Madness Myths: You Can’t Pick All Number 1 Seeds

When it comes to Number 1 Seeds in the NCAA Tournament, evidence suggests that the public forces quotas on how many to pick to the Final Four.

When it comes to making picks in the NCAA Tournament, many bracket pool participants have a numbers problem. They get caught up in patterns and seed numbers rather than just picking the teams. That’s why one of the biggest complaints we receive before the tournament starts is taking too many No. 1 seeds deep into a tournament.

We know that if our recommendation to a subscriber suggests someone select all four No. 1 seeds to the Final, we have a decent chance of hearing about it. Do we make that recommendation every year? No, every year is different, and every group of top seeds is different. But in some years, the top four seeds are the best options.

In 2008, we recommended that subscribers take all four No. 1 seeds and suggested Kansas over Memphis in the final. We heard the protests. “But there have never been four No. 1 seeds reach the Final Four!” Well, it happened that year. Then, Kansas’ Mario Chalmers hit a big shot to send the game to overtime against Memphis. The Jayhawks eventually won, and our subscribers were thrilled.

In 2017, we again recommended all four No. 1 seeds to small and mid-sized pools. Two made it, but they were the two that we suggested to the Final: North Carolina over Gonzaga. About 90% of our subscribers reported winning at least one prize that year.

In this post, we will review some facts to dispel the myth that you should avoid picking too many No. 1 seeds to advance deep into the tournament.

Number 1 Seeds and Patterns

All four Number 1 seeds have advanced to the Final Four only once in the same season in 35 years since the tournament expanded to a 64 (or more) team field. So you could say it is a rare event. But everything is relative. Here’s something true of every seed combination you could put in a Final Four:

Every Final Four Seed Combination Is Rare

For example, if you just used 12 possibilities (the No. 1 through 12 seed in each region), that gives you over 20,000 potential combinations that you could pick as your Final Four field. If you got wacky and used 16 possible teams for each region, that’s over 65,000 combinations.

You could play an NCAA Tournament every year for the entirety of human recorded history and not hit well over half of the potential rare combinations.

Yet, many bracket contestants have issues with taking the 1-1-1-1 combination because it’s “boring” or “everyone is doing it,” in ways that they would not be bothered by picking 1-1-2-3 as the combination of Final Four teams.

These issues stem from assuming that the No. 1 seeds are always the most popular choices (which we address later) or that the other combinations are more likely than just picking the No. 1 seeds.

You Have to Pick the Specific Combination Order Correctly

Let’s do a thought experiment. After traveling back in a time machine, Marty McFly tells you that two No. 1 Seeds, a No. 2 Seed, and a No. 3 Seed will reach the Final Four. But he doesn’t give you the identity of the teams. Armed with that information, how should you pick the Final Four to maximize your expected number of correct picks? (For the sake of this hypothetical, let’s also assume we don’t have specific info on team strengths and ratings).

It’s not as easy as just going with a 1-1-2-3 combination. You must correct the order and sequence, pairing the seeds with the regions. There are 12 different combinations if you select two 1’s, a 2-seed, and a 3-seed to your Final Four:

• 1-1-2-3
• 1-1-3-2
• 1-2-1-3
• 1-2-3-1
• 1-3-1-2
• 1-3-2-1
• 2-1-1-3
• 2-1-3-1
• 2-3-1-1
• 3-1-1-2
• 3-1-2-1
• 3-2-1-1

You have a 1-in-12 chance of nailing the correct seed/region pairings and getting four right. But your chances are double that (2-in-12) of getting zero right. In four other cases, you get one right while getting exactly two correct in the five other scenarios.

Thus, picking all No. 1 seeds, even knowing that a 2 and 3 would also advance, would result in a higher average number of Final Four picks correct (two every time) than trying to match the pattern (1.5 picks correct on average). And that’s in a hypothetical where you know the exact seed numbers for the Final Four participants, something we do not know at the start of any tournament.

