Bracket Tips

Historical Tournament Success by Seed

NCAA Tournament: Tuesday's Bracket Tips

Jon Teitel — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:18:37 -0400

Jon Teitel's Bracket Tactics will help you finish at the top of your NCAA Tournament Pools..

Tuesday's Tip: Focus on the Coaches

FACT ONE: Only 2 coaches with only 0 to 4 years’ tourney experience have won the NCAA title since 1985 (Steve Fisher of Michigan & Tom Izzo of Michigan State).

SIMPLY: Do not pick teams with young coaches to win it all.

MEANING: Butler, Marquette, Missouri, Purdue, and Wake Forest have little shot at a title run.

FACT TWO: Only 4 times ever have all 4 Final Four coaches had Final 4 experience (1951, 1968, 1984, 1993).

ANALYSIS: Feel free to pick a team whose coach has never coached in the Final 4 to make the Final 4.

MEANING: This could be a good year for FSU, Gonzaga, Oklahoma, Pitt, Utah, and Xavier.

FACT THREE: But, 18 of last 22 champs have had coach who has previously been to a Final 4.

ANALYSIS: Pick a champ whose coach has previous Final 4 experience.

MEANING: Teams like FSU, Gonzaga, Oklahoma, Pitt, and Xavier may make deep runs, but are doubtful National Champions.

Yesterday's Tips focused on Conference affiliation. Check back tomorrow for more of Jon's Bracket Tips.

Other Helpful Bracket Tips

+ NCAA Tournament

Also: Writers' Predictions: Final Four

NCAA Tournament Surprises & Busts: Writers' Picks

CHN — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:15:25 -0400

Having trouble filling out your bracket? CHN writers share their Tourney predictions to help you out.

Cinderella: Teams that are 11 seeds or below.

Bust: 6 seeds or better that have the best shot of bouncing out early.

Semi-Surprise: The writer's highest seeded team they have projected to make the Elite Eight.

Breakout Star: Little known players that could help lead their teams to surprising March success.

	Jeff Borzello	Jason Brubaker	Dan Daitchman
Cinderella	VCU (11)	WKU (12)	VCU (11)
Bust	Syracuse	Illinois	Kansas
Semi-Surprise	Arizona St (6)	Kansas (3)	Arizona St (6)
Breakout Star	DeMarre Carroll Missouri	Daniel Hackett USC	Kenny Hasbrouck Siena

	Jeff Fox	Raphielle Johnson	Kevin McNeill
Cinderella	Utah St (11)	Arizona (12)	VCU (11)
Bust	Illinois	Kansas	Michigan St
Semi-Surprise	Syracuse (3)	West Virginia (6)	Florida St (5)
Breakout Star	Gary Wilkinson Utah St	Ben Woodside NDSU	Eric Maynor VCU

	Shawn Siegel	Joel Welser	Joey Whelan
Cinderella	Utah St (11)	Dayton (11)	VCU (11)
Bust	Kansas	Kansas	Michigan St
Semi-Surprise	Wake Forest	Villanova (3)	Florida St (5)
Breakout Star	Gary Wilkinson Utah St	Chris Wright Dayton	Larry Sanders VCU

NCAA Tournament: Upset & Cinderella Odds

Shawn Siegel — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:17:35 -0400

Anyone who guarantees a first round upset is being a fool.. you just never know. But CollegeHoops.net's Tournament Odds gives you an idea about which upsets, early bust-outs, and Cinderella runs are most likely.

