Dr. Green and White Helps You Fill Out Your Bracket (2025 Edition)

For my money, we are all of the cusp of the best three weeks of the entire year. We just wrapped up two weeks of conference tournaments, but those were just an appetizer to the main course that is yet to come. 

The powers that be gave us the menu on Sunday evening for the feast that is to come. Now it is time to enjoy a brief break and palette cleaner before we all make our selections. But what shall we choose? Which tasty little upset looks the best in the first round? Which teams are most likely to be sweet in the second weekend? Which quartet will comprise the final course?

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 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 one still has to roll them. But my method does provide some helpful hints as to the more likely March Madness scenarios. While we wait for the feast to begin on Thursday at noon, "Dr. Green and White" is here to help you fill out your 2025 bracket. 

Before we did into the current bracket in detail, let's start with an overview of my methods and general trends to expect in 2025.

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 39 tournaments (1.3% 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 2025 NCAA Tournament.

Figure 2: Correlation between the Vegas lines and the point differentials predicted using Kenpom efficiency margins for the 2025 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament.

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

2025 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, 17 were won by the No. 1 seed (55%), 11 were won by the No. 2 or No. 3 seed (35%), and only three were won by a No. 4 seed or lower. The favorites did much better in conference tournaments than the trend in 2024.

Will this translate into a calmer March Madness, or does this mean that Cinderella is bit stronger this year?

I attempted to explore this question by simulating the results of the 2025 tournament 5,000 times and counting the number of upsets that occurred in each round. I then compared these values to simulations of previous tournaments and to the results of the past 22 actual tournaments. The results are shown below in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Number of projected upsets per round of the 2025 NCAA Tournament based on a Monte Carlo Simulation and compared to the historical value and the average of the series of historical simulations.

Based on the results of this simulation, the 2025 NCAA Tournaments could be one of the calmest and most "well-behaved" Tournaments in recent memory, especially in the first round.

The historical average number of first round upsets is 8.6 (of 32 games) but the 2025 simulation result predicts a game-and-a-half fewer at 7.1. The predicted number of second round upsets (4.6) is right at the historical average, but the simulation suggests that there will be 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.

Overall, the simulation predicts a total of 15.9 plus-or-minus 3.2 upsets for the full tournament. This value is close to a full standard deviation lower than the historical value of 18.1 plus-or-minus 3.1 upsets. 

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. That rarely happens in reality.

Figure 4 shows distribution that I obtained in my simulation of the 2025 tournament. This distribution is consistent with past simulations and the actual distribution of Final Four seeds over the years.

Figure 4: Projected distribution of seeds in the 2025 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 five times since seeding began in 1979.

That said, compared to past simulations and history, the 2025 Final Four is likely to have slight more higher-seeded teams than usual. This is consistent with the idea that the 2025 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 68% that at least two of the No. 1 seeds make it and they are 31% that three No. 1 seeds make the Final Four. The historical values for these outcomes are 93% (for 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 or a No. 2 seed. 

There is a lot more variability in the lowest seed projected to advance to the Final Four. The simulation suggests there is about a 50% chance that is will be a No. 2, No. 3, or No. 4 seed. There is also a 30% chance that is will be either a No. 6, No. 7 or No. 8 seed. Curiously, the odds for a No. 5 seed (6%) and a No. 9 seed (2.5%) are strangely low 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 data to understand why NCAA Tournament upsets happen at the frequency that they do. I used the data for the 2025 Tournament bracket to predict that we are likely to see fewer upsets in the first two round especially. 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 San Antonio? Which big upsets will create buzz in the first two rounds, and how far will the Michigan State Spartans advance? Let's jump in.

South Region

Table 1 below summarizes all of the relevant data for the South Region.

Table 1: 2025 NCAA Tournament South 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 14 seeds in the South are all above average relative to past teams of the same seed. 

In many cases, the top seeded teams are significantly above average. Eight total teams in the South 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 South 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" until the Sweet 16 where it turns red. This is because on paper, Iowa State is a much stronger than usual No. 3 seed and No. 1 Auburn, on paper, is a historically very strong No. 1 seed. 

