg
The 8v9 match- up is the closest thing to a pick- ‘em contest in the opening round. While eight seeds hold a razor- thin scoring margin of 0.6 points per game, it’s the nine seeds that hold the upper hand in the win/ loss column. In fact, over the first 15 years of the 64- team tourney era, nine seeds owned a decisive 35- 25 record over eight seeds. But the law of averages has caught up. Since 2000, eight seeds are 29- 23.

There’s another reason not to over- credit nine seeds for their slight advantage over eight seeds. They are a dreadful 4- 54 in second- round games against top seeds. Eight seeds are at least 10- 44. Of course, nobody’s going to predict either of these seeds to knock off a top seed...so the value of correctly predicting this match- up is usually restricted to four points in the first round.

Toss- up tips: The key performance indicator for this match- up is team experience and scoring margin. Eight seeds from Power or Mid- Major conferences that have been to the tourney the previous year with a coach who’s gone to the dance more than two times, a scoring average less than 81 points, a margin percentage of over 7% and no more than a single loss heading into dance are 23- 8 (.742); all other eight seeds are 31- 50 (.383). The only eight seed last year that had all these attributes was Kansas State, and they followed suit in winning.

On the other hand, nine seeds with fewer than three straight tourney trips that beat their opponents by an average of no more than six points are 6- 15 (.286); the rest are 52- 39 (.571). The only nine seed that had the characteristics of a round one loser was UConn—and they did indeed lose.

Here’s another way to settle the 8v9 match- ups: just pick the team with the higher Pythag rating. Since 2004 (as far back as my stats go), the teams with the better efficiency numbers are 22- 14.

Last Two Year’s Match- ups:
- 2012, Iowa State (8) over UConn (9)
- 2012, St. Louis (9) over Memphis (8)
- 2012, Kansas State (8) over Southern Miss (9)
- 2012, Alabama (9) over Creighton (8)
- 2011, Illinois (9) over UNLV (8)
- 2011, Butler (8) over Old Dominion (9)
- 2011, Michigan (8) over Tennessee (9)
- 2011, George Mason (8) over Villanova (9)


ROUND TWO MATCH- UPS

Round Two Scoring Margins at a Glance…




1|8|9|16 Bracket

Round two is made up of four gateway match- ups to the Sweet Sixteen. The 1|8|9|16 bracket is easily the most predictable. Top seeds advance an astounding 87.5% of the time (98 times in 112 tries). Eight and nine seeds pull off upsets every other tourney—14 in 28 dances. In the last three years, we’ve had two surprises, Northern Iowa stunning Kansas in 2010 and Butler upending Pitt in 2011. Before that, eights and nines hadn’t slain a top seed since 2004, when they did it twice (thanks to eight seed Alabama and their in- state brethren nine seed UAB). Despite the recent one- seed slayings, it’s not really worth picking lower seeds in this mini- bracket.




1v8 | 44- 10, .815 | Higher seed scoring margin: +10.1 ppg
Unlike nine seeds, eight seeds offer up a modicum of resistance against top seeds in round two. In nine of the last 28 tourneys, at least one eight seed has made it to the Sweet Sixteen (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 dance the previous year while being coached by at least a three- year tourney veteran; they’re battle- tested, with an average victory margin less than 8.5 points; they haven’t lost more than two games in a row heading into the tournament; and they have decent guard play, getting at least 25% of their points from the backcourt. Eight seeds satisfying these conditions are 9- 10 (.474); all the rest are 1- 34 (.029).

The most likely one- seed victims are offensively challenged and have unusually low scoring margins. Top seeds that score fewer than 80 points a game with an average margin of less than 13.3 points are just 4- 6 (.400) while their counterparts are 40- 4 (.909).

Last year, Kansas State was the only team with the qualities of an eight- seed Cinderella. But none of the top seeds possessed the attributes of an upset victim. KSU wound up losing to a Fab Melo- less Syracuse squad.

Upsets since 2000:
- 2011, Butler over Pittsburgh
- 2004, Alabama over Stanford
- 2002, UCLA over Cincinnati
- 2000, North Carolina over Stanford
- 2000, Wisconsin over Arizona


1v9 | 54- 4, .931 | Higher seed scoring margin: +13.9 ppg
Incredibly, nine seeds aren’t that much more likely to upset top seeds in round two than 15 seeds are to knock off two seeds in round one. With all apologies to 2010’s Northern Iowa, it would be bracket suicide to advance a nine seed to the Sweet Sixteen. But if you happen to get in a debate over which nine seed is most likely to knock off a top seed, pick a team that has an average scoring margin more than 7.5 points a game, has won between five and eight of their last ten games, and has a veteran starting five, averaging at least two senior and three junior starters (that is, 3.4, where a freshman = 1, sophomore = 2, junior = 3 and senior =4). These ninth- seeded squads are 4- 4; the rest are a big, fat 0- 50. Northern Iowa had the right numbers to spring an upset in 2010 and made it happen. Last season, St. Louis, the only nine seed to reach round two, didn’t meet the requirements…and wound up losing to a relatively weak top- seeded Michigan State, 65- 61.

Upset history:
- 2010, Northern Iowa over Kansas
- 2004, Alabama- Birmingham over Kentucky
- 1994, Boston College over North Carolina
- 1992, UTEP over Kansas


4|5|12|13 Bracket

This is the most difficult of the Sweet Sixteen gateway brackets to predict. No other bracket has three seeds so evenly matched. Only .057 separates the winning records of the four, five and 12 seeds in round two. True, the pressure of getting this mini- bracket right is relieved by the fact that the winner usually plays the top seed in round three—and consistently takes it on the chin, losing 81% of the time. But you don’t have to look any further than last year to find a fourth- or fifth- seed team knocking off a top seed to reach the Elite Eight. Louisville (4) beat Michigan State on its way to the Final Four. The year before, both Kentucky (4) and Arizona (5) toppled one seeds. And in 2010, Brad Stevens’ Butler Bulldogs downed Syracuse on their amazing run to the finals. So don’t treat this bracket too casually.




4v5 | 32- 28, .533 | Higher seed scoring margin: +0.8 ppg
While four seeds have held a slim advantage in this match- up since 1985, five seeds have actually won 13 of the last 21 games over the last decade. Last year, four seeds got a measure of revenge, winning both match- ups. Four seeds Louisville and Wisconsin beat New Mexico and Vanderbilt, respectively.

Four seeds with an experienced tourney coach that went to the previous dance, have a margin percent less than 20% and get at least 11% of their points from the bench are 21- 10 (.677); all other four seeds are 11- 18 (.379). Meanwhile, five seeds with an experienced tourney coach that score more than 76 points a game and haven’t lost two or more consecutive games entering the dance are 15- 6 (.714); all others are 13- 26 (.333).

Last year, four seed Louisville had the right stuff to be on the winning side, but Wisconsin didn’t. Even so, neither the Lobos nor the Commodores had the attributes of more successful five seeds.

Five Seed Wins in the last five years:
- 2011, Arizona (5) over Texas (4)
- 2010, Michigan State (5) over Maryland (4)
- 2009, Purdue (5) over Washington (4)
- 2008, Michigan State (5) over Pittsburgh (4)
- 2007, Butler (5) over Maryland (4)


4v12 | 17- 11, .607 | Higher seed scoring margin: +3.1 ppg
This match- up is closer than the disparity in seed positions indicates. The most reliable four seeds score more than 72 points a game, have won at least five of their last ten pre- tourney tilts and have coaches with more than three tourney trips. They’re 17- 5 (.773) while other four seeds are 0- 6. Last year, Indiana had the qualities of a winning four seed…and managed to squeak by VCU.