The Actual Data for Who Has Reached the Final Four

So, let’s go through how frequently each seed number has reached the Final Four from each quadrant. (Remember that whole “you have to pick the right sequence” thing).

To do this, we looked at the Committee’s ranking of No. 1 seeds since 2005, when they began setting a top overall seed. From 1985 to 2004, we used the highest-ranked No. 1 seed in the AP Poll and assigned each quadrant by order of how the AP poll ranked top-seeded teams in the final release before the tournament.

So, quadrant 1 represents the region where the top overall No. 1 seed was positioned, and quadrant 4 represents the final No. 1 seed by either Committee Rank (since 2005) or AP Poll Rank (before 2005). That gives us 38 seasons of data.

Seed	Quadrant 1	Quadrant 2	Quadrant 3	Quadrant 4	Overall
1	19	17	17	9	62
2	7	9	5	11	32
3	3	6	2	6	17
4	5	2	4	5	16
5	3	1	3	1	8
6	0	0	2	1	3
7	1	1	0	1	3
8	0	1	3	2	6
9	0	0	0	2	2
10	0	0	1	0	1
11	1	2	2	1	6

• The Number 1 Seeds comprise nearly half of the Final Four teams (45.3%) from the first three Quadrants.
• The Number 1 Seeds have reached the Final Four more than twice as often as the Number 2 Seeds from those first three Quadrants. More Number 1 Seeds (53) have reached the Final Four from those three quadrants than the teams seeded No. 2 to No. 6 combined (52).
• Since 1985, the 2 Seed has made the Final Four more frequently than the Number 1 Seed out of Quadrant 4. However, much of that was in the first decade, when six of them made it.
• Since 1995, the Number 1 Seed has also been the most frequent seed to reach the Final Four out of Quadrant 4.
• Number 1 Seeds have reached the Final Four about twice as frequently as 2 Seeds.
• Number 1 Seeds (62 times) have reached the Final Four as often as teams seeded 3 to 11 combined (62 times).

History has shown that Number 1 Seeds are by far the most likely to reach the Final Four, even compared to No. 2 Seeds, and picking a team other than Number 1 to advance carries a decent amount of increased risk.

Public Pick Rates and Number 1 Seeds

One of the considerations for our bracket picks is value. Usually (not always), the No. 1 seeds are the best teams (i.e., least risky) in the tournament, which is something you want for your picks. But they can also be among the most popular choices, which can be a negative when making choices that give you an edge over your opponents.

But let’s look at the data on pick popularity by seed number. This chart is based on data from 2010 to 2024 and shows the average number of teams at each seed level picked to win in each round.

Seed Number Of Team	1st Round	2nd Round	Sweet 16	Elite Eight	Final Four	Champ Game	Overall Wins	Wins Per Team
1 Seeds	3.91	3.55	2.76	1.83	1.08	0.60	13.73	3.43
2 Seeds	3.87	3.26	2.12	0.96	0.45	0.20	10.85	2.71
3 Seeds	3.71	2.70	1.23	0.46	0.19	0.08	8.35	2.09
4 Seeds	3.52	2.25	0.65	0.32	0.14	0.07	6.95	1.74
5 Seeds	3.01	1.33	0.33	0.13	0.05	0.02	4.87	1.22
6 Seeds	2.77	0.90	0.28	0.07	0.02	0.01	4.06	1.01
7 Seeds	2.31	0.44	0.18	0.05	0.02	0.01	3.01	0.75
8 Seeds	2.08	0.24	0.09	0.03	0.01	0.01	2.47	0.62
9 Seeds	1.92	0.18	0.08	0.03	0.01	0.01	2.23	0.56
10 Seeds	1.68	0.24	0.08	0.02	0.01	0.00	2.03	0.51
11 Seeds	1.21	0.30	0.07	0.02	0.01	0.00	1.62	0.41
12 Seeds	0.99	0.27	0.04	0.01	0.00	0.00	1.31	0.32
13 Seeds	0.47	0.14	0.02	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.64	0.16
14 Seeds	0.29	0.10	0.02	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.42	0.11
15 Seeds	0.13	0.05	0.03	0.01	0.00	0.00	0.22	0.06
16 Seeds	0.08	0.03	0.02	0.02	0.01	0.00	0.16	0.04

Here’s a quick explanation of some of that information, using the first row as an example.

