Dr. Green and White Helps You Fill Out Your Bracket (2026 Edition)

In my opinion, the middle of March is the absolute best time of the year. Over the past two weeks we have witnessed the exciting conclusion of several regular season conference races, followed by 31 conference tournaments. This past weekend, the full 68-team NCAA Tournament bracket was released. Sports fanatics are on the brink of Madness.

Who will play the role of Cinderella in the story of the 2026 tournament? Will any survive to reach the second weekend? Which four teams will advance to Indianapolis on that first weekend in April? Which lucky team will end up cutting down the nets? 

Over the years I have developed a set of analytics and computational tools to gain a better understanding of the mathematical underpinning of the NCAA Basketball Tournament. My methodology has a solid track record of correctly identifying upsets and sometimes doing more than that. In 2023, I used data to correctly predict that No. 4 seed UConn would win the National Title.

There is no foolproof way to dominate your office pool. My method reveals that the dice are loaded (and by how much) but it is still often a roll of the dice. That said, my method does provide some helpful hints as to the more likely March Madness scenarios. While we wait for the Madness to begin on Thursday at noon, "Dr. Green and White" is here to help you fill out your 2026 bracket. 

Before we did into the current bracket in detail, let's start with an overview of my methods and general trends to expect this year

Methodology Overview

The foundation of my methodology is an observation that I made several years ago that boils down to this:

When it comes to NCAA Tournament upsets, the behavior is exactly the same as in regular season games. The odds are largely predictable based on Vegas points spreads and by tools that can predict point spreads, such as Kenpom efficiency margin data.

All of my analysis of college basketball odds is based on this same premise. Kenpom efficiency data can be used to assign probabilities to any arbitrary basketball match-up. Knowing this, the full season and any tournament can be mathematically modeled and its odds can be calculated.

My favorite plot to highlight this fact is shown below.

Figure 1: Correlation between NCAA Tournament upsets and the odds predicted using Kenpom efficiency data.

This figure compares the winning percentage for the higher seeds in the NCAA Tournament to the odds expected based on the average point spread of games with that seed combination. The figure shows that data for all seed combinations that have occurred at least 40 times.

Figure 1 tells us why No. 16 seeds have won two times over the past 40 tournaments (1.2% of the time). It is because on average No. 16 seeds are 22.5-point underdogs and 22.5-point underdogs win straight up 1.4% of the time whether the game in played in March or in November.

There are a few notable deviations from this correlation. For example, No. 10 seeds have surprisingly good luck against No. 2 seeds and No. 9 and No. 5 seeds do not upset No. 1 seeds in the second round or in the Sweet 16 as often as expected. As Figure 1 shows, the overall correlation is very strong.

The Vegas points spreads and the point differentials predicted by Kenpom efficiency margins also correlate very strongly. Figure 2 below shows how strong this correlation is for the first-round games in the 2026 NCAA Tournament.

Figure 2: Correlation between the Vegas lines and the point differentials predicted using Kenpom efficiency margins for the 2026 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament.

Figure 2 gives us confidence that Kenpom efficiencies can be used to model the results of the NCAA Tournament.

2026 Bracket Overview

Sometimes we can get a sense of how "mad" the NCAA Tournament will be based on the results of the conference tournaments. Of the 31 total conference tournaments, 14 were won by the No. 1 seed (45%), 10 were won by the No. 2 or No. 3 seed (32%), and only seven were won by a No. 4 seed or lower. 

This distribution is more varied than the result of the 2025 conference tournaments, where the top seeds dominated. This abundance of chalk in 2024 translated into the most upset-free NCAA Tournament in the 46 years since seeding was introduced. Does this suggest that there will be a bit more chaos once the Big Dance gets underway?

I attempted to explore this question by simulating the results of the 2026 tournament 5,000 times and counting the number of upsets that occurred in each round. I then compared these values to the simulation and actual result from last year's tournaments as well to the results of the past 23 actual tournaments. The results are shown below in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Number of projected upsets per round of the 2026 NCAA Tournament based on a Monte Carlo Simulation and compared to the historical value and the simulation and actual result from the 2025 Tournament.