Best to Worst

Lock

Highly Likely

Probably

50/50

Probably Not

Highly Doubtful

Impossible

		1st Round Win / Make 2nd Round	2nd Round Win / Make Sweet 16	Sweet 16 Win / Make Elite Eight	Elite 8 Win / Make Final Four
1	Louisville	Lock	Highly Likely	Highly Likely	Probably
16	Opening Round	Impossible	Impossible	Impossible	Impossible
9	Siena	50/50	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful	Impossible
8	Ohio St	50/50	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful	Impossible
5	Utah	50/50	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful
12	Arizona	50/50	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Impossible
13	Cleveland St	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Impossible	Impossible
4	Wake Forest	Probably	Highly Likely	50/50	Probably Not
3	Kansas	Highly Likely	Highly Likely	Probably	Probably Not
14	North Dakota St	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful	Impossible	Impossible
11	Dayton	Probably Not	Probably Not	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful
6	West Virginia	Probably	Probably Not	Probably Not	Probably Not
7	Boston College	50/50	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Impossible
10	USC	50/50	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Impossible
15	Robert Morris	Highly Doubtful	Impossible	Impossible	Impossible
2	Michigan St	Highly Likely	Highly Likely	Probably	Probably Not

		1st Round Win / Make 2nd Round	2nd Round Win / Make Sweet 16	Sweet 16 Win / Make Elite Eight	Elite 8 Win / Make Final Four
1	UCONN	Lock	Highly Likely	Highly Likely	Probably
16	Chattanooga	Impossible	Impossible	Impossible	Impossible
9	Texas A&M	Probably	Highly Doubtful	Impossible	Impossible
8	BYU	Probably Not	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Impossible
5	Purdue	Probably	50/50	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful
12	Northern Iowa	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Impossible	Impossible
13	Mississippi St	Probably Not	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Impossible
4	Washington	Probably	50/50	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful
3	Missouri	Highly Likely	50/50	Probably Not	Probably Not
14	Cornell	Highly Doubtful	Impossible	Impossible	Impossible
11	Utah St	50/50	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful
6	Marquette	50/50	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful
7	California	50/50	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful	Impossible
10	Maryland	50/50	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful	Impossible
15	Northridge	Impossible	Impossible	Impossible	Impossible
2	Memphis	Lock	Highly Likely	Probably	Probably Not

		1st Round Win / Make 2nd Round	2nd Round Win / Make Sweet 16	Sweet 16 Win / Make Elite Eight	Elite 8 Win / Make Final Four
1	Pittsburgh	Lock	Highly Likely	Highly Likely	50/50
16	ETSU	Impossible	Impossible	Impossible	Impossible
9	Tennessee	50/50	Probably Not	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful
8	Oklahoma St	50/50	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Impossible
5	Florida St	Highly Likely	Probably	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful
12	Wisconsin	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful	Impossible	Impossible
13	Portland St	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful	Impossible	Impossible
4	Xavier	Highly Likely	50/50	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful
3	Villanova	Highly Likely	50/50	Probably Not	Probably Not
14	American	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful	Impossible	Highly Doubtful
11	VCU	50/50	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Impossible
6	UCLA	50/50	Probably Not	Probably Not	Probably Not
7	Texas	Probably	Probably Not	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful
10	Minnesota	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Impossible	Impossible
15	Binghamton	Impossible	Impossible	Impossible	Impossible
2	Duke	Lock	Highly Likely	Probably	50/50

		1st Round Win / Make 2nd Round	2nd Round Win / Make Sweet 16	Sweet 16 Win / Make Elite Eight	Elite 8 Win / Make Final Four
1	North Carolina	Lock	Lock	Highly Likely	Highly Likely
16	Radford	Impossible	Impossible	Impossible	Impossible
9	Butler	Probably	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful	Impossible
8	LSU	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Impossible	Impossible
5	Illinois	Probably	50/50	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful
12	Western Ky.	Probably Not	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful
13	Akron	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful	Impossible	Impossible
4	Gonzaga	Highly Likely	50/50	Probably Not	Probably Not
3	Syracuse	Highly Likely	50/50	Probably Not	Probably Not
14	Stephen F Austin	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful	Impossible	Impossible
11	Temple	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful	Impossible
6	Arizona St	Probably	50/50	Probably Not	Probably Not
7	Clemson	Probably	Probably Not	Probably Not	Probably Not
10	Michigan	Probably Not	Highly Doubtful	Impossible	Impossible
15	Morgan St	Highly Doubtful	Highly Doubtful	Impossible	Impossible
2	Oklahoma	Highly Likely	Probably	50/50	Probably Not