The most surprising 12 seeds: 1) have won fewer than 10 games in a row, 2) get at least 40 percent of their points from the frontcout, 3) aren’t led by a snake- bitten coach (five or more trips with no Elite Eight runs); and 4) aren’t a Small conference team that didn’t go to the previous dance. Twelve seeds fulfilling these conditions are 11- 6 (.647); other 12 seeds are 0- 11. Last year, Shaka Smart’s Rams didn’t have the frontcourt firepower to qualify as a Cinderella.

Upsets since 2000:
- 2010, Cornell over Wisconsin
- 2005, UW- Milwaukee over Boston College
- 2003, Butler over Louisville
- 2002, Missouri over Ohio State.


5v13 | 11- 3, .786 | Higher seed scoring margin: +6.6 ppg
Unlike four seeds, five seeds have little trouble in their Cinderella mismatch against 13 seeds. The last 13 seed Cinderella was Bradley, which beat Pitt in 2006. Still, there’s little reason to pick against five seeds—particularly if their backcourt shoulders more than 38% of the scoring load. Guard- dominant five seeds are 9- 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 match- up, go for 13 seeds that get less than 48% of their points from guards, score more than 70 and give up less than 66 points a game, have at least two senior starters and have won fewer than nine of their last ten games. These thirteenth- seeded spoilers are 3- 2; all other 13 seeds are 0- 9. In 2010, the last 5v13 match- up, Butler had the guard play to fend off an upset bid, and Murray State didn’t have the qualities of a Cinderella. The Bulldogs prevailed in a close one, 54- 52.

Upset history:
- 2006, Bradley over Pittsburgh
- 1999, Oklahoma over Charlotte
- 1988, Richmond over Georgia Tech


12v13 | 8- 2, .800 | Higher seed scoring margin: +7.4 ppg
The longshot seeds in this bracket have squared off against each other more often than any other longshot pairing (9v16, 10v15, 11v14) in the second round. Surprisingly, 12 seeds treat 13 seeds like pushovers, prevailing 80% of the time. Last year, however, 13 seed Ohio scored a measure of revenge, edging 12 seed South Florida. The only other 13 seed to prevail in this match- up was Valparaiso way back in 1998. The Crusaders took down another Florida team, the Seminoles, 83- 77 in overtime.

What did the two 13- seed victors have that the victims didn’t? A scoring average higher than 70 points a game and a winning percentage of at least .700. Both Ohio and Valpo had these attributes. The eight 13- seed losers didn’t.

Match- ups since 2000:
- 2012, Ohio (13) over South Florida (12)
- 2011, Richmond (12) over Morehead State (13)
- 2009, Arizona (12) over Cleveland State (13)
- 2008, Villanova (12) over Siena (13)
- 2008, Western Kentucky (12) over San Diego (13)
- 2001, Gonzaga (12) beat Indiana State (13)
- 1998, Valparaiso (13) beat Florida State (12)


3|6|11|14 Bracket

The 3|6|11|14 bracket is perhaps the most difficult pairing to figure out in the second round. That’s because sixth- seeded teams are such surprising performers. While fewer six seeds make it to round two than three seeds (74 to 96), their winning percentage isn’t too far behind that of their higher- seeded rival in the second round. In fact, they win with nearly the same regularity as four or five seeds. Eleventh- seeded teams aren’t slouches either. Odds are that the four teams advancing from this bracket pairing will be comprised of nearly as many lower seeds as three seeds. One other reason why this bracket is so difficult: the stakes for getting it right are higher. Almost twice as many teams (46) will advance to the Elite Eight as the 4|5|12|13 bracket (25 teams). Last year, three seed Baylor reached the quarterfinals, as did four seed Louisville.




3v6 | 34- 27, .557 | Higher seed scoring margin: +2.7 ppg
This used to be one of the most hotly contested match- ups in the second round—four tourneys ago. Up until the 2005 dance, the two seeds had split their 48 contests. Since then, three seeds have won ten of 13. Despite this surge, the 3v6 tilt deserves more scrutiny from bracket pool players. I usually give one and two seeds automatic passes to the Sweet Sixteen. And I’m less concerned about the 4v5 games since the winners are served up to top seeds in round three. That leaves this mini- bracket as the most important one to get right in round two.

If you’re looking to pick a six seed in this match- up, consider teams with coaches who’ve: 1) been to the dance between one and five times, 2) won between five and nine of their last ten games—but have less than seven wins in a row, and 3) rely on guards for less than 67.5% of their points. Six seeds with these three attributes are 18- 9 (.667); the rest are 9- 25 (.265). Last year, Cincinnati owned these three characteristics and pulled off the mini- upset over Florida State. On the other hand, Murray State was on the wrong side of the numbers—and the score against three seed Marquette.

Meanwhile, third- seeded teams who’ve been to the dance fewer than eight times in a row and aren’t led by a snake- bitten coach (more than five trips with no Elite Eights) are 28- 17 (.628); the rest are 6- 10 (.333). Marquette met these criteria and held serve over the Racers.

Last five three seed victims:
- 2012, Cincinnati over Florida State
- 2010, Xavier over Pittsburgh
- 2007, Vanderbilt over Washington State
- 2005, Texas Tech over Gonzaga
- 2005, Utah over Oklahoma


3v11 | 23- 12, .657 | Higher seed scoring margin: +6.9 ppg
It isn’t exactly a “gimme” when three seeds square off against 11 seeds in round two. Just ask Georgetown, which was victimized by North Carolina State last year, or Purdue and Syracuse, toppled by VCU and Marquette respectively in 2011. The best performance indicators to explain why 11 seeds spring upsets are pre- tourney momentum and offensive output. Eleventh- seeded squads that have won between five and eight of their last ten contests while averaging more than 68 points per game are 12- 10 in this match- up (.545); all other 11 seeds are perfectly inept at 0- 13.

The tell- tale sign of faltering three 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 14- 1; all others are 9- 11.

Last year, aligned perfectly with the 11 and three seed success factors. The Wolfpack had the characteristics of an 11 seed Cinderella and Colorado didn’t. Georgetown had the attributes of a three seed flame- out and Baylor didn’t. So what happened? NC State beat Georgetown while Baylor thumped the Buffaloes.

Upsets since 2000:
- 2012, North Carolina State over Georgetown
- 2011, Marquette over Syracuse
- 2011, Virginia Commonwealth over Purdue
- 2010, Washington over New Mexico
- 2006, George Mason over North Carolina
- 2002, Southern Illinois over Georgia
- 2001, Temple over Florida


6v14 | 11- 2, .846 | Higher seed scoring margin: +5.8 ppg
If you went out on a bracket limb and advanced a 14 seed into the second round, you’d be smart to eliminate them in round two. Then again, logic would’ve dictated that you never advance a 14 seed in the first place. So if you’re still feeling reckless with this match- up, take the 14 seeds that beat their opponents by more than 12 points per game. They’re 2- 0 against six- seeders; the rest of the 14 seeds are 0- 11. That includes Ohio, which lost to Tennessee in 2011, 83- 68.

Upset history:
- 1997, Tennessee- Chattanooga over Illinois
- 1986, Cleveland State over St. Joseph’s


11v14 | 3- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +14.7 ppg
Anyone who’s contemplating an 11v14 match- up in their bracket probably isn’t reading this article to begin with—and doesn’t care that 11 seeds have never lost to 14 seeds in the second round. Washington beat Richmond in 1998, Connecticut handled Xavier in 1991 and Minnesota stopped Siena in 1989.


2|7|10|15 Bracket

By all rights, the 2|7|10|15 bracket should be a no- brainer—and most bracket pool players pick it that way, giving two seeds an automatic pass to the Sweet Sixteen. But second- seeded squads aren’t nearly as reliable as top seeds in advancing beyond the second round. On average, 1.4 seven or 10 seeds per tourney will take the place of two seeds. Last year, seventh- seeded Florida and 10 seed Xavier were the surprise advancers. You can go the safe route, cross your fingers and advance all the two seeds. Or you can be a rebel, observe the tell- tale signs of seven and 10 seed victors, and advance a Cinderella. The bigger the pool you’re in, the more likely it is that the winner will go against the grain.




