Main Article Content

Kelley Ford
Andy Fodor


In 2017, approximately 70 million March Madness brackets were completed worldwide, and more than $10 billion was wagered on the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament both legally and otherwise (Goldberg, 2017). The difference between winning and losing in these contests is often one’s ability to correctly predict a few game outcomes where the lower-seeded underdog defeats the higher-seeded favorite in what is known as an upset. As the tournament has expanded and its popularity has increased, the term “upset” has become synonymous with March Madness. These games provide elation or heartbreak for players, coaches, students, fans, alumni, bettors and neutral viewers. On average, there are approximately six upsets annually in Round 1 alone of the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament. Many theories have been proposed that attempt to identify which matchups will result in upsets. However, most theories rely on “gut feelings” or have a subconscious bias for or against certain teams based on the individual’s rooting interest.Our prediction method combines data sets published by the basketball analytics industry’s foremost experts with historical tournament seed data to accurately predict which March Madness tournament matchups are most likely to result in upsets. It removes personal bias by considering only independently-generated data from neutral sources and provides an objective evaluation of all teams participating in the 2017 NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament.

Article Details



Boulier, B. L. and H. O. Stekler. 1999. “Are Sports Seedings Good Predictors?: An Evaluation.” International Journal of Forecasting, 15(1), 83–91.

Breiter, D. J. and B. P. Carlin. 1997. “How to Play Office Pools if You Must.” Chance, 10(1), 5–11.

Dutta, S., Jacobson, S. H., & Sauppe, J. J. (2017). Identifying NCAA tournament upsets using Balance Optimization Subset Selection. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 13(2), 79-93.

ESPN Sports Analytics Team. (2016, November 8). BPI and Strength of Record: What are they and how are they derived? Retrieved from ESPN: (2017, March 18). Tournament Challenge: Only two perfect brackets remain after Xavier win. Retrieved from ESPN:

Gaines, C. (2017, March 12). Here's your 2017 NCAA basketball tournament bracket. Retrieved from Business Insider:

Goldberg, R. (2017, March 13). March Madness 2017: 70 Million Brackets, $10.4 Billion in Bets Expected. Retrieved from Bleacher Report:

Hoegh, A., Carzolio, M., Crandell, I., Hu, X., Roberts, L., Song, Y., & Leman, S. C. (2015). Nearest-neighbor matchup effects: accounting for team matchups for predicting March Madness. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 11(1), 29-37.

Kaplan, E. H. and S. J. Garstka. 2001. “March Madness and the Office Pool.” Management Science, 47(3), 369–382.

Lopez, M. J., & Matthews, G. J. (2015). Building an NCAA men’s basketball predictive model and quantifying its success. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 11(1), 5-12.

Lopresti, M. (2017, January 13). College basketball: NCAA tournament selection process involves analytics discussions. Retrieved from NCAA:

Massimo, R. (2017, March 27). Misery loves company: 0.01 percent of ESPN March Madness brackets picked Final Four. Retrieved from Washington's Top News:

McCrea, S. M. and E. R. Hirt. 2009. “March Madness: Probability Matching in Prediction of the NCAA Basketball Tournament.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2809–2839.

Men's Basketball. (2017, April 3). Retrieved from CBS Sports:

Men's Basketball Selections 101. (2017). Retrieved from NCAA:

Metrick, A. 1996. “March Madness? Strategic Behavior in NCAA Basketball Tournament Betting Pools.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 30, 159–172.

Nikolaev, A. G., S. H. Jacobson, W. K. T. Cho, J. J. Sauppe, and E. C. Sewell. 2013. “Balance Optimization Subset Selection (BOSS): An Alternative Approach for Causal Inference with Observational Data.” Operations Research, 61, 398–412.

Ota, K. (2017, March 16). ESPN Tournament Challenge Explodes to Record 18.8 Million Brackets. Retrieved from ESPN MediaZone:

Paine, N., & Boice, J. (2016, March 17). How Much Did The NCAA Selection Committee Screw Your Team Over? Retrieved from FiveThirtyEight:

People's Bracket. (2017, March 16). Retrieved from ESPN Tournament Challenge:

Pomeroy, K. (2006, November 29). Ratings Explanation. Retrieved from Advanced Analyis of College Basketball:

Rexrode, J. (2015, March 12). MSU hoops' Kevin Pauga: Schedule nerd, troubleshooter. Retrieved from Detroit Free Press:

Rosenstein, G. (2017, March 15). Tournament Challenge: New record set for number of brackets submitted. Retrieved from ESPN:

Rosenstein, G. (2017, March 18). Tournament Challenge: Villanova loss wreaks havoc on brackets. Retrieved from ESPN:

Sagarin, J. (2017, March 16). College Basketball Ratings. Retrieved from USA Today:

Schwertman, N. C., K. L. Schenk, and B. C. Holbrook. 1996. “More Probability Models for the NCAA Regional Basketball Tournaments.” The American Statistician, 50(1), 34–38.

Schwertman, N. C., T. A. McCready, and L. Howard. 1991. “Probability Models for the NCAA Regional Basketball Tournaments.” The American Statistician, 45(1), 35–38.

Yuan, L. H., Liu, A., Yeh, A., Kaufman, A., Reece, A., Bull, P., ... & Bornn, L. (2015). A mixture-of-modelers approach to forecasting NCAA tournament outcomes. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 11(1), 13-27.