1 Seeds

Most likely Final Four team: North Carolina

Most likely Not to reach Sweet Sixteen: Pittsburgh

2 Seeds

Most likely Final Four team: Duke

Most likely Not to reach Sweet Sixteen: Oklahoma

3 Seeds

Most likely Final Four team: Syracuse

Most likely Not to reach Sweet Sixteen: Missouri

4 Seeds

Most likely Final Four team: Wake Forest

Most likely Not to reach Sweet Sixteen: Xavier

5 Seeds

Most likely Final Four team: Florida St

Most likely Not to reach Sweet Sixteen: Utah

6-7 Seeds

Most likely Final Four team: Arizona St, West Virginia (6s), Clemson (7)

Most likely first round loss: UCLA (6), Boston College (7)

8-9 Seeds

Most likely Elite Eight teams: BYU, Ohio State (8s), Tennessee (9)

10-11 Seeds

Most likely Final Four team: Utah State, Dayton (11s)

12-13 Seeds

Most likely to Make Deep Run: Arizona, Western Kentucky (12s), Mississippi St (13),

14-15-16 Seeds

Most likely Cinderella teams: Stephen F Austin, American (14s), Morgan State (15)

NCAA Basketball Tournament: Monday's Bracket Tips

Jon Teitel — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:36:04 -0400

Jon Teitel's Bracket Tactics will help you finish at the top of your NCAA Tournament Pools..

Monday's Tips

TIP #1: 7 of the last 10 NCAA champs won their conference tournament before rolling off 6 straight wins in the NCAA Tournament.

STRATEGY #1: Pick a champ who also won its conference tournament last week.

MEANING: Duke, Louisville, Memphis, and Missouri could be very dangerous teams.

TIP #2: No team that lost the first game of its conference tournament has ever won the NCAA title the same year.

STRATEGY #2: Do not pick a champ who lost the first game of its conference tournament.

MEANING: Take a long, hard, look at Kansas, Oklahoma, Pittsburgh, and Wake Forest before penciling them is as your 2009 NCAA Champs.

TIP #3: 2 teams in each Final Four since 2003 have been members of the same conference.

STRATEGY #3: Pick 2 teams who play in the same conference to make the Final Four.

MEANING: Don't be afraid to go with multiple Big East or ACC teams in the Final Four.

Check back tomorrow for more of Jon's Bracket Tips.

NCAA Tournament: Keys to Success: Part One

Fairway Jay — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:03:40 -0400

Keys to NCAA Tournament Success by Fairway Jay, CHN Betting Expert

With the NCAA, NIT and CBI tournaments on the horizon, the astute handicapper, bettor and fan can better position themselves for success in betting games or tournament pools by knowing the strengths and weaknesses of both conferences and teams..

I've outlined some thoughts and key considerations in handicapping college basketball and tournament play. While there have been changes in the college game over the years with the shot clock and 3-point line (over 20 years ago!), the fundamentals of college basketball remain the same when evaluating the match-ups. I have relied on the these fundamentals and match-ups along with situations, scheduling, coaching, intangibles, a touch of technical analysis and of course energy and emotion to produce outstanding documented results and profits over the past four postseasons.

In the elimination format of the NCAA Tournament and any postseason game, one poor stretch of play or a scoring drought can quickly end a team's season. Likewise, a team that gets hot from the 3-point arch can ride that momentum to a victory. When handicapping a contest, the biggest statistical discrepancy can come in 3-point shooting, yet it is the hardest to predict. Evaluating how a team and players will perform under pressure in an elimination format can be a challenge. The difficulty for many handicappers and bettors is breaking down the match-ups with less familiar teams. Evaluating the statistical information, interpreting the data and analyzing how teams and players will perform when facing a different level of class opponent often keeps bettors away from unknown teams. That's where the intangibles of coaching, momentum, injuries, experience, leadership and team chemistry play a part. The technical side of the equation comes in evaluating situations and past performance such as a team's strength of schedule, performance playing on the road, results and level of play versus quality teams and understanding contrary patterns.