• The average public entry has picked 3.91 No. 1 Seeds to advance out of the First Round.
• In the Elite Eight, the public averages picking 1.83 No. 1 Seeds to advance to the Final Four.
• For the overall tournament, the average bracket picks the No. 1 Seeds to win 13.73 games cumulatively.
• Since there are four No. 1 Seeds each year, the average No. 1 Seed was picked to win 3.43 games from 2010 to 2024.

So it’s true that the No. 1 seeds are the most popular choices collectively, being selected to win more games in every round than any other seed line. Remember, these are averages and don’t necessarily apply to every year and every No. 1 Seed.

Now, let’s give some context to that information and the value propositions by comparing them to historical results.

The Public Overvalues No. 2 Seeds

The chart above shows the average pick rate by seed for the last decade. Let’s compare those public picking rates to the actual win results for all seeds over three periods:

• Since 2011, when the tournament expanded to 68 teams
• Since 2001
• All tournaments since 1985, when the NCAA Tournament went to 16 seeds in each region

Seed Number Of Team	Average Public Rate	Avg. Wins (Since 2011)	Avg. Wins (Since 2001)	Avg. Wins (Since '85)
1 Seeds	3.43	3.06	3.26	3.30
2 Seeds	2.71	2.12	2.26	2.32
3 Seeds	2.09	1.85	1.97	1.84
4 Seeds	1.74	1.75	1.52	1.55
5 Seeds	1.22	1.10	1.16	1.16
6 Seeds	1.01	0.70	0.83	1.05
7 Seeds	0.75	1.02	0.96	0.89
8 Seeds	0.62	0.81	0.70	0.71
9 Seeds	0.56	0.69	0.64	0.62
10 Seeds	0.51	0.50	0.56	0.60
11 Seeds	0.41	1.02	0.81	0.67
12 Seeds	0.32	0.48	0.56	0.51
13 Seeds	0.16	0.25	0.27	0.25
14 Seeds	0.11	0.13	0.11	0.16
15 Seeds	0.06	0.23	0.14	0.11
16 Seeds	0.04	0.04	0.02	0.02

So, let’s talk about what that data shows. You would expect the better teams in the NCAA tournament to be picked more frequently by the public, and that’s the case here.

There’s logic to this because value alone will not win you a bracket pool. You must nail the teams that advance deep into the tournament and win titles in most scoring formats.

But you would also think, if there were no other biases at play, that the Number 1 Seeds would be the most overvalued group looking at popularity versus performance since they are the group of teams most likely to advance. In other sports picking contests, like NFL Pick ’em and Survivor, the teams with the highest odds of success are often extremely popular.

However, the data shows that the No. 2 Seeds are more overvalued. For example, the No. 1 Seeds have averaged 3.06 wins since 2011. Over that same span, the public pick rates had Number 1 Seeds winning 3.43 games on average, about 0.37 more than the actual win rate.

Meanwhile, Number 2 Seeds (2.12 average wins since 2011 versus 2.71 expected wins based on public pick popularity) show the most significant drop-off between the public’s expectations and actual results (about 0.6 wins).

Why Does This Happen?

This is a theory because we don’t have access to each bracket from the public to analyze, only overall pick rates. But we guess the public buys into a myth that they must avoid selecting too many Number 1 Seeds to the Final Four.

And who are the most likely replacements when you force a quota? The Number 2 Seeds, who end up being over-selected relative to their expectations.

