Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
In This Section

Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports

An official journal of the American Statistical Association

Editor-in-Chief: Glickman, PhD, Mark

4 Issues per year

CiteScore 2016: 0.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.288
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.358

See all formats and pricing
In This Section

A new approach to bracket prediction in the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament based on a dual-proportion likelihood

Ajay Andrew Gupta
  • Corresponding author
  • Statistics, The Florida State University, 117 N. Woodward Ave. P.O. Box 3064330, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA
  • Email:
Published Online: 2014-10-11 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jqas-2014-0047


The widespread proliferation of and interest in bracket pools that accompany the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament have created a need to produce a set of predicted winners for each tournament game by people without expert knowledge of college basketball. Previous research has addressed bracket prediction to some degree, but not nearly on the level of the popular interest in the topic. This paper reviews relevant previous research, and then introduces a rating system for teams using game data from that season prior to the tournament. The ratings from this system are used within a novel, four-predictor probability model to produce sets of bracket predictions for each tournament from 2009 to 2014. This dual-proportion probability model is built around the constraint of two teams with a combined 100% probability of winning a given game. This paper also performs Monte Carlo simulation to investigate whether modifications are necessary from an expected value-based prediction system such as the one introduced in the paper, in order to have the maximum bracket score within a defined group. The findings are that selecting one high-probability “upset” team for one to three late rounds games is likely to outperform other strategies, including one with no modifications to the expected value, as long as the upset choice overlaps a large minority of competing brackets while leaving the bracket some distinguishing characteristics in late rounds.

Keywords: brackets; college basketball; maximum likelihood; statistics


  • “2011 NCAAB Tournament Odds 1st Round Match Ups.” Free Sports Picks. 1800-Sports.Com, n.d. Web. May 29, 2014 (http://www.1800-sports.com/310-800.shtml).

  • “Basketball Odds Comparison, Basketball Betting Odds & Lines.” OddsPortal.Com. OddsPortal.Com, n.d. Web. May 28, 2014 (http://www.oddsportal.com/basketball/).

  • Breiter, David J. and Bradley P. Carlin. 1996. “How to Play Office Pools If You Must.” Chance 10(1):5–11.

  • Carlin, Bradley P. 1994. “Improved NCAA Basketball Tournament Modeling via Point Spread and Team Strength Information.” The American Statistician 50:39–43.

  • “College Basketball Scores & History.” Sports-Reference.Com. Sports Reference LLC, n.d. Web. April 30, 2014 (http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/).

  • “ESPN – Tournament Challenge – Who Picked Whom.” ESPN. ESPN, n.d. March 28, 2014 (http://games.espn.go.com/tournament-challenge-bracket/2014/en/whopickedwhom).

  • Geiling, Natasha. 2014. “When Did Filling Out a March Madness Bracket Become Popular?” Smithsonian.com. Smithsonian Magazine, March 20, 2014. Web. May 19, 2014 (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-did-filling-out-march-madness-bracket-become-popular-180950162).

  • Jacobson, Sheldon H., et al., 2011. “Seed Distributions for the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament.” Omega 39(6):719–24. [Web of Science]

  • Kaplan, Edward H., and Stanley J. Garstka. 2001. “March Madness and the Office Pool.” Management Science 47(3):369–82. [Crossref]

  • Koenker, Roger, and Gilbert W. Basset, Jr. 2010. “March Madness, Quantile Regression Bracketology, and the Hayek Hypothesis.” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics 28:26–35. [Web of Science] [Crossref]

  • Metrick, Andrew. 1996. “March Madness? Strategic Behavior in NCAA Basketball Tournament Betting Pools.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 30:159–72. [Crossref]

  • “NCAA – Men’s College Basketball Teams, Scores, Stats, News, Standings, Rumors.” ESPN. ESPN, n.d. Web. April 30, 2014 (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/).

  • “NCAA Basketball Betting Odds, NCAA Tournament Point Spreads & Money Lines.” DonBest. Dodgeball Ventures, Inc., n.d. Web. May 18, 2014 (http://www.donbest.com/ncaab/odds/).

  • Quintong, James. 2014. “Tournament Challenge: Final Four Update.” College Basketball Nation Blog. ESPN, April 5, 2014. Web. June 12, 2014 (http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/98226/tournament-challenge-final-four-update-2).

  • Sagarin, Jeff. “Final College Basketball 2013-2014 Through Results of 2014 April 7 Monday – NCAA Championship.” USA Today. USA Today, April 8, 2014. Web. May 20, 2014.

  • Schwertman, Neil C., T. A. McCready, and L. Howard. 1991. “Probability Models for the NCAA Regional Basketball Tournaments.” The American Statistician 45:35–8.

  • Schwertman, Neil C., Kathryn L. Schenk, and Brett C. Holbrook. 1996. “More Probability Models for the NCAA Regional Basketball Tournaments.” The American Statistician 50(1): 34–8.

  • West, Brady. 2006. “A Simple and Flexible Rating Method for Predicting Success in the NCAA Basketball Tournament.” Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports 2(3):n.p.

  • West, Brady. “New Ratings 2014.” Brady West’s Home Page. University of Michigan, n.d. Web. May 31, 2014 (http://www-personal.umich.edu/bwest/new_ratings_2014.xls).

About the article

Corresponding author: Ajay Andrew Gupta, Statistics, The Florida State University, 117 N. Woodward Ave. P.O. Box 3064330, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA, e-mail:

Published Online: 2014-10-11

Published in Print: 2015-03-01

Citation Information: Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, ISSN (Online) 1559-0410, ISSN (Print) 2194-6388, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jqas-2014-0047. Export Citation

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in