We can discuss quality guard play, interior post presence, 3-point and free throw shooting, pace of play and a go-to-guy in any match-up. But in so many contests, the team that defends the best, rebounds and takes care of the basketball can often overcome the opponent or their own off-shooting night. So here are some of the fundamentals to evaluate in upcoming games and postseason play.

Defense: While scoring continues to get headlines and highlights, teams that play defense and minimize turnovers and second chance opportunities will win more games. Coaching often plays a part in a team's discipline on defense, and teams that play hard on the defensive end are worth supporting. The type of defense a team plays may vary from game to game with man-to-man, zone or full court pressure. Teams that have quality athletes and flexibility to adjust are your best bets. After a full season of results, the overall body of work and numbers should tell the story. Key stats to analyze are defensive field goal percentage and turnovers forced, with overall points-per-game allowed also of note, especially versus quality teams. I prefer to utilize stats from conference play in the stronger conferences, and look at how teams outside of the top 40 or so performed against better competition. Look at a team's offensive tempo, and if a team has an efficient offense with a relatively high number of attempts and still plays solid defense, you likely have a team worth plenty of support.

Offense: With the top teams playing in the NCAA Tournament, many teams are capable on the defensive end of shutting down one scoring option. Look for teams with scoring balance, both from the perimeter and inside. Quality depth can be a factor, but teams will rely on their top players at crunch time. Recognize a team's turnover-to-assist ratio. The ability to play in the half court with an efficient offense and balanced scoring options will separate teams, especially in the second half as some teams start to wear down. Thus, unselfish teams that value and take care of the basketball and give their teammates good looks will ultimately win out with productive shooting.

Rebounding: One of the most overlooked areas in handicapping is evaluating a team's ability to rebound the basketball. The key here is rebounding margin, which goes together with a team's defensive field goal percentage. Teams that are physical, strong and athletic on the boards also create more fouls on the opponent and get to the free throw line more often. The top teams will always be strong in these areas, and the ability to control the boards and minimize second-chance points will go a long way in determining whether a team advances or not.

>> Continue to Part Two of Faiway Jay's Keys to Tournament Success

+ NCAA Basketball Tournament

<< Return to Part One of Fairway Jay's Keys to Tournament Success

NCAA Tournament: Keys to Success: Part Two

Fairway Jay — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:01:17 -0400

..Continued From Part One of Fairway Jay's Tournament Keys to Success

Free Throw Shooting: The ability to make foul shots can not only be the difference in a close contest, but often determines whether you win or lose your wager in the closing minutes. Yet this statistic is probably one of the most misleading stats in college basketball. Here are some of the top team's free throw percentages in conference play this season through mid-February: Connecticut (67%), Pittsburgh (65%), North Carolina (77%), Oklahoma (69%), Michigan State (71%), Memphis (65%), Louisville (64%), Wake Forest (72%), Duke (69%), Clemson (69%), Marquette (69%), Villanova (71%), Kansas (74%), Missouri (67%), UCLA (76%), Washington (75%), Arizona State (72%), Purdue (69%), Illinois (69%), Gonzaga (73%), Xavier (67%),Utah (78%). Shooting under 71% is really sub-par, and yet the two teams that played in last year's NCAA Championship game were both sub-par with Memphis an atrocious 59% and Kansas 70% from the free throw line. Until they come up with a statistic that reflects a team's free throw shooting percentage in the closing minutes of a game, I would say less consideration should be given to this category.

3-Point Shooting: Nothing has changed the face of college basketball more than the ‘three-pointer'. The average number of 3-point shots made is nearly seven (7) per game with approximately 35% efficiency. This season the 3-point arch was moved back an additional foot to 20 feet 9 inches and teams are hitting just under 34% from the ‘arch'. As mentioned, the biggest statistical discrepancy can come in 3-point shooting, yet it is the hardest to predict. Teams can have a significant variance in performance from the arch on any given night. Thus, focusing on the defensive part of the equation and teams that are more active on the defensive end with a priority in defending the perimeter should be your main focus as well.