2v7 | 48- 17, .738 | Higher seed scoring margin: +5.9 ppg
Despite being the closer competitor by seed position, seven seeds are surprisingly more prone to getting beat by second- seeders than 10 seeds are. Over the last two years, the two seed has spanked the seven seed four times in as many tries, including Ohio State’s win over Gonzaga last year.

Seventh- seeders that offer the stiffest resistance are tourney tested but not fixtures, having been to the dance two to eight straight years; they’re led by experienced tournament coaches who aren’t severely snake- bitten (more than six trips without an Elite Eight trip); they beat their opponents by more than six points a game and they get more than 25% of their points from the frontcourt. These seven seeds are a respectable 8- 7 (.533); others are 9- 41 (.180).

Which second- seeders are most likely to tank in this match- up? Steer clear of two seeds whose coach has made no more than one Elite Eight appearance. They’re just 18- 14 (.563) against seven seeds; teams with more successful tourney coaches are 30- 3 (.909).

Last year, Gonzaga was a tourney fixture so they didn’t qualify as an upset victor, and Thad Matta had the credentials of a successful tourney coach. The game went by the numbers with OSU beating the Zags, 73- 66.

Last five upsets:
- 2008, West Virginia over Duke
- 2007, UNLV over Wisconsin
- 2006, Wichita State over Tennessee
- 2006, Georgetown over Ohio State
- 2005, West Virginia over Wake Forest


2v10 | 24- 17, .585 | Higher seed scoring margin: +5.4 ppg
Amazingly, 10 seeds beat two seeds at more than a 40% rate in the second round. Of course, the odds of a 10 seed winning its first two games are still just 19%, so it’s not worth getting too excited about their propensity to topple two seeds. That said, you only need to look to the 2011 Cinderella run by Florida State to know that ten seeds can be dangerous. Last year, there was only one 2v10 tilt, and second- seeded Kansas edged a surprising tenth- seeded Boilermaker squad.

Which 10 seeds have the best odds of reaching the Sweet Sixteen? Look for 10 seeds with fewer than five straight trips that score more than 69 points, beat opponents by more than five points a game and rely on starters for at least 69 percent of their points. These teams are 14- 11 (.560), while other ten seeds are just 3- 13 (.188).

The two seeds that tend to be victimized have one of these flaws: 1) a severely snake- bitten coach (more than six dances without and Elite Eight trip), 2) a sputtering season finish (less than seven wins in their last ten pre- tourney games or a losing streak of two or more), or 3) a young team (no senior and no more than two junior starters). Two seeds with one of these qualifiers are just 4- 8 (.333); the other two seeds are 20- 9 (.690).

Last year, Kansas had none of the flaws of a two seed victim and Purdue was too much of a tourney fixture, so they didn’t possess the numbers of a victimizer. That said, the game was close, with the Jayhawks squeaking out a 63- 60 win.

Last five upsets:
- 2011, Florida State over Notre Dame
- 2010, St. Mary’s over Villanova
- 2008, Davidson over Georgetown
- 2005, North Carolina State over Connecticut
- 2004, Nevada over Gonzaga


7v15 | 2- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +22.5 ppg
A seven seed has played a 15 seed just twice in round two. One of those match- ups occurred last year, when Florida walloped Norfolk State, 84- 50. Nineteen years earlier, in 1993, seventh- seeded Temple beat Steve Nash and 15 seed Santa Clara.


10v15 | 4- 0. 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +11.3 ppg
Tenth- seeders have pushed their round- two record almost to .500 by beating 15 seeds in all four of their match- ups, including Xavier’s win over Lehigh last year. Before that, Georgetown beat Hampton in 2001, Texas beat Coppin State in 1997, and Temple handled Richmond in 1991.



SWEET 16 MATCH- UPS

Sweet 16 Scoring Margins at a Glance…




Top Seed Bracket

You wouldn’t go too far wrong to advance top seeds to the Elite Eight. More top seeds advance to the quarterfinals than two seeds get to the Sweet Sixteen—or five seeds win in round one! Heck, almost as many first- seeders get to the Elite Eight (79) as two and three seeds combined (80). Seven out of ten top seeds—almost three per tourney—win their first three games. The only other seeds worth considering in this bracket are four, five and eight seeds. They’ve graduated 31 teams—more than one per tourney—to the Elite Eight. The three lower seeds have only advanced two teams and are just 2- 26.




1v4 | 29- 12, .707 | Higher seed scoring margin: +6.1 ppg
On the top- seed side of the Sweet Sixteen bracket, the most frequent match- up pits the two highest seeds against each other. One and four seeds are involved in 37% of the games, with top seeds winning nearly three out of four contests. That might sound like a lock, but it’s the worst performance by a top seed in any of its match- ups over the first three rounds. Look no further than last year, when Louisville dominated top seed Michigan State or 2011 when Kentucky knocked off Ohio State, for evidence that four seeds can do some damage in this match- up.

Four seeds thrive when they score more than 68 points and beat their foes by more than 7.5 points a game and are led by experienced tourney coaches that aren’t snake- bitten (more than four trips without an Elite Eight run). They’re a respectable 11- 13 (.483); other four seeds are just 1- 16 (.059).

Which one seeds are the most vulnerable to going down against a four? Beware of top seeds with a scoring margin no better than 14 points a game. These top seeds are just 7- 7 (.500), while their counterparts are 22- 5 (.815).

In last year’s only 1v4 match- up, Louisville had the qualities of a top seed toppler and the Spartans fell shy of the margin numbers. The trends held true to form and the Cardinals sprung the mini- upset.

Recent four seed victories:
- 2012, Louisville (4) over Michigan State (1)
- 2011, Kentucky (4) over Ohio State (1)
- 2006, LSU (4) over Duke (1)
- 2005, Louisville (4) over Washington (1)
- 1999, Ohio State (4) over and Auburn (1)
- 1997, Arizona (4) over Kansas (1)


1v5 | 28- 7, .800 | Higher seed scoring margin: +6.7 ppg
Given their seed proximity, you’d think that five seeds would do nearly as well against top seeds as four seeds. In fact, they’re fairly easy marks for the big guns, pulling off upsets less often than eight seeds do against top seeds in the second round. What distinguishes the seven top seeds that got upset? Interestingly, it’s the tourney fixtures that tend to fare worse. Top seeds that have been to the tourney at least five straight times or have a coach with more than 20 trips are just 14- 6 (.700); the less experienced top seeds are 14- 1 (.933). Here’s another sign of a top- seed victim: their name is “Duke.” Four of the last five one seeds to get upset by five seeds were the Blue Devils—in 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2011, when Arizona beat them.

On the darkhorse side of the match- up, fifth- seeded Cinderellas have won more than five of their last pre- tourney games, score more than 70 points a game, and get balanced scoring, with guards contributing between 35 and 70 point of their teams points. These teams are 7- 13 (.350); their counterparts are 0- 15. In 2011, Duke was saddled with the experience stigma of an upset victim (not to mention its essential “Dukeness”). Meanwhile, Arizona had the numbers of a Cinderella. The match- up went to form, with the Wildcats stunning the Blue Devils, 93- 77.