No. 5 Michigan and No. 6 Ole Miss are "red" starting with the first round match-ups. While those two teams are both also stronger than average for their seed, they are potentially facing team such as No. 11 North Carolina and No. 12 UC San Diego which are both much stronger than usual their seed. This analysis provide a preview of potential upset picks.

Overall, No. 1 Auburn has the best odds to advance to the Final Four out of the South at 49%, which is 12.5-percentag points above average for a No. 1 seed. No. 2 Michigan State has the second-best odds at 16.5% (about one-in-six). No. 3 Iowa State (13%) and No. 4 Texas A&M (6%) round out the top four. 

The Spartans have a 96.8% chance to avoid the dreaded upset by No. 15 Bryant. They then have a 68% chance to advance to the Sweet 16 in Atlanta. Michigan State has a 40% chance to reach the Regional Final and (as mentioned above) a 16.5% chance to make the Final Four. There is a 6.6% chance to reach the Championship Game and a 2.3% chance to win it all, which is the seventh-best odds of any team in the field.

Due the overall strength of the field, every single team in the 2025 Tournament has a negative "strength of draw rating." The least negative value in the full bracket is -5.3% for No. 12 UC San Diego. Michigan State's draw is rated at -10.5%. This might seem bad, but in this tournament, everything is relative. The Spartans have the second best draws of the four No. 2 seeds, behind only Tennessee (-10.0%)

Finally, my analysis suggests the the South Region is the easiest of the four regions in the 2025 Tournament. A historically average No. 1 seed would have a 6.7% 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 6.3% chance to advance to the Final Four in the West, making it the second easiest region in 2025.

Table 2: 2025 NCAA Tournament West Region odds and data summary

The storyline and analysis in this region is similar to the South. The top 10 teams in the region are all above average and the top four seeds have the best odds to advance to the Final Four. No. 1 Florida has the best odds in the West to reach the Final Four (53%) followed by No. 3 Texas Tech (14%), No. 2 Saint John's and, No. 4 Maryland (11%).

The relatively poor odds for No. 2 Saint John's stand out as the Red Storms' path turned red in the second round due to a potential matchup with the much-stronger-than-normal No. 7 Kansas Jayhawks. 

No. 5 Memphis appears as the clear weak link in the West, which is giving a boost to the odds for the first round opponent, No. 12 Colorado State, as well as for potential second round opponent No. 4 Maryland.

Defending champions, No. 8 UConn also have a fully red path thanks to a just slightly tougher than expected first round match with No. 9 Oklahoma.

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 6.0% chance to advance to the Final Four in the Midwest, making it the third easiest region in 2025.

Table 3: 2025 NCAA Tournament Midwest Region odds and data summary

Once again, the top nine seeds are all above average. No. 1 Houston is the favorite to win the region with odds of 40.7%. No. 2 Tennessee (26.5%) and No. 3 Kentucky (6.8%) occupy second and third place with No. 8 Gonzaga (6.6%) surprisingly in fourth place.

Gonzaga has enjoyed a strong Kenpom ranking all year which is certainly the reason for the Zags inflated odds here. It is reasonable to question if this is a real effect or not, but does appear to be a potential roadblock for Big 12 Champions Houston to advance the Final Four.

It is notable that Houston has the most difficult relative draw in the entire tournament (-13.9%) as well as the worst odds of all the No. 1 seeds to reach the Final Four.

One other notable observation here is that No. 3 Kentucky's path turns red at the Sweet 16 due to a potential matchup with No. 6 Illinois. Similarly, No. 4 Purdue's path also turns red in the third round due to a potential clash with No. 5 Clemson.

East Region

Table 4 below summarizes all of the relevant data for the East Region. My analysis suggests that an average No. 1 seed would have a 5.2% chance to advance to the Final Four in the Midwest, making it the most difficult region in 2025.

Table 4: 2025 NCAA Tournament Midwest Region odds and data summary

Just like the other three regions, the top 12 seeds in the East are all stronger than their historical counterparts.

The top four seeds have the best odds to advance to the Final Four, led by No. 1 Duke (56.8%). The Blue Devils also possess the best overall odds to win the National Title at 25%. 