There you have it: Some of ‘Fairway's Fundamentals' in helping you determine winners in college basketball. For many of you that participate in NCAA Tournament pools and are focused on picking the winner and teams that will go to the Elite Eight and beyond, here are some additional ‘Fairway Facts' and tips to keep in mind. Each of the last 11 NCAA Tournament champions has come from the six ‘major' conferences. Last season, Memphis from Conference USA was NCAA Tournament runner-up after they blew a nine-point lead in the closing minutes and eventually lost to Kansas in overtime. For the most part, mid-major success in the NCAA Tournament is measured in Sweet Sixteen appearances, not Final Four's. Last year I wrote a tournament preview on 10-seed Davidson and noted they were a legitimate Sweet Sixteen team. They made it to the Elite Eight before losing to Kansas by 2 points, but won the money in all four NCAA Tournament games. Three years ago George Mason made a remarkable run to the Final Four, but those two examples are by far the exception and last season all four #1 seeds made it to the Final Four. Remember, television ratings are huge and the NCAA Tournament, like the college bowl season, is about making money for the universities, networks, etc. Just like people tune in to see Tiger Woods golf, the general public wants to see the top teams advance which of course drives TV ratings and produces more money. The NCAA Tournament committee will often ‘screw' the mid-majors by having the quality teams like Davidson and Gonzaga play each other in the opening round. Thus, no chance they can both advance.

To win four, five or six games in the NCAA Tournament essentially requires a top-level point guard, great inside/outside balance with strong perimeter shooters and the ability to pound the ball into the paint. Top contenders must be able to beat teams using their half court offense, and the defensive strength of the opponents becomes stronger as team's advance deeper into the tournament. One-dimensional or run-and-gun teams are not Final Four favorites. And finally as I've mentioned many times, top-level teams and those that reach the Final Four are almost always strong defensive teams and among the best rebounding teams. Add in some quality depth, and the criteria for a Final Four and Championship Game appearance is pretty specific: Dominating defense, rebounding, balance and quickness, high performance at the point and in the paint and the ability to efficiently run half court sets.

Best wishes as you try to make the key ‘shots', ‘score' and ‘shoot' for ‘fairways' and ‘green' in this year's NCAA Tournament and postseason games.

Tournament History: Most & Least "Mad" Brackets

Shawn Siegel — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:20:51 -0400

This chart shows the historical "Assessed Risk" percentages for each final bracket since 1985 (the start of the 64 team tournament). Each bracket is assigned an “Assessed Risk” which evaluates the unlikelihood of the final results by measuring against past year performances of the tournament seeds.

Basically, the higher the number you see below, the more surprising the final result was. Note that 2000 was the most shocking bracket of all-time, with two #8 seeds and a #5 in the Final Four. There was also two #10 seeds that made the Sweet Sixteen that year, and only one of the #2 seeds even made the Sweet Sixteen. On the flip side, the last two NCAA Tournaments have gone according to plan. In 2008, all #1 seeds made the Final Four. While in 2007, the Elite Eight was composed of 4 #1 seeds, 3 #2's, and a #3. Boring stuff indeed.

While making your selections in CHN/PickManager's $100 Million Bracket Challenge, you can view the “Assessed Risk” at the bottom of your bracket. You may wish to compare your risk percentage to the historical risk percentages of the final brackets since 1985.

Year	Assessed Risk
NCAA 1985	23.88%
NCAA 1986	30.05%
NCAA 1987	17.71%
NCAA 1988	22.96%
NCAA 1989	25.46%
NCAA 1990	33.81%
NCAA 1991	24.77%
NCAA 1992	23.88%
NCAA 1993	13.13%
NCAA 1994	20.15%
NCAA 1995	18.76%
NCAA 1996	20.65%
NCAA 1997	23.08%
NCAA 1998	26.29%
NCAA 1999	23.54%
NCAA 2000	37.14%
NCAA 2001	21.77%
NCAA 2002	26.27%
NCAA 2003	21.91%
NCAA 2004	29.18%
NCAA 2005	24.94%
NCAA 2006	30.49%
NCAA 2007	7.75%
NCAA 2008	13.30%