Upset history:
- 2011, Arizona over Duke
- 2010, Butler over Syracuse
- 2005, Michigan State over Duke
- 2002, Indiana over Duke
- 2000, Florida over Duke
- 1996, Mississippi State over Connecticut
- 1989, Virginia over Oklahoma


1v12 | 18- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +15.1 ppg
Given how dominant top seeds are in the first three rounds of the tourney, it’s not surprising that they’re a perfect 18- 0 against 12 seeds. It is a little eye opening, however, that they handle their underdog opponents so easily. Top seeds have beaten 12 seeds by an average of 15.1 points, with only four of the 18 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. 2008 was the only dance in the 28- year modern tourney era that featured two 1v12 tilts. Both of them were reasonably competitive games: UCLA beat Western Kentucky, 88- 78, and Kansas got by Villanova, 72- 57. The most recent 1v12 match- up, on the other hand, wasn’t remotely close. Kansas had no trouble with Richmond, downing the Spiders, 77- 57.

Recent Match- ups:
- 2011, Kansas over Richmond
- 2010, Kentucky over Cornell
- 2009, Louisville over Arizona
- 2008, Kansas over Villanova
- 2008, UCLA over Western Kentucky
- 2005, Illinois over UW- Milwaukee
- 2003, Oklahoma over Butler
- 2001, Michigan State over Gonzaga


1v13 | 4- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +13.5 ppg
In the four Sweet Sixteen match- ups between these seeds, the top seed has held serve against its longshot opponent. Last year, North Carolina fended off an Ohio upset bid, winning in overtime, 73- 65. Before that, Memphis rolled over a surprising Bradley squad in 2006, Michigan State took care of Oklahoma in 1999, and Temple dispatched Dick Tarrant’s pesky Richmond Spiders in 1988.


4v8 | 2- 4, .333 | Higher seed scoring margin: - 0.8 ppg
Once every five years or so, a four and eight seed go head- to- head in the Sweet Sixteen. The Cinderella eighth- seeders are tough teams that keep the score low and close, averaging less than 80 points a game and winning by no more than nine points. Teams with these qualities are 4- 0. The other two eight seeds have fallen to their fourth- seeded foes. In 2011, Butler was just such an eight seed. They were able to beat Wisconsin at their own “slow- down” game, 61- 54.

Match- up history:
- 2011, Butler (8) over Wisconsin (4)
- 2000, North Carolina (8) over Tennessee (4)
- 2000, Wisconsin (8) over LSU (4)
- 1996, Syracuse (4) over Georgia (8)
- 1990, Arkansas (4) over North Carolina (8)
- 1986, Auburn (8) over UNLV (4)


4v9 | 2- 0, .000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +14.0 ppg
The only two times these seeds have met in the Sweet Sixteen, the favored four seeds have prevailed. Bill Self’s Kansas Jayhawks beat Mike Anderson’s UAB Blazers in 2004. And Bob Huggins Cinci Bearcats beat Clem Haskins’ UTEP Miners in 1992.


5v8 | 0- 2, .000 | Higher seed scoring margin: - 6.0 pgg
Eight seeds have upset five seeds both times that they’ve squared off against each other. Mike Gottfried and his Alabama Crimson Tide were the most recent school 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 Rollie Massimino masterminded a win over Lefty Dreisell’s Maryland Terps on his way to the 1985 championship.


5v9 | 1- 1, .500 | Higher seed scoring margin: - 1.0 ppg
Nine seeds have played five seeds in the Sweet 16 just twice. One of them was three years ago, when Michigan State dispatched ninth- seeded Cinderella Northern Iowa, 59- 52. The 1994 Boston College Eagles, coached by Jim O’Brien, has the distinction of being the only nine seed to reach the Elite Eight. They achieved the feat by knocking off Bobby Knight’s fifth- seeded Hoosiers.


8v12 | 0- 1, .000 | Higher seed scoring margin: - 9.0 ppg
In 2002, Quin Snyder’s Missouri Tigers upset Steve Lavin’s UCLA Bruins in the only 8v12 match- up of the modern tourney era.


8v13 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +6.0 ppg
The only match- up 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.


Two Seed Bracket

On the two- seed side of the Sweet Sixteen bracket, the competition is much more balanced than the one- seed side, where top seeds advance 70% of the time. While two seeds are the most common winners, claiming 46% of the Elite Eight positions, the likelihood is that some other seed will advance. Three and six seeds prevail in 37% of the match- ups. In the other bracket, the four and five seeds only get to the quarterfinals 21% of the time. Even the seven, 10 and 11 seeds get into the act, advancing 19 teams—more than twice as many as the eight, nine and 12 seeds in the other bracket (nine). On the other hand, two seeds are the only seed on this side of the Sweet Sixteen bracket with a winning record.




2v3 | 22- 13, .629 | Higher seed scoring margin: +2.2 ppg
Of all the match- ups with a single seed position difference in the first three rounds (8v9, 4v5, 6v7 and 12v13), this one is amazingly the second- most lopsided, behind only 12v13 (7- 1). It gets more lopsided if you concentrate only on two seeds from the Power conferences that get imbalanced scoring—more than 60% of their points from either the backcourt or frontcourt. These squads are 14- 3 (.824); the more balanced scoring two seeds are just 8- 10 (.444).

If your heart’s set on picking a three seed, go with one from a Power conference that scores more than 71 points a game and has a scoring margin of at least seven points. They should’ve won more than five of their last 10 pre- tourney games and gotten at least a third of their points from the frontcourt. These three seeds are 12- 10 (.545), while their counterparts are 1- 12 (.077).

Last year, there weren’t any 2v3 games. In 2011, there were two—and the seeds split, with two seed Florida beating three seed BYU and three seed UConn downing San Diego State. The Huskies had the attributes of a three- seed victor, while the Mid- Major Cougars did not. Neither of the two seeds had the numbers that pointed to success in this match- up…so it seems the three- seed factors were the best guides last year.

Recent match- ups:
- 2011, Connecticut (3) over San Diego State (2)
- 2011, Florida (2) over BYU (3)
- 2009, Michigan State (2) over Kansas (3)
- 2009, Oklahoma (2) over Syracuse (3)
- 2009, Villanova (3) over Duke (2)
- 2009, Missouri (3) over Memphis (2)
- 2008, Texas (2) over Stanford (3)
- 2008, Louisville (3) over Tennessee (3)


2v6 | 20- 6, .769 | Higher seed scoring margin: +5.8 ppg
This match- up happens almost as frequently as the 2v3 match- up—a testament to the resilience of six seeds in the first two rounds. Unfortunately, that resiliency doesn’t seem to help them against two seeds. In fact, 18 of the last 20 2v6 tilts have gone to the favored seed. One of those two upsets, however, happened just three years ago, when Tennessee took down Ohio State. The six- seeders that escape defeat tend to be Big Six schools that: have won at least five of their last ten pre- tourney games, have gone to the dance no more than five straight times, and have a tourney- tested but not snake- bitten coach (more than three trips without an Elite Eight run). Teams with these qualities are 5- 4 (.556); the rest of the six seeds are 1- 16 (.063). Last year, Cincinnati was on the right side of all the six seed success stats except coaching success. Mick Cronin has been to the dance four times without a quarterfinals appearance. The Bearcats got trounced by in- state rival OSU.

Upset history:
- 2010, Tennessee over Ohio State
- 2001, USC over Kentucky
- 1992, Michigan over Oklahoma State
- 1990, Minnesota over Syracuse
- 1988, Villanova over Kentucky
- 1987, Providence over Alabama


2v11 | 10- 1, .909 | Higher seed scoring margin: +7.4 ppg
This match- up comes around about once every three years—and is nearly always won by the two seed. The only 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. They’re the only 11 seed with a coach who’d been to the Elite Eight that was making at least its third tourney in a row. Last year, NC State had an experienced coach with a deep run in Mark Gottfried, but the Wolfpack hadn’t been to the previous dance. They wound up losing to Kansas in a tight one, 60- 57. Here’s a weird little fact: Connecticut or Washington have been involved in four of the last six 2v11 match- ups dating back to 1991.