The average public Final Four picks (based on that public data cited earlier) feature:

• 1.8 – 1 Seeds
• 1.0 – 2 Seeds
• 0.8 – 3 or 4 Seeds
• 0.4 – 5 Seeds or worse

To round that even further, the typical bracket will have two No. 1 Seeds, a No. 2 Seed, and a No. 3 or No. 4 Seed, with some percentage of brackets getting even wilder than that.

Championship Games and Public Quotas

We see evidence of a similar artificial quota enforced in championship game picks. The public averages picking 1.08 of the No. 1 Seeds to the Final—barely over one per bracket. That suggests it is rare for most brackets to actually have two No. 1 Seeds matched up in the Title Game—even though that’s the single most likely outcome!

There are eight possible combinations matching up two No. 1 Seeds in the title game and drawing a winner from those matchups. Based on our pick data for each No. 1 Seed, you would expect the public to have picked each specific 1 vs. 1 matchup in 3.6% of brackets on average.

Unless you pick the overall most popular championship pick to go against the most popular choice from the other side, there’s a decent chance in small pools that no one will have your specific final game combination. And that’s true even if you have two No. 1 Seeds in the final!

In 2017, we had North Carolina over Gonzaga in most of our recommendations, and neither was the single most popular choice (that was Villanova). Gonzaga was selected at a lower rate in the title game than three teams that were not No. 1 Seeds. By doing the “obvious” thing of taking two No. 1 Seeds in many brackets, 90% of our subscribers reported winning a prize that year when that’s what resulted.

In 2024, we had Connecticut over Purdue in most of our recommendations. Connecticut was the most popular champion pick (about 30% of all brackets had them as the winner). Yet, we estimated that based on public pick info, less than 4% of all brackets had a Connecticut over Purdue final. That combo helped over half of all subscribers place in the money in a bracket pool, even with Connecticut’s popularity.

The evidence shows that the public may sometimes avoid picking too many No. 1 Seeds, creating value on the ones they spurn.

Pick Teams, Not Seed Numbers

We’ve shown you some historical trends and demonstrated that the No. 1 Seeds outperform other teams and are the safest category to pick for the Final Four. But we don’t make pick recommendations based on these historical seed trends. Some “hot trends” from seed-based results often lead to poor predictive advice.

Teams are not defined by their seeds, and it’s important to make picks based on actual team quality. Before adapting a strategy to your scoring system, pool size, or public pick rates, the initial goal should be to pick the most likely outcomes. Then, you can deviate from that based on those other considerations, taking on more risk if the point system dictates it, if the pool size requires greater risk-taking, or if great values present themselves.

Often, there is a high correlation between No. 1 Seeds and the best teams in college basketball. Sometimes, a team will get seeded as a No. 1 Seed based on close results or key outcomes, but it will not predictably look like one of the best. Other times, one of the best teams may lose a few key results and be seeded lower.

When No. 1 Seeds have also been in our Top Four in our predictive power ratings after Selection Sunday, they have averaged 3.5 wins in the tournament since 2010. Nine of them won national titles in the last 14 tournaments. The 17 No. 1 Seeds we did not have rated that highly over the last decade averaged only 2.2 wins in the tournament, and only two reached the Final Four. So when we recommend teams, they aren’t blindly done on seeding.

What should be clear, though, is that forcing predictions to fit quotas or pre-set notions is buying into a myth. If you intentionally avoid selecting three or four No. 1 Seeds in a small pool, you may be making choices that hurt your chances of winning the pool.

Why should you be okay with picking a team if they happen to lose in their conference tourney and drop to a No. 2 Seed but be troubled to choose the same team if they win their conference tournament and are the No. 1 Seed in that region instead, just because you were already picking the No. 1 Seeds in two other regions?

We want our opponents to think that way because it creates more value opportunities for us. But we want our readers to understand that buying into that mentality is not the best way to win.