More NCAA Tournament Bracket Tips

Also NCAA Tournament Historical Success By Seed

+ NCAA Tournament

NCAA Tournament: Odds of a Seed Advancing

Shawn Siegel — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:09:08 -0400

NCAA Tournament: Historical Success By Seed (Percentages)

This chart shows how each seed has fared over the six rounds of each tournament since 1985 (the start of the 64 team tournament). For Example the #1 Seeds have won 100% of their first round games, but #2 have lost 4.3% of the time. The #1 Seeds have made it to the finals 14% of the time, but note #4 seeds have only made it 1.1% of the time.

To see the specific amount of times each seed has advanced to each round (ie, 92/96), instead of percentages, check out this chart instead. Sign up for CHN's $100 Million Bracket Challenge and get access to other Tournament tidbits.


	Round
Seed	1st	2nd	Sweet 16	Elite Eight	Final Four	Finals
1	100.0%	87.0%	70.7%	41.3%	22.8%	14.1%
2	95.7%	63.0%	46.7%	22.8%	10.9%	4.3%
3	83.7%	47.8%	22.8%	13.0%	8.7%	3.3%
4	80.4%	43.5%	15.2%	9.8%	2.2%	1.1%
5	69.6%	37.0%	5.4%	4.3%	2.2%	0.0%
6	68.5%	38.0%	13.0%	3.3%	2.2%	1.1%
7	64.1%	19.6%	6.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
8	45.7%	9.8%	6.5%	3.3%	1.1%	1.1%
9	54.3%	3.3%	1.1%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
10	35.9%	17.4%	6.5%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
11	31.5%	12.0%	4.3%	2.2%	0.0%	0.0%
12	31.5%	15.2%	1.1%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
13	19.6%	4.3%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
14	16.3%	2.2%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
15	4.3%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
16	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

More NCAA Tournament Bracket Tips

+ NCAA Tournament

NCAA Tournament: Historical Success by Seed

Shawn Siegel — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:58:08 -0400

NCAA Tournament Success - By Seed

This chart shows how each seed has fared over the six rounds of each tournament since 1985 (the start of the 64 team tournament). For Example the #1 Seeds have won 96 of 96 games in the first round, but 4 times a #2 seed has lost. The #1 Seeds have made it to the finals round 23 times and have won 14 of them (including last year). The #4 seeds have made it to the finals only twice.

Note that #6 seeds have performed noticeably better than #5 seeds, because they don't have to go through the 1 seeds so early. Sign up for CHN's $100 Million Bracket Challenge and get access to other Tournament tidbits.

	Round
Seed	1st	2nd	3rd (Sweet Sixteen)	4th (Elite Eight)	5th (Final Four)	6th (Finals)
1	96/96	84/96	69/84	42/69	23/42	14/23
2	92/96	60/92	44/60	21/44	10/21	4/10
3	81/96	48/81	23/48	12/23	8/12	3/8
4	76/96	41/76	14/41	9/14	2/9	1/2
5	66/96	35/66	5/35	4/5	2/4	0/2
6	66/96	35/66	12/35	3/12	2/3	1/2
7	62/96	19/62	6/19	0/6	0/0	0/0
8	44/96	9/44	6/9	3/6	1/3	1/1
9	52/96	3/52	1/3	0/1	0/0	0/0
10	34/96	17/34	7/17	0/7	0/0	0/0
11	30/96	11/30	4/11	2/4	0/2	0/0
12	30/96	16/30	1/16	0/1	0/0	0/0
13	20/96	4/20	0/4	0/0	0/0	0/0
14	15/96	2/15	0/2	0/0	0/0	0/0
15	4/96	0/4	0/0	0/0	0/0	0/0
16	0/96	0/0	0/0	0/0	0/0	0/0
- Check out a similar chart with the %'s of how seeds have fared in each round. - More NCAA Tournament Bracket Tips

+2009 NCAA Tournament