Recent Match- ups:
- 2012, Kansas (2) over North Carolina State (11)
- 2011, North Carolina (2) over Marquette (11)
- 2010, West Virginia (2) over Washington (11)
- 2002, Connecticut (2) over Southern Illinois (11)
- 1998, Connecticut (2) over Washington (11)
- 1991, Duke (2) over Connecticut (11)
- 1989, Duke (2) over Minnesota (11)


3v7 | 6- 3, .667 | Higher seed scoring margin: +0.4 ppg
Four of the nine 3v7 match- ups happened in the first decade of the tourney. The other five have happened in the last nine dances. Last year, Florida sprung the first 3v7 upset since 2004, when Xavier knocked off three seed Texas. The seven seeds that tend to succeed are tourney- tested and guard dominant. Seven seeds with winning records lower than .800 that get more then 67% of their points from guards are 3- 0. All the rest are 0- 6. Last year’s Gators met these two criteria and wound up beating Marquette.

Recent match- ups:
- 2012, Florida (7) over Marquette (3)
- 2008, Xavier (3) over West Virginia (7)
- 2007, Oregon (3) over UNLV (7)
- 2006, Florida (3) over Georgetown (7)
- 2004, Xavier (7) over Texas (3)


3v10 | 9- 4, .692 | Higher seed scoring margin: +1.9 ppg
Nearly every other tourney, including last year, pits a three seed against an underdog 10 seed. The best guidance to the outcome of this match- up hinges on the team experience of the Cinderella. The four tenth- seeders that were making a return trip to the dance while getting at least 35% of their points from the frontcourt all won—that includes Davidson in 2008. The nine that didn’t go to the previous tourney or relied too much on guard scoring all lost. Backcourt reliance was Xavier’s problem last year. They lost to Baylor, 75- 70.

Upset history:
- 2008, Davidson over Wisconsin
- 2002, Kent State over Pittsburgh
- 1991, Temple over Oklahoma State
- 1987, LSU over Depaul


6v7 | 3- 3, .500 | Higher seed scoring margin: +2.5 ppg
This match- up has been a tale of two eras. Six seeds won the first three games and seven seeds have won the next 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 match- ups:
- 2005, West Virginia (7) over Texas Tech (6)
- 2003, Michigan State (7) over Maryland (6)
- 2000. Tulsa (7) over Miami (Fla.) (6)
- 1992, Memphis State (6) over Georgia Tech (7)


6v10 | 4- 2, .667 | Higher seed scoring margin: +6.8 ppg
Since 2000, six seeds have asserted their dominance in what was once an even match- up. The tell- tale 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 tenth- seeded victor is scoring punch. Both 10 seeds that scored more than 78 points a game were 2- 0 while their more offensively challenged counterparts were winless.

Recent match- ups:
- 2005, Wisconsin (6) over North Carolina State (10)
- 2000, Purdue (6) over Gonzaga (10)
- 1999, Temple (6) over Purdue (10)
- 1999, Gonzaga (10) over Florida (6)


7v11 | 0- 3, .000 | Higher seed scoring margin: - 7.3 ppg
Seven seeds have had a rough time with 11 seeds in the Sweet Sixteen. 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 in 2006 when George Mason upset Wichita State.


7v14 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +1.0 ppg
The only 7v14 match- up of the modern tourney era came just one year after the field expanded to 64 teams. A 1986 Navy squad led by David Robinson held off Cleveland State.


10v11 | 0- 1, .000 | Higher seed scoring margin: - 1.0 ppg
2011 saw the only match- up between these two seeds. Final Four surprise entrant VCU downed defensive- minded Florida State in a 72- 71 overtime nail- biter.


10v14 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +6.0 ppg
In the only game pitting these two low seeds against each other, Pete Gillen’s tenth- seeded Providence Friars avoided an upset at the hands of Tennessee- Chattanooga in 1997.


ELITE EIGHT MATCH- UPS

Elite Eight Scoring Margins at a Glance…




A funny thing happens on the way to the Elite Eight. The match- up the brackets were designed to yield—the 1v2 battle—happens only one- third of the time. The second most likely match- up, the 1v3 match- up, happens in just 18% of the regions. Top seeds do their part, appearing in 70% of the quarterfinal games. It’s the other side of the bracket that’s splintered. As for which seed will advance in this round, one seeds get to the Final Four almost as many times (46) as two, three, and four seeds combined (50). And these top four seeds account for 96 of the 112 Final Four combatants. So when you’re slotting teams into your semifinal brackets, you wouldn’t be too far wrong to pick two top seeds and two of the next three seeds. That said, it was just two years ago that the Final Four featured eighth- seeded Butler and 11 seed VCU. And 2010 saw two five seeds—Butler and Michigan State—in the Final Four. So take the “top four seed” guidance with a big grain of salt.

If you do decide to include lower seeds in your list of semifinal candidates, the big question remains: Which of the top- seeded teams should you kick out and which surprise seeds should you have break into the Final Four? These match- up breakdowns should provide some guidance.




1v2 | 18- 20, .474 | Higher seed scoring margin: +0.6 ppg
This is the only match- up in the entire tourney with more than six decisions where one seeds have a losing record against their lower- seeded opponent. More one seeds have their tourney run ended by two seeds in the Elite Eight than by any other opponent in any other round. Considering that only 14 top seeds lose in round two and 19 in the Sweet Sixteen, this match- up is somewhat of a Waterloo for top- seeded teams.

Top seeds perform best in this match- up when facing inexperienced squads with coaches that lack tourney seasoning. Second- seeders with fewer than four straight tourney trips or coaches who’ve been to the dance less than three times are 4- 14 (.222); the more tourney- tested two seeds are 16- 4 (.800). Last year, there were two 1v2 match- ups, and the two seed was an experienced tourney squad in both. Kansas and Ohio State both handled their top- seeded opponent relatively easily.

Recent match- ups:
- 2012, Kansas (2) over North Carolina (1)
- 2012, Ohio State (2) over Syracuse (1)
- 2010, West Virginia (2) over Kentucky (1)
- 2009, North Carolina (1) over Oklahoma (2)
- 2009, Michigan State (2) over Louisville (1)
- 2008, Memphis (1) over Texas (2)


1v3 | 12- 8, .600 | Higher seed scoring margin: +2.1 ppg
Here’s more proof that there’s no difference between the top three seeds in the Elite Eight: like two seeds, three- seeders give top seeds all they can handle. The one seeds that lose in this match- up tend to be sputtering heading into the tourney. Top seeds that have won less than nine of their last ten pre- tournament games are 3- 6; those that have notched nine or ten wins are 9- 2. The tell- tale sign of a triumphant three seed is coaching experience. Three seeds with coaches who’ve been to the dance more than six times are 6- 3; those with less experienced coaches are 2- 9. In 2012, this rule correctly picked top seed Kentucky to down Baylor and relatively inexperienced coach Scott Drew. Coincidentally, this was the second straight time that the Bears were on the losing end of the 1v3 match- up.

Recent match- ups:
- 2012, Kentucky (1) over Baylor (3)
- 2010, Duke (1) over Baylor (3)
- 2009, Connecticut (1) over Missouri (3)
- 2009, Villanova (3) over Pittsburgh (1)
- 2007, Florida (1) over Oregon (3)
- 2006, Florida (3) over Villanova (1)


1v6 | 6- 2, .750 | Higher seed scoring margin: +8.5 ppg
When they’re not struggling with two and three seeds, top seeds are 16- 5 against the rest of the field—14- 2 if you back out their inexplicably weak performance against 11 seeds. In this match- up, the difference between a top- seeded winner and loser is frontcourt scoring. The six top- seeded victors got at least 50% of their points from forwards and centers; the two losers leaned on their backcourt for more than 60% 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 six seed victims all scored fewer than 78 points per game. That’s a lot of scoring for the current state of college ball, so you may want to adjust that number down.