Based on the results of this simulation, the 2026 NCAA Tournaments could be almost as calm and quiet as last year's tournament. Overall, the simulation forecasts a total of just 14.7 plus-or-minus 3.0 upsets for the entire tournament. This is a little less than three fewer than the historical average of 17.4 upsets.

The historical average number of first round upsets is 8.6 (of 32 games) but the 2026 simulation result predicts two-and-a-half fewer at 6.0. This value is a full game lower than the 7.0 number projected last year at this time, which wound up being exactly correct.

The predicted number of second round upsets (4.4) is right at the historical average, but the simulation suggests that there will be slightly fewer upsets in the Sweet 16 and Regional Final rounds as well.

For the first two rounds, it makes sense that fewer upsets on Thursday and Friday can translate into more upsets on the weekend. This is a manifestation of what I like to call the law of conservation of upsets. 

A small number of first round upsets means that more higher-quality teams survive to play in the second round. While everybody love a Cinderella story, underdogs are underdogs for a reason. They often lack the ability to win two games in a row, which results in a slightly easier path to the second weekend for the surviving higher-seeded opponents.

When filling out your bracket this year, it is best to take slightly fewer upsets than usual. Resisting the temptation to make that No. 13 seed upset pick might be the right call this year.

I am also able to use the results of my simulation to project the distribution of seeds that will advance to the final weekend. Most "experts" will frequently select three or even all four No. 1 seeds to make the Final Four. 

While that is exactly what happened last year, it was only the second time since seeding began in 1979 that this happened. Lightning is unlikely to strike twice in two years.

Figure 4 shows distribution that I obtained in my simulation of the 2026 tournament. This distribution is similar with past simulations and the actual distribution of Final Four seeds over the years.

Figure 4: Projected distribution of seeds in the 2026 Final Four based on the results of a 5,000 full tournament simulations.

Simulation and history shows that a "typical" Final Four is made up of a No. 1 seed, a No. 1 or a No. 2 seed, a No. 2 or No. 3 seed, and one lower seed. More than two No. 1 seeds have made it to the Final Four only six times since seeding began in 1979.

That said, compared to past simulations and history, the 2026 Final Four is likely to have slight more higher-seeded teams than usual. This is consistent with the idea that the 2026 Tournament will have a lower than usual number of upsets overall.

It is very likely (94% odds) that at least one of the No. 1 seeds will advance to the final weekend. The odds are 69% that at least two of the No. 1 seeds make it and they are only 29% that three No. 1 seeds make the Final Four. The historical values for these outcomes are 93% (for at least one No. 1 seed), 53% (for two No. 1 seeds), and 12% (for three No. 1 seeds).

The mostly likely scenario is that at least two No. 1 seeds will makes the Four Four. The third highest seed in the final weekend is most likely either another No. 1 seed, a No. 2 seed, or a No. 3 seed. The is just a 6% chance that all four No. 1 seeds advance to Indianapolis.

There is a lot more variability in the lowest seed projected to advance to the Final Four. The simulation suggests there is about a 55% chance that is will be a No. 2, No. 3, or No. 4 seed with the No. 3 seed being the most likely of that trio (24% odds). 

There is also a 31% chance that is will be either a No. 6, No. 7 or No. 8 seed. Curiously, the odds for a No. 5 seed (16.5%) are strangely high compared to the other, similar seeds.

With this background knowledge now in place, the next step is to dig into the brackets, look for upsets, and make some predictions. That will be the subject of part two of this analysis. Stay tuned.

Part 2: Breaking Down the Brackets

Yesterday I introduced my methodology of how I use Kenpom efficiency margins to understand why NCAA Tournament upsets happen at the frequency that they do. I used the data for the 2026 Tournament bracket to predict that we are likely to see a lower number of upsets, especially in the first two days. I also made some predictions about the make-up of the Final Four.

In the second and final part of this series, it is time to dig into the four regions in detail. Which teams will advance to Indianapolis? Which upsets will create buzz in the first two rounds, and how far will the Michigan State Spartans advance? Let's jump in.

East Region

Table 1 below summarizes all of the relevant data for the East Region of the 2026 NCAA Tournament.

Table 1: 2026 NCAA Tournament East Region odds and data summary.

