With the arrival of the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament, it is once again the time of year when analysts and sports outlets begin publishing trends and statistics from past tournaments. For decades, those numbers helped shape bracket picks and betting strategies. However, the landscape of college basketball has changed dramatically in recent years, particularly with the introduction of Name, Image, and Likeness opportunities for players.
Because of NIL and the expanded transfer portal era, the traditional formula that allowed underdog programs to build momentum and develop Cinderella runs has become far less common. In previous years, mid-major teams could develop experienced rosters capable of upsetting powerhouse programs. Today, many of those standout players are quickly recruited away by power conference schools offering greater financial opportunities and national exposure.
Even established leagues like the Big East Conference are feeling the effects of the shifting landscape. Conference champion St. John's Red Storm men's basketball team earned a No. 5 seed but was sent across the country in the bracket. The league also placed just two teams in the tournament field, and both landed in the same region — a reminder that conference influence continues to shift.
Some long-standing tournament betting trends also appear to be changing. The once-popular strategy of automatically selecting No. 12 seeds to upset No. 5 seeds may not be as reliable as it once was. Last year’s tournament featured a rare “chalk” bracket in which many higher seeds advanced without the usual wave of early upsets.
This season’s betting lines also show how heavily favored the top teams are. It marks the first time since the mid-1980s that all four No. 2 seeds entered the opening round as at least 20-point favorites. The parity seen in recent years may be fading, as powerhouse programs continue to consolidate talent.
Still, some historical trends remain worth noting. Over the last 16 tournaments, No. 5 seeds have won roughly 60 percent of their matchups against No. 12 seeds, meaning the lower seed still pulls off the upset about 40 percent of the time. Meanwhile, No. 4 seeds have gone 9–3 over the past four tournaments. Betting data also shows that favorites coming off a loss have historically performed well against the spread.
Other trends may influence bracket decisions as well. Since 2011, No. 15 seeds have reached the Sweet 16 just as often as No. 9 or No. 12 seeds, highlighting how unpredictable the tournament can be. Conferences also carry reputations: the Mountain West Conference has struggled to advance past the first weekend, while the Ivy League has quietly hovered near a .500 record in tournament games since 2011.
One statistic that continues to surface every March concerns the Big Ten Conference. Despite consistently sending multiple teams to the tournament, the league has not won a national championship since 2000 and has gone 0–8 in national title games during that span.
As the tournament begins, one thing remains certain: while history provides clues, the modern era of college basketball makes predicting March far more complicated than ever.