Upset history:
- 1992, Michigan over Ohio State
- 1987, Providence over Georgetown


1v7 | 4- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +9.0 ppg
Top seeds have no trouble with seven seeds, but this match- up may be a curse for the favorites. None of the top seeds in this showdown have gone on to win the tourney. The seven seed that came closest to springing an upset was Xavier, which lost by just three points to Duke in 2004.

Match- up history:
- 2004, Duke over Xavier
- 2003, Texas over Michigan State
- 1993, Michigan over Temple
- 1986, Duke over Navy


1v10 | 4- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +2.8 ppg
Top seeds have ended the Cinderella stories of four 10 seeds in the Elite Eight. The games have served as a good tune- up for the top seeds; three of the four victors have gone on to win the tourney. Indiana did it first in 1987. Then UConn used a 10 seed as a tune- up for the 1999 championship. And in 2008, Kansas did the same thing with Davidson.

Match- up history:
- 2008, Kansas over Davidson
- 1999, Connecticut over Gonzaga
- 1991, North Carolina over Temple
- 1987, Indiana over Louisiana State


1v11 | 2- 3, .400 | Higher seed scoring margin: +4.6 ppg
By winning percentage at least, top seeds have more trouble in the Elite Eight with eleventh- seeded longshots than they do with two seeds. That’s partly because there have been only five match- ups—and the underdog seed has won 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 in 2006 by knocking off UConn. Then VCU came out of nowhere in 2011 repeat the feat of its Colonial counterpart. What did the three Cinderellas have that the two losing 11 seeds didn’t? VCU, George Mason and LSU had lost one game before entering the tourney; Temple and Loyola- Marymount had winning streaks coming into the dance.

Match- up history:
- 2011, Virginia Commonwealth (11) over Kansas (1)
- 2006, George Mason (11) over Connecticut (1)
- 2001, Michigan State (1) over Temple (11)
- 1990, UNLV (1) over Loyola- Marymount (11)
- 1986, Louisiana State (11) over Kentucky (1)


2v4 | 2- 4, .333 | Higher seed scoring margin: - 1.7 ppg
Once every five years or so, a two seed plays a four seed in the Elite Eight—like North Carolina did in 2011 when they squared off against fourth- seeded Kentucky. The outcome of the game usually hinges on pre- tourney momentum. The team with a better winning streak heading into the dance (or more wins in their last ten if tied) is 5- 1, with only fourth- seeded Oklahoma State bucking the trend in 1995 when they beat a hotter Massachusetts squad. If you put more stock in recent tourney results, however, you might as well just pick the four seed in this match- up. They’ve won the last four games against two seeds in the Elite Eight. In 2011, Kentucky was hotter than the Tar Heels heading into the tournament. The Wildcats beat North Carolina, 76- 69.

Match- up history:
- 2011, Kentucky (4) over North Carolina (2)
- 2006, LSU (4) over Texas (2)
- 1996, Syracuse (4) over Kansas (2)
- 1995, Oklahoma State (4) over Massachusetts (2)
- 1995, Arkansas (2) over Virginia (4)
- 1991, Duke (2) over St. John’s (4)


2v5 | 0- 3, .000 | Higher seed scoring margin: - 7.7 ppg
As close as these seeds are, you’d think there would be more than three games over the last 28 years. You’d also think that two seeds would do better. Five seeds have won all three match- ups, including the Butler/ Kansas State tilt in 2010. The other two games occurred in 2005, when Michigan State upset Kentucky, and 1996, when Mississippi State beat Cincinnati.


2v8 | 2- 2, .500 | Higher seed scoring margin: +2.3 ppg
Over the last nine years, a two seed has squared off against an eight seed twice, when Connecticut held off Alabama in 2004 and in 2011 when Butler stunned Florida in overtime, 74- 71. Before 2004, there’s a 17- year gap to the last 2v8 tilt. The other two of these match- ups happened in the first two years of the modern tourney era. Villanova was the first team to come out on top against a two seed. They knocked off North Carolina on their improbable way to the 1985 championship.

What set Villanova and Butler apart from the other two eight seeds was that their coaches, Rollie Massimino and Brad Stevens, had been to the Elite Eight before. For their efforts, Massimino and Stevens own the distinction of having the top two overachievement records (+1.938 and +1.480 PASE) among coaches with at least three tourney trips.

Match- up history:
- 2011, Butler (8) over Florida (2)
- 2004, Connecticut (2) over Alabama (8)
- 1986, Louisville (2) over Auburn (8)
- 1985, Villanova (8) over North Carolina (2)


2v12 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +6.0 ppg
In 2002, second- seeded Oklahoma put an end to the longest tourney run by a 12 seed when the Sooners beat Big 12 rival Missouri.


3v4 | 2- 1, .667 | Higher seed scoring margin: +9.3 ppg
On those rare occasions when a three seed goes up against a four 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 their starting lineup than their opponents.

Match- up history:
- 2004, Georgia Tech (3) over Kansas (4)
- 1999, Ohio State (4) over St. John’s (3)
- 1989, Seton Hall (3) over UNLV (4)


3v5 | 2- 1, .667 | Higher seed scoring margin: +9.0 ppg
Three seeds have won their best- of- three series against five seeds in the quarterfinals. In 1989, three seed Michigan beat fifth- seeded Virginia on its way to the championship. In 2000, five seed Florida beat three seed Oklahoma State, advanced to the finals, then lost to Michigan State. And in 2011, UConn topped Arizona on its way to the crown. In all three games, the hotter team entering the dance (first by streak, then by wins in last ten pre- dance games) prevailed.

Match- up history:
- 2011, Connecticut (3) over Arizona (5)
- 2000, Florida (5) over Oklahoma State (3)
- 1989, Michigan (3) over Virginia (5)


3v8 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +2.0 ppg
Three and eight seeds have met just once in the Elite Eight. In 1998, third- seeded Stanford ended Rhode Island’s longshot run.


3v9 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +8.0 ppg
The only Elite Eight match- up involving a nine seed occurred 19 tourneys ago, in 1994, when third- seeded Florida beat Boston College.


4v6 | 2- 1, .667 | Higher seed scoring margin: +6.7 ppg
Once they slip by top seeds in the Sweet Sixteen, four seeds are a pretty resilient bunch. In addition to going 4- 4 against two and three 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 their rival, fourth- seeded Kansas State and Mitch Richmond. In the other two match- ups, four seed Georgia Tech versus six seed Minnesota in 1990 and four seed Cincinnati versus six seed Memphis State in 1992, the higher seed held sway. In all three 4v6 match- ups, the team that allowed the fewest points per game prevailed.


4v7 | 2- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +6.0 ppg
There have only been two 4v7 quarterfinal match- ups in the 28 years of the 64- team era—and Louisville has been the victorious four seed in both of them. Last year, the Cardinals downed a game Florida squad. And in 2005, fourth- seeded Louisville (actually a one or two seed in disguise) burst seven seed West Virginia’s bubble with an overtime win.


4v10 | 2- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +3.5 ppg
It’s been 15 tourneys since a four and 10 seed have squared off in the quarterfinals. In 1997, fourth- seeded Arizona knocked off Pete Gillen’s tenth- seeded Providence Friars. Then the Wildcats went on to win their only championship of the modern era. In the other 4v10 match- up seven years earlier, four seed Arkansas beat 10 seed Texas.


5v6 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +1.0 ppg
A five and a six seed have faced each other only once in the 64- team tourney era—and it was three years ago, when Michigan State edged Tennessee, 70- 69.


5v10 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +12.0 ppg
A five seed has played a 10 seed only once in the Elite Eight. In 2002, fifth- seeded Indiana ended tenth- seeded Kent State’s Cinderella run, and eventually lost to Maryland in the championship game.