This table gives a lot of information that we will use to make our picks. The left side of the table shows the pre-tournament Kenpom adjusted efficiency margin for each team. The shaded cells on the left side of the table provide a comparison of each team's efficiency relative to the historical average of teams of that seed. 

This provides a simple way to look at the relative strength or weakness of each team and the bracket as a whole. If the cell is shaded green, it means that the team is stronger than a historically average team of that seed. If it is shaded red, the team is historically weaker.

The middle of the table shows the odds for each team to advance through each round of the tournament. The teams are sorted not by seed, but by the odds for each team to advance to the Final Four. The red or green shaded cells on the far right are the relative odds for each team to advance compared to historical averages for that seed.

Finally, there is a column labeled "SoD" which stands for "strength of draw."  This calculation starts with the odds for a historically average No. 1 seed to advance to the Final Four from any of the 16 positions on this year's bracket. I then compare those odds to the odds that the same historically average No. 1 seed would have to reach the Final Four in a historically average NCAA Tournament bracket.

The first thing that jumps out is the shear amount of green in the "Relative Kenpom Efficiency" column on the left side of the table. The top nine seeds in the East are all above average relative to past teams of the same seed. 

In many cases, the top seeded teams are significantly above average. Six total teams in the East Region are more than 3.00 points of Kenpom efficiency margin higher than average. For comparison, there were only six teams in the entire 2024 Tournament that were more than 3.00 points above average.

All the teams in the East are good this year, and the same trend is present in the other three regions as well. This is the main explanation for why simulation is projecting fewer upsets that normal, especially in the first round. There is a bigger gap that usual between the top 10 or 11 seeds in each region compared to the bottom five or six teams.

Perhaps the most useful part of Table 1 is the section on the far right side. This shows the relative odds for each team to advance through the tournament. The variation in green and red cells give an indication of where certain teams might get tripped up.

For example, Michigan State's path appears "green" through the Elite Eight round and it turns red only in odd to make the Final Four. This is in part because on paper, Michigan State is a stronger than usual No. 3 seed (+5.89 in efficiency margin). In addition, No. 2 UConn, while strong (+2.68) is not overpowered as the Spartans appear to be.

However, No. 1 Duke has the highest Kenpom efficiency margin in the country. On balance, the Spartans' odds to reach the Final Four (11.5%) are almost exactly average for a No. 3 seed.

Other notable team paths in the East Region include that of No. 4 Kansas, which turns red at the Sweet 16. This is because No. 5 Saint. Johns projects to be a slight favorite over Kansas if the two teams were to meet in the second round.

No. 7 UCLA also has a path that is green until to Final Four. This suggests that the Bruins (if they are fully healthy) have a better than expected chance to reach the Regional Final. This analysis provides a preview of the potential upsets that could occur in each region.

Overall, No. 1 Duke has the best odds to advance to the Final Four out of the South at 58%, which is 21-percentag points above average for a No. 1 seed. No. 2 UConn has the second best odds at 12%, followed very closely by No. 3 Michigan State (11.5%).

No. 5 Saint John's (5.5%), No. 6 Louisville (4.5%), and No. 4 Kansas (4.4%) are all longshots but a Final Four run would not be shocking from any of those schools. Of those schools, only Louisville has better Final Four odds than an average team of its seed.

Based on this observation, Michigan State and Louisville stand out as potential dark horse Final Four teams in the East Region.

The Spartans have a 93.9% chance to avoid the dreaded upset by No. 14 North Dakota State. They then have a 60% chance to advance to the Sweet 16 in Washington D.C. Michigan State has a 34% chance to reach the Regional Final and (as mentioned above) an 11.5% chance to make the Final Four. There is a 4.7% chance to reach the Championship Game and a 1.6% chance (about 1-in-60) to win it all, which is the tenth-best odds of any team in the field.

Due the overall strength of the field, every single team in the 2026 Tournament has a negative "strength of draw" rating. The least negative value in the full bracket is -7.7% for No. 12 High Point. Michigan State's draw is rated at -11.7%. This might seem bad, but in this tournament, everything is relative. The Spartans have the second best draws of the four No. 3 seeds, behind only Illinois (-10.2%).

