AI ChatGPT o1-Pro Deep Research: Ultimate 2025 March Madness & NCAA Men's Basketball Picks & Predictions

Who did ChatGPT's o1-pro with deep research pick to win the chip?

I gave ChatGPT’s o1-pro a very simple set of instructions and its aim was to create a bracket that has a reasonable chance of winning ESPN’s 2025 NCAA Men’s Basketball Bracket Challenge (giving me some potential edge(s) vs. the field).

I had o1-pro leverage “deep research” (FYI: for select deep research topics o1-pro is far superior to o3-mini-high — but not always). This “deep research” took ~30 minutes (some of this was due to difficulty accessing certain datasets and finding workarounds, then later, synthesizing all compiled data).

Its output had some grammatical/formatting errors that I needed to correct. It also screwed up some names/players on certain teams. But the logic behind its picks made sense and they were more unique than most mainstream prognosticators… it was a strong and creative bracket.

And this bracket is notably different than my own “gut shot” bracket (using my own non-AI logic and strategy). I rarely watch college basketball (maybe 1-2 games this year)… but get excited for March Madness… then I’m somewhat glued to the TV for a few weekends to see how my bracket performs and to watch some high-octane-competition college hoops.

The great thing about “March Madness” is that YOU (a random person) probably have just as good of a shot at picking the best bracket as someone who’s watched all the big games throughout the season. Assuming you use a bit of logic — you can beat the AI, the experts, the analytics, etc.. Any given year is a crapshoot.

Why even use the AI? Because I appreciate the logic and creativity. That’s really it. Technically I’m collaborating with the AI to some extent because I gave the prompt and finalized the instructions… and I used many AIs to pit outputs against each other — and against my non-AI (neo-Luddite swag).

Each year certain companies and/or orgs advertise attention-grabbing prizes for getting a “perfect bracket.” Why? It’s not really possible to get a perfect bracket.

Sure some quantum computer could probably spit out a gazillion (all possible combos) and hit one, but most people are limited to 1-25 submissions (depending on the specific challenge e.g. ESPN, FoxSports, CBS Sports, NCAA, USA Today, etc.). That said, there are still some prizes for getting the “top bracket” of the year (e.g. $25k-$100k).

To stay competitive, you don’t want to go completely random (e.g. don’t pick against any #1 seed in the first round, probably don’t pick against any #2 or #3 seeds in the first round either), be cautious about picking “major” early upsets.

Consider picking a few upsets in matches with less of a rank-gap (e.g. 9 vs. 8, 10 vs. 7, 11 vs. 6, 12 vs. 5)… and as the tournament progresses, consider sniping a few plausible upsets (e.g. 4 vs. 2, 3 vs. 2, 2 vs. 1, 3 vs. 1, etc.) or going with your “gut.”

It’s common for many to pick the “wrong upsets” and this is often a bigger setback than just going chalk. Popular first round upset picks often flounder and unpopular (unexpected/under-the-radar) end up securing the W.

You picked the Vegas odds favorite #12 vs. the underdog #5? Unfortunately you picked the wrong 12… you should’ve taken that other 12 over there in the other section of the bracket… this is how things often play out.

From my own research, it seems as though the “popular picks” (by consensus) are NEARLY COMPLETE CHALK in 2025. Meaning, everyone is having a difficult time picking against the #1 seeds: Duke, Florida, Auburn, Houston.

I used ESPN to “autofill” a “popular picks” bracket (this is supposed to take the “social consensus”) and the entire thing was basically chalk… I think maybe just 1 or 2 different from chalk. (This could be because many are doing a “chalk bracket” for 1 of their 25 so ends up being most popular)… ESPN should fix this and only use non-chalk brackets for the popular picks consensus.

But taking mostly chalk in 2025 could be for good reason (i.e. supported by logic).

A guy named Will Warren recently published “A Historical Analysis of the 2025 NCAA Tournament Field” and noted the following:

• The gap between 1 and 16 seeds is +42.86 AdjEM on average, the highest ever.

• The gap between 2 and 15 seeds is +26.84 AdjEM on average, the second-highest ever.

• The gap between 3 and 14 seeds is +20.96 AdjEM on average, the highest ever.

• Lastly, the gap between 4 and 13 seeds is +16.48 AdjEM on average, which is not the highest ever. Just kidding: it’s the highest ever.

Will’s TLDR:

This Tournament, on face value, looks exactly like it has looked for two months. Probably not that many upsets, probably a lot of really good second weekend games, and probably a few moments where you’re like “man, I wish that team would’ve won.” So: a pretty good Tournament. Let’s basketball.

Most people just look at seeds and know lower seed is better — so logically they struggle picking anyone with a higher seed (psychological risk aversion).

But even the stats nerds are suggesting there’s a big talent gap between the elite teams and the lower-ranked minions. So the logical way to pick for this tournament is something like somewhat chalky — but consider injuries, momentum, and strategic later-round upset picks.

Yet since the normies and statistical nerds are converging in picks… it tells me there is outsized alpha in going against the grain for 2025 (i.e. contrarian maxxing).

If you pick someone other than Duke or Florida to win the chip, and you hit pay-dirt, you have a good chance of crushing your pool… big differentiator from the collective consciousness of picks.

Will it pay off? Time will tell. Remember, this is a one-and-done tournament. Odds of a perfect bracket? ZERO… (1 in 9.2 quintillion — not a number humans can mentally conceptualize). The closest ever bracket to perfect? 2019… an Ohio man predicted the first 49 games before his bracket was busted in the Sweet 16.

For most brackets, point values increase in later rounds… so early rounds are worth almost nothing… the key is nailing the later rounds and eventual Championship winner… That said, I wish some org would do a bracket where every game was worth exactly 1 point — just focusing on pure accuracy and valuing all games equally (even if less exciting).

2025 March Madness Bracket Breakdown and Picks (o1-pro Deep Research Edition)

I should note that this just is ONE variant of a bracket that I had o1-pro create with the Deep Research feature. I created a few other brackets with o1-pro/DR + o3-min-high/DR — and had very distinct/unique prompts for each. The results are unpublished. I may write how each performed post-tourney.

And no, the outcomes were not the same… in fact they were significantly different depending on the prompting I used. All had relatively strong logic… but varied in opinions on upsets, finalists, and strategy.

This one was the most recent bracket that I created the morning of the Madness (March 20th) — so it had all the latest injury data, play-in winner data, etc. The prompt probably wasn’t as elite as it could've been, but I intentionally wanted it somewhat open for interpretation to allow the AI to use its own intuition over-prompting for something like this is bad.

I created some other brackets that were more statistical, adaptive (round-by-round), weighted to the past 10-15 years (trends), Pareto-oriented, etc. There are many different things you can do here… and outcomes will differ based on your prompt/emphasis and timing (March 10th vs. March 20th — data updates).

I don’t expect this AI (o1-pro + deep research) bracket to “outperform” any given person just because it’s “artificial intelligence” and uses “advanced reasoning” or whatever… there’s way too much luck involved for March Madness.

You should avoid getting caught up in mass AI hysteria and J.E.T.S. (just enjoy this shit)… pick your bracket however TF you want. AI isn’t inherently superior at something like this… the depth of its logic might be superior to yours or mine, but I don’t think it has better than 50/50 odds of doing better than any reasonably smart person picking on his/her own.

Tournament Seeds & Bracket Matchups