The other main contenders in the East Region are No. 2 Alabama (18.2%), No. 3 Wisconsin (8%), and No. 4 Arizona (7.6%). Interestingly, No. 7 Saint Mary's College from the West Coast conference has the next best Final Four odds at 2.7%.

The path for No. 5 Oregon and No. 6 BYU both turn red starting in the first round. The Ducks are one of the few just average seeds in the top half of the entire bracket which means their path is correspondingly more difficult than usual. As for BYU, the Cougar drew a tough first round opponent in No. 11 VCU. The Rams are appear to be under-seeded and could win a few games this March.

First Round Upset Analysis

Tables 1-4 provide a great snapshot of each region, but in any tournament it is the individual match-ups that ultimately matter. Which upsets are the most likely? Figure 1 and 2below 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 Figures 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 match-up. 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 seven, 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. 

That said, based on the numbers in Figure 1, there is a 40% chance that at least one of the top three seeds loses in the opening round and a 66% chance that at least one of the top four seed will not survive the first round.

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 Yale over No. 4 Texas A&M (-7.5)

-No. 13 High Point over No. 4 Purdue (-9.5)

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. Five potential upsets jump out from the Figure:

-No. 12 Colorado State over No. 5 Memphis (+2.5)

-No. 9 Baylor over No. 8 Mississippi State (-1.5)

-No. 11 VCU over No. 6 BYU (-2.5)

-No. 12 UC San Diego over No. 5 Michigan (-3.5)

-No. 11 North Carolina over No. 6 Ole Miss (+1.5)

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

-No. 9 Oklahoma over No. 8 UConn (-4.5)

-No. 12 Liberty over No. 5 Oregon (-6.5)

Note that all of the No. 7 seeds appear relatively safe this year. I recommend taking six or seven upsets from the nine potential first round upsets listed above. 

My intuition tells me that No. 4 Purdue is flagging late in the season, so I will take that as my "big" first round upset. Then, I will take all five of the upsets that jump out (Colorado State, Baylor, VCU, UC San Diego, and North Carolina) as well as Oklahoma over UConn.

As for Oregon, the fact that the Ducks get to play an east coast team in Seattle leads me to think that Oregon will survive a close game over Liberty.

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. My simulation suggests that four or five second round upsets are most likely, and Figure 3 provides several possible options.

Three upsets in particular stand out:

-No. 6 Illinois over No. 3 Kentucky (-0.5.projected)

-No. 5 Clemson over No. 4 Purdue (pick 'em)

-No. 7 Kansas over No. 2 St. John's (-2)

Taking Clemson into the Sweet 16 is particularly compelling, as Purdue might not make it out of the first round in the first place. Since I am taking No. 13 High Point in the upset over Purdue, I will advance Clemson to the Sweet 16.

As for other potential upset candidates, there are several potential upsets on the No. 3 and No. 4 seed lines, but most of the potential underdogs (such as No. 6 BYU, No. 6 Ole Miss, and No. 5 Michigan) might get knocked out in the first round. 

Based on my analysis, the three next most likely upsets would be:

-No. 6 Missouri over No. 3 Texas Tech (-2.5)

-No. 8 Gonzaga over No. 1 Houston (-5.5)

-No. 7 Marquette over No. 2 Michigan State (-4)

That said, the only four teams in Figure 3 that look particularly safe are No. 1 Duke, No. 1 Florida, No. 4 Maryland, and No. 4 Arizona. All of the potential No. 2/No. 7 and No. 3/No. 6 matchups look like potential upsets.

I could see No. 8 Louisville taking out No. 1 Auburn. If either No. 11 VCU or No. 11 North Carolina make it to the second round, I could see either team beating No. 3 Wisconsin or No. 3 Iowa State to reach the Sweet 16.

Other interesting scenario to consider in one where both No. 12 UC San Diego and No. 13 Yale score first round upsets over No. 5 Michigan and No. 4 Texas A&M and face each other in the Round of 32. In this scenario, No. 12 UC San Diego could be a Sweet 16 team.