Finally, my analysis suggests the the East Region is the easiest of the four regions in the 2026 Tournament. A historically average No. 1 seed would have a 4.9% chance to win the region.

West Region

Table 2 below summarizes all of the relevant data for the West Region. My analysis suggests that an average No. 1 seed would have a 6.5% chance to advance to the Final Four in the West, making it the second easiest region in 2026.

Table 2: 2026 NCAA Tournament West Region odds and data summary.

The storyline and analysis in this region is similar to the East. The top nine teams in the region are all above average, as are both No. 11 seeds. 

The general "stair step" shape of the section on the far right of the tables suggests that the West Region is likely to "go chalk" where the top seeds generally advance. The only real anomalies are that No. 6 BYU looks ripe for a first round upset and No. 9 Utah State has a good shot to beat No. 8 Villanova.

No. 1 Arizona has the best odds to reach the Final Four (53%) followed by No. 2 Purdue (21%), No. 3 Gonzaga (11%), and No. 4 Arkansas (6.5%). If I had to pick a potential dark-horse-Final-Four team from the West, I would go with Arkansas, based mostly on vibes.

Midwest Region

Table 3 below summarizes all of the relevant data for the Midwest Region. My analysis suggests that an average No. 1 seed would have a 4.1% chance to advance to the Final Four in the Midwest, making it the most challenging region in 2026.

Table 3: 2026 NCAA Tournament Midwest Region odds and data summary.

Once again, the top 11 seeds are all above average. No. 1 Michigan is the favorite to win the region with odds of 52%. No. 2 Iowa State (24%), No. 3 Virginia (7%), and No. 4 Alabama (5%) round out the top four. Also note the No. 6 Tennessee (4.6%) has slightly better Final Four odds than No. 5 Texas Tech.

The paths of No. 3 Virginia and No. 4 Alabama both turn red at the Elite Eight round, mostly due to the strength of those teams' most likely Sweet 16 opponents: Iowa State and Michigan.

The Wolverine's also own the second toughest draw (-13.4%) of the No. 1 seeds, with only Florida (-16.8%) in a tougher position. This is largely due to the presence of second strongest No. 2-seed, Iowa State, at the bottom of the bracket.

The team that stick out of a possible dark horse Final Four team in No. 6 Tennessee, which is the only school other than Michigan and Iowa State to have a green path in Table 3 all the way to the Final Four.

Note that a No. 6 seed has not made a Final Four since Michigan did it back in 1992 (33 years ago). My analysis suggest that there should have been three to five No. 6 seeds in the Final Four over that timespan. Maybe this is the year the data starts to regress back to the mean.

South Region

Table 4 below summarizes all of the relevant data for the South Region. My analysis suggests that an average No. 1 seed would have a 4.3% chance to advance to the Final Four in the South, making it the second most difficult region in 2026 behind only the Midwest.

Table 4: 2026 NCAA Tournament South Region odds and data summary.

Just like the other three regions, the top 11 seeds in the South are all stronger than their historical counterparts.

The top three seeds have the best odds to advance to the Final Four, led by No. 1 Florida (31%), No. 2 Houston (26.5%), and No. 3 Illinois (23%). Note that No. 5 Vanderbilt (7.4%) has Final Four odds that are slightly better than those of No. 4 Nebraska (6.6%).

Florida is clearly the weakest of the No. 1 seeds and as a result, several other teams in the South have better than expected odds to win the region. Just based on math (and not on dubious history), No. 3 Illinois has excellent Final Four odds for a team of its seed. Houston and Vanderbilt are also legitimate contenders.

The other team in the South Region with a surprising green path in Table 4 is No. 9 Iowa. The Hawkeyes are actually ranked higher in Kenpom than fellow South Region resident No. 6 North Carolina. If you are looking for a real longshot Final Four surprise team, consider the Hawkeyes.

First Round Upset Analysis

Tables 1-4 provide a great snapshot of each region, but in any tournament it is the individual matchups that ultimately matter. Which upsets are the most likely? Figure 1 and 2 below helps to answer that question.

Figure 1: Odds for the higher seeded teams to win for each seed pairing, relative to the historical odds (shown in blue) for first round games involving seeds No. 1 to No. 4.