6v8 | 0- 1, .000 | Higher seed scoring margin: - 4.0 ppg
Here’s another match- up that’s only happened once. In 2000, eight seed Wisconsin upended Big Ten rival Purdue.


7v8 | 0- 1, .000 | Higher seed scoring margin: - 4.0 ppg
In the only Elite Eight match- up between these two middle seeds, eighth- seeded North Carolina beat seven seed Tulsa in 2000—the same year that eight seed Wisconsin beat Purdue in the only 6v8 match- up. Eerie.



FINAL FOUR MATCH- UPS

Final Four Scoring Margins at a Glance…




Just as in the Elite Eight, seeding offers little guidance to the outcomes of Final Four match- ups. For one thing, 14 of the 56 Final Four games in the modern era have involved like- seeded opponents. Secondly, of the 42 remaining games, the higher seed is just 27- 15 (.643)—not solid enough to give them an automatic pass. In match- ups where the gulf between opponents is one or two seeds, the higher seed is just 15- 11; in games where the difference in seed position between opponents is more than two, the higher seed holds a stronger 12- 4 record. The keys to predicting the like- seeded match- ups with 90% 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 17 of the 26 match- ups.




1v1 | 11- 11, .500 | Average point spread: +10.2 ppg
Of the 56 semifinal games played in the modern tourney era, only 11 have pitted top seeds against each other. That might be reason to avoid penciling too many top seeds into your Final Four. Then again, just five dances ago, both semifinal games featured top- seed match- ups. If you had observed the following rules in order, you would’ve picked all 11 of these match- ups right: 1) take any top seed whose average points scored are at least 15 higher than its opponent, 2) take any top seed with at least a 15- game winning streak, 3) take the top seed playing significantly closer to its campus (a gulf of at least 150 miles), and 4) take the top seed with the better guards.

Recent match- ups:
- 2008, Memphis over UCLA
- 2008, Kansas over North Carolina
- 2002, Maryland over Kansas
- 1999, Duke over Michigan State
- 1997, Kentucky over Minnesota


1v2 | 6- 4, .600 | Higher seed scoring margin: +2.6 ppg
Top seeds hold a two- game edge over two seeds in the Final Four. The key performance indicators in the ten match- ups have been coaching experience, momentum and frontcourt strength. Avoid any team with a coach who hasn’t made at least three Elite Eight appearances. Next, pick against any team coming to the dance with two or more pre- tourney losses in a row. Then, pick the team that gets the higher percentage of scoring from its frontcourt. By following these guidelines, you’d pick nine of the ten games correctly. The only exception occurred in 1991, when Duke ruined UNLV’s perfect season en route to the championship. The Blue Devils relied more on their backcourt for points than the Runnin’ Rebels. As for the most recent match- up in 2010, West Virginia’s Bob Huggins had only three Elite Eight runs at the time (while Coach K had 11)—and the Blue Devils upheld the rules.

Recent match- ups:
- 2010, Duke (1) over West Virginia (2)
- 2009, Michigan State (2) over Connecticut (1)
- 2007, Florida (1) over UCLA (2)
- 2007, Ohio State (1) over Georgetown (2)
- 2004, Connecticut (2) over Duke (1)


1v3 | 2- 4, .333 | Higher seed scoring margin: - 1.2 ppg
The toughest match- up for top seeds in the entire tournament is in the semifinals when they face three seeds. They’ve only won twice in six tries, when Duke broke the curse in 2001, upending third- seeded Maryland—and in 2009, when North Carolina beat Villanova. The key to this match- up, as with the 1v2 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 6- 0. In 2009, the Tar Heels got nearly half their points from the frontline, while Villanova only got a third.

Match- up history:
- 2009, North Carolina (1) over Villanova (3)
- 2003, Syracuse (3) over Texas (1)
- 2001, Duke (1) over Maryland (3)
- 1998, Utah (3) over North Carolina (1)
- 1991, North Carolina (3) over Kansas (1)
- 1989, Michigan (3) over Illinois (1)


1v4 | 5- 1, .833 | Higher seed scoring margin: +7.2 ppg
What a difference one seed makes. Whereas top seeds struggle against three seeds, they have little trouble with four seeds, winning all but one of the six match- ups. 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 four seed in this match- up that actually averaged scoring seven points per game more than their opponent. (The Wildcats averaged 85.1 points a game, while the Tar Heels averaged just 77.9 per game.) Last year, Kentucky was a much more offensively explosive team than Louisville.

Match- up history:
- 2012, Kentucky (1) over Louisville (4)
- 2005, Illinois (1) over Louisville (4)
- 1999, Connecticut (1) over Ohio State (4)
- 1997, Arizona (4) over North Carolina (1)
- 1995, UCLA (1) over Oklahoma State (4)
- 1990, UNLV (1) over Georgia Tech (4)


1v5 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +16.0 ppg
The North Carolina/ Michigan State Final Four game in 2005 marked the only time that a five seed played a top seed for the right to advance to the championship. The Tar Heels stomped the Spartans, 87- 71.


1v8 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +12.0 ppg
Michigan State was also involved in the only 1v8 semifinal game. The top- seeded Spartans beat Big Ten rival Wisconsin on their way to the 2000 championship.


2v2 | 2- 2, .500 | Average point spread: +4.5 ppg
Amazingly, two seeds have squared off against each other in the Final Four only twice in the 28 years of the modern tourney era. One of those two tilts, happened last year, when Kansas edged Ohio State, 64- 62. The only other time it happened was in 1995, when Arkansas beat North Carolina. Just like with the 1v1 match- up, proximity is a reliable guide in predicting the outcome of this like- seeded game. Both Kansas and Arkansas were playing closer to home than the Tar Heels and Buckeyes.


2v3 | 3- 2, .600 | Higher seed scoring margin: +2.8 ppg
Surprisingly, the 2v3 match- up occurs almost as often in the Final Four as a 1v3 game. Two seeds prevail in the best- of- five series, but by the slimmest of margins. If you took the two seed in every situation except when the three seed was from the ACC or Big East, you’d be a perfect 5- 0 in predicting outcomes.

Match- up history:
- 2004, Georgia Tech (3) over Oklahoma State (2)
- 2003, Kansas (2) over Marquette (3)
- 1998, Kentucky (2) over Stanford (3)
- 1994, Duke (2) over Florida (3)
- 1989, Seton Hall (3) over Duke (2)


2v4 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +14.0 ppg
Amazingly, the 2006 UCLA/ LSU clash marked the only time that a two seed has faced a four seed in the Final Four. The second- seeded Bruins had no trouble dispatching the Tigers, 59- 45.


2v5 | 0- 1, .000 | Higher seed scoring margin: - 9.0 ppg
In 2002, Indiana sprung a mild upset when the fifth- seeded Hoosiers upended Oklahoma in the only 2v5 match- up of the 64- team era.


2v6 | 1- 1, .500 | Higher seed scoring margin: +3.5 ppg
These seeds haven’t played each other in the Final Four since 1988, when Kansas and Danny Manning upset Duke on its way to Larry Brown’s only NCAA championship. The year before that, two seed Syracuse staved off Providence.


2v8 | 0- 1, .000 | Higher seed scoring margin: - 7.0 ppg
The first four years of the modern tourney era saw some of the Final Four’s funkiest match- ups. Here’s another one: in 1985, eight seed Villanova beat two seed Memphis State before its date with destiny against Georgetown.


2v11 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +11.0 ppg
One year after the improbable Memphis State/ Villanova match- up, 11 seed LSU lost to two seed Louisville, which went on to beat Duke in the 1986 final.