As for my picks, I will take Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Gonzaga, and North Carolina in upset wins.

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 Auburn vs. No. 4 Texas A&M

No. 2 Michigan State vs. No. 11 North Carolina

No. 1 Florida vs. No. 4 Maryland

No. 6 Missouri vs. No. 7 Kansas

No. 1 Duke vs. No. 4 Arizona

No. 2 Alabama vs. No. 3 Wisconsin

No. 5 Clemson vs. No. 8 Gonzaga

No. 2 Tennessee vs. No. 6 Illinois

Figure 4 is of little help at this point because the three most likely upset all involve teams that I have already knocked out of the Tournament (St. John's, Iowa State, and Houston). What Figure 4 does suggest, however, is that three remaining contests involving No. 1 seeds are unlikely to end in upsets. Therefore, I will advance Auburn, Duke, and Florida into the regional finals.

My data suggests that No. 3 Iowa State would be a likely upset pick over No. 2 Michigan State, but in this case I will take the Spartans over the Tar Heels, who I have upsetting the Cyclones in the Round of 32.

No. 7 Kansas would be a virtual toss-up against No. 6 Missouri, so I will take the Jayhawks as a minor Sweet 16 upset pick. Underachieving blue blood programs sometimes have a tendency to rise up in March, so this seems like a reasonable pick.

The mostly likely upset pick remaining in Figure 4 is No. 3 Wisconsin over No. 2 Alabama in the East. I will take that upset as well.

With No. 1 Houston knocked out in the second round, the Midwest becomes the most like candidate as the Region most likely to produce the lowest seeded team in the Final Four. 

I am tempted to take Clemson and Illinois into the regional final. ACC teams have a tendency to overachieve in March, and Illinois is just chaotic enough to get their crap together long enough to upset No. 2 Tennessee. The fact that the Volunteers are coached by Rick Barnes, who has a history of Tournament underachievement, also makes this pick tempting. 

But I will instead go the complete opposite direction and pick No. 8 Gonzaga to "upset" No. 5 Clemson (despite the likelihood that Gonzaga would actually be favored in that game) and for No. 2 Tennessee to get past No. 6 Illinois.

In the Regional Final Round, I will take No. 1 Florida over No. 7 Kansas and No. 1 Duke over No. 3 Wisconsin. Then I will make the 100% homer pick and take No. 2 Michigan State over No. 1 Auburn. Finally, I will take No. 8 Gonzaga in the upset over No. 2 Tennessee to complete the Final Four.

This Final Four has a reasonable distribution of seeds (two No. 1 seeds, one No. 2, and one No. 8) and all four teams were ranked in the top nine of Kenpom at the beginning of the Tournament

Once we reach the Final Four, the higher seeded and favored teams tend to win, and this year that rule of thumb seems as relevant as ever. So, I will take No. 1 Florida to beat No. 2 Michigan State and No. 1 Duke to beat No. 8 Gonzaga.

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

Overall, I am suggesting a total of 17 upsets over the full Tournament. This is one more than the average predicted by my simulation, but one less than the historical average.

As the Spartans, the analysis above is admittedly slightly optimistic. The data shows that Michigan State is a potential upset candidate in both the Round of 32 and the Sweet 16. The Spartans will also be an underdog in the theoretical matchup with No. 1 Auburn in the Regional Final.

That said, I like the Spartans' draw in this Tournament, especially considering that many of the other teams in the region have struggled down the stretch. 

No. 1 Auburn lost three of the final four games of the season. No. 3 Iowa State has lost four of the last seven games. No. 4 Texas A&M has lost five of the last seven. No. 5 Michigan lost four the last six regular season games, including a pair of double-digit losses to No. 2. Michigan State.

No. 6 Ole Miss has lost five of their last eight games. No. 7 Marquette has lost seven of the last 12 games. No. 8 Louisville is the only team other than Michigan State that is hot coming into the Tournament. The Cardinals were on an 11-game winning streak before falling to Duke in the ACC Title game. Louisville has only lost two games total since December 15.

As I look that the potential roadblocks to Tom Izzo's ninth Final Four, I like Michigan State's odds.

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