In my opinion, the data in Figure 1 and ones like below it are the most useful when filling out my bracket. The blue line in both panels shows the historical odds for the higher-seeded team to win each matchup. The labeled data points show the actual odds, based on Kenpom efficiency data (which accurately mirrors the Vegas spread). 

If a data point falls below the line, an upset is more likely than average. If a data point is above the line, an upset is less likely than average. The farther a data point is from the line, the more likely or unlikely the upset. 

One of the key results from the first part of this series is that a lower than normal number of upset in the first round. The results of as simulation gave an average of six, which is a good target when filling out a bracket this year.

Figure 1 suggests that the top four seeds in each region are all likely safe. None of the 16 contests fall below the blue line, meaning that they all have lower than usual odds for an upset. If fact, none of the data points are even close to the blue line. No. 3 seeds have the same odds of being upset as a No. 2 seed, historically.

That said, there is still just under a 50% chance that at least one of the top four seeds will get taken down by Cinderella

Based on this data, if one were bold enough to make an upset pick on one of the top four lines, there are two games that stick out:

-No. 13 Hofstra over No. 4 Alabama (-13.5)

-No. 13 Cal Baptist over No. 4 Kansas (-14.5)

But both potential upsets have odds below 15%.

Figure 2 below provides a similar analysis for the first round games involving seeds No. 5 to No. 8.

Figure 2: Odds for the higher seeded teams to win for each seed pairing, relative to the historical odds (shown in blue) for first round games involving seeds No. 5 to No. 8.

This figure provides more clear guidance as to the upsets in each seed paring that are more or less likely. Four potential seed upsets jump out from the Figure as data points appearing below the blue line:

-No. 9 Iowa over No. 8 Clemson (+2.5)

-No. 9 Utah State over No. 8 Villanova (+2.5)

-No. 11 VCU over No. 6 North Carolina (-2.5)

-No. 11 Texas over No. 6 BYU (-2.5, estimated)

There are two other potential upsets at a slightly lower confidence level that also stand out

-No. 10 Santa Clara over No. 7 Kentucky (-4.5) 

-No. 9 St. Louis over No. 8 Georgia (-2.5)

Note that all of the No. 5 seeds appear relatively safe this year. Of this group of four games, No. 12 Akron over No. 5 Texas Tech is the most promising. Overall my analysis shows that there is a 47% chance that all four No. 5 seeds win in the first round.

I recommend taking around six total upsets in the first round, based on the simulation discussed in part one of this series. The list above contains exactly six promising upsets. 

That said, I am expecting more than a few surprises in the first round this year. Last year, McNeese State graded out as the least likely No. 12 seed to score an upset over a No. 5 seed using my method.

Clemson found out that their strong odds provided no protection from the upset bug.

Second Round Analysis

Moving onto the second round, Figure 3 shows a similar analysis which for consistency assumes that the favorites all win in the first round.

Figure 3: Odds for the higher seeded teams to win for each seed pairing, relative to the historical odds (shown in blue) for second round games assuming the higher seeds advance.

As mentioned in Part One of this series this year's second round is the round where the number of upsets are expected to be the most normal. A total of six upsets appear below the blue line in Figure 3:

-No. 7 UCLA over No. 2 UConn

-No. 6 Tennessee over No. 3 Virginia

-No. 5 Vanderbilt over No. 4 Nebraska

-No. 5 St. John's over No. 5 Kansas

-No. 5 Texas Tech over No. 4 Alabama

-No. 6 Louisville over No. 3 Michigan State

I should also note that both No. 3 Gonzaga and No. 4 Arkansas are very close to the blue line. Also, if we make the assumption that No. 9 Iowa wins in the first round, the Hawkeyes would also be the most likely team to upset a No. 1 seed (Florida) in the round of 32.

My simulation suggests that four or five second round upsets are most likely. Both Texas Tech and Louisville seem to be dealing with an injury issue, which makes those two upset picks less likely in reality. 

I am very comfortable with the upset picks of UCLA, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and St. Johns and I would be tempted to take a flyer on No. 9 Iowa over No. 1 Florida just to help balance the scales of last year's strangely quiet tournament.

Sweet 16 and Beyond

If I make assumptions above, I project that the tournament would play out as follows from the Sweet 16, using a combination of math and intuition. As a guide. Figure 4 below shows the analysis of the possible Sweet 16 and Regional Finals match-ups, assuming the higher seeds all advance.

Figure 4: Odds for the higher seeded teams to win for each seed pairing, relative to the historical odds (shown in blue) for the third and fourth round games assuming the higher seeds advance.

If I apply the upsets mentioned above, I would get the following matchups in the Sweet 16:

No. 1 Duke vs. No. 5 St. John's

No. 2 Michigan State vs. No. 7 UCLA

No. 5 Vanderbilt vs. No. 9 Iowa

No. 2 Houston vs. No. 3 Illinois

No. 1 Arizona vs. No. 4 Arkansas

No. 2 Purdue vs. No. 3 Gonzaga

No. 1 Michigan vs. No. 4 Alabama 

No. 2 Iowa State vs. No. 6 Tennessee

The 2025 Tournament had a relatively small number of upsets in the first two rounds (11), but there were no upsets at all after the first two rounds. This was the only time in history that fewer than two upsets occurred past the round of 32. 

It is extremely unlikely for this to happen again. My simulation of the 2026 Tournament suggests that the odds of a repeat of this anomaly are just under 1%. In 2026, I expect the behavior of the tournament to return to normal and for there to be two to three upsets in the Sweet 16 Round and one or two upsets in the Elite Eight round.

In looking at the first two columns in Figure 4, there are two matchups that fall under the blue line. I am already taking UCLA over UConn, but if I didn't, I would pick MSU to upset the Huskies in the Sweet 16. 

But my analysis also suggests the No. 3 Illinois has a good shot to beat No. 2 Houston so that is one of my picks.

For the second pick, there is no obvious choice other than possibly No. 3 Gonzaga over No. 2 Purdue or No. 7 UCLA over No. 3 Michigan State. I am going to call an audible and take No. 5 St. John's over No. 1 Duke. I am betting that the Blue Devils' injuries finally catch up to them.

This results in a Regional Final slate of

No. 2 Michigan State vs. No. 5 St. John's

No. 5 Vanderbilt vs. No. 3 Illinois

No. 1 Arizona vs. No. 2 Purdue 

No. 1 Michigan vs. No. 2 Iowa State

For the No. 1 versus No. 2 matchups, I will take the mostly like underdog in the pair: Iowa State over Michigan. I will also take Saint John's over Michigan State. 

This leaves me with a Final Four of No. 1 Arizona, No. 2 Iowa State, No. 3 Illinois, and No. 4 Saint John's. This is a historically reasonable distribution of seeds, although the odds of just one No. 1 seed advancing to Indianapolis is just over 30% this year.

Once we reach the Final Four, the higher seeded and favored teams tend to win, so I will project Arizona to once again defeat conference foe Iowa State and for Illinois to beat St. John's. 

On Championship Monday, my data suggests that Arizona will be crowned the National Champions. 

Overall, I am suggesting a total of 15 upsets over the full Tournament. This is lower than the historical average of 17.7, but it is in alignment with the results of my simulation which forecasts 14.7 total upsets.

As for the Spartans, I believe that the draw is very manageable. UConn is the weakest No. 2 seed and version of Duke without Caleb Foster and possibly without Patrick Ngongba is very beatable. I do not expect either team to advance to the Final Four.

But while I believe that MSU has the capability to rise up and make Final Four run, I simply do not think that they have consistent enough guard play to win four games in a row against this Tournament field. 

By my estimation, Michigan State is one quality perimeter defender/shooter short of being a legitimate National Title contender. The Elite Eight feels like the natural ceiling of this team. 

If MSU cannot muster the same level of intensity and execution that was displayed in the wins versus Illinois, at Purdue, and at Indiana, the Spartans are certainly capable of losing to teams like UCLA, Louisville, or even North Dakota State.

That doesn't mean that Spartans cannot rise up and play like the "A/A-" versions of themselves for the next three weeks, especially with Tom Izzo still on the bench. That is certainly possible. It is also possible that the bracket could collapse around them, clearing an even more manageable path to the Final Four or beyond.

It is possible, but by my estimation, the odds are not in their favor.

That is all the advice that I have to give. Enjoy the Madness.