3v4 | 2- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +7.5 ppg
2011 marked just the second time in the 64- team era that a three seed has taken on a four in the semifinals. UConn edged Kentucky, 56- 55, on its way to the championship. Twenty- one years early, in 1990, the only other 3v4 match- up saw three seed Duke holding off Arkansas. Duke’s reward for the victory was the privilege of getting steamrolled by UNLV, 103- 73, in the finals. In both games, the team with the more experienced coach, by bids and Elite Eight trips, prevailed.


3v11 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +15.0 ppg
If you thought it was amazing that 2006’s 2v4 match- up was the only time the two seeds squared off in the 28- year history of the modern era, how’s this for uncanny? The other match- up in the 2006 Final Four was also a first. In the only 3v11 semifinal match- up of the 64- team era, third- seeded Florida trounced 11 seed George Mason, 73- 58.


4v5 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +8.0 ppg
In 1996, four seed Syracuse beat Mississippi State in the modern tourney’s only 4v5 semifinal match- up. The Orange lost to Kentucky in the finals.


4v6 | 0- 1, .000 | Higher seed scoring margin: - 4.0 ppg
In 1992, Michigan’s Fab Five—a six seed that could’ve been a two seed—beat fourth- seeded Cincinnati. The Wolverines then got trounced by Duke, 71- 51, in the finals.


5v5 | 1- 1, .500 | Average point spread: +2.0 ppg
The only like- seeded match- up in the semifinals that didn’t involve one or two seeds occurred just three years ago, when fifth- seeded foes, Michigan State and Butler squared off. Playing in their backyard, the Bulldogs got past Izzo’s Spartans, 52- 50.


5v8 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +12.0 ppg
2000 marked the only year of the modern tourney era that had two eight seeds in the Final Four. In addition to the 1v8 match- up between Michigan State and Wisconsin, fifth- seeded Florida squared off against eight seed North Carolina and beat them by a dozen. The Gators wound up losing to MSU in the finals.

8v11 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +8.0 ppg
The most unlikely Final Four match- up of the 28- year 64- team era occurred just two years ago, when eight seed Butler downed eleventh- seeded VCU, 70- 62.


CHAMPIONSHIP MATCH- UPS

Championship Scoring Margins at a Glance…




As little an impact as seeding had on Elite Eight and Final Four outcomes, you’d think it wouldn’t make a difference in the finals. Not so. Of the 22 championship games involving teams with different seeds, the higher seed has won 16 of them—including top seed Kentucky’s win over two seed Kansas last year. Since 1990, higher seeds are 15- 3 against their lower seeded opponents. Another surprising fact about the finals is that the match- up the brackets were intended to yield—a 1v1 showdown—has happened only five times in 28 years. The only other like- seeded match- up involved three seeds Michigan and Seton Hall in 1989. The Wolverine’s frontcourt scoring was a key to their victory—as it was in four of the other five like- seeded showdowns. The bottom line: if you went with the higher seed in championship games and the team with the better front line in like- seeded battles, your prediction rate would be 75% (21- 7).




1v1 | 5- 5, .500 | Average point spread: +6.0 ppg
About one in five tournaments features two heavyweight top seeds going toe to toe. Since it happened in 2008 with Kansas/ Memphis, the year before with Florida/ Ohio State and in 2005 with North Carolina/ Illinois, the law of averages says it won’t happen for a few seasons. Which statistic points to the top- seeded victor? Pre- tourney winning streak. In every instance but one, the team that had the shorter streak going into the tourney prevailed in the championship. That one exception was 2008, when both Memphis and Kansas came to the dance with seven straight wins. So when in doubt, pick the team with the better frontcourt; the deeper you go in the dance, the more that big men make a difference.

Match- up history:
- 1993, North Carolina over Michigan
- 1999, Connecticut over Duke
- 2005, North Carolina over Illinois
- 2007, Florida over Ohio State
- 2008, Kansas over Memphis


1v2 | 6- 1, .857 | Higher seed scoring margin: +6.9 ppg
Strange that seeding should have such an impact between two close seeds in the finals. Top seeds treat two seeds like one of those lowly seeds they face in the early rounds, beating them 86% of the time. The only two seed to buck the trend was Louisville, which beat Duke in the 1986 championship game. Actually, the more reliable performance indicators in this match- up are coaching experience and scoring margin. Teams with coaches that haven’t been to the Elite Eight in a previous year are 0- 2. In the remaining five match- ups, the team with the higher scoring margin has always prevailed…like last year, when the Wildcats (17.7 ppg margin) beat the Jayhawks (13.1 ppg margin), 67- 59.

Match- up history:
- 2012, Kentucky (1) over Kansas (2)
- 2009, North Carolina (1) over Michigan State (2)
- 2001, Duke (1) over Arizona (2)
- 1995, UCLA (1) over Arkansas (2)
- 1994, Arkansas (1) over Duke (2)
- 1987, Indiana (1) over Syracuse (2)
- 1986, Louisville (2) over Duke (1)


1v3 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +30.0 ppg
You’d think a 1v3 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.


1v4 | 1- 1, .500 | Higher seed scoring margin: +2.0 ppg
The two 1v4 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.


1v5 | 3- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +7.0 ppg
The three 1v5 finals match- ups happened in the last 13 tourneys. Michigan State beat Florida in 2000, Maryland handled Indiana in 2002, and Duke foiled the classic near- miracle upset- bid by Butler in 2010. Had Hayward made his last- second half- court heave, this match- up would’ve gone down as the best basketball game ever—college, pro, high school or elementary school…truth or fiction (better even than Hickory’s win over South Bend Central in Hoosiers).


1v6 | 1- 1, .500 | Higher seed scoring margin: +3.0 ppg
If it weren’t for Villanova’s upset of Georgetown in 1985, Kansas could lay claim to springing the biggest championship shocker of the modern tourney era. The Jayhawks beat top seed Oklahoma in 1988. Four years later, Michigan’s Fab Five tried to duplicate the feat but were thumped by Duke.


1v8 | 0- 1, .000 | Higher seed scoring margin: - 2.0 ppg
In the first year of the modern tourney era, the championship game saw its most unlikely match- up—and most surprising outcome. Eighth- seeded upstart Villanova toppled overwhelming favorite Georgetown, 66- 64, playing a near flawless game that included 90% shooting in the second half.


2v3 | 3- 2, .600 | Higher seed scoring margin: +1.2 ppg
Florida’s 2006 win over second- seeded UCLA tightened this match- up, which, aside from 1v2 final games, is the most popular championship seed pairing. The first three seed to beat a two seed in the finals was Syracuse, which knocked off Kansas in 2003. (Syracuse also holds the distinction of being one of only three champions that hadn’t gone to the previous year’s tourney; the other two were Louisville in 1986 and UConn in 2011.) The key to this match- up is scoring balance. The squad with the smallest percentage gap between its frontcourt and backcourt scoring has won all five games.

Match- up history:
- 2006, Florida (3) over UCLA (2)
- 2004, Connecticut (2) over Georgia Tech (3)
- 2003, Syracuse (3) over Kansas (2)
- 1998, Kentucky (2) over Utah (3)
- 1991, Duke (2) over Kansas (3)


3v3 | 1- 1, .500 | Average point spread: +1.0 ppg
The only other like- seeded finals match- up of the 64- team era besides the five 1v1 tilts saw Michigan squeak by Seton Hall in overtime in 1989.


3v8 | 1- 0, 1.000 | Higher seed scoring margin: +12.0 ppg
In 2011, UConn and Butler squared off in the most unusual championship pairing of the modern era. It was a brutal game for the Cinderella Bulldogs, who got humiliated by the Huskies, 53- 41. 2011 was also unique for featuring the only title game with two dog mascots. There have been Runnin’ Rebels and Blue Devils (1990) and two Wildcats (1997), but never Bulldogs and Huskies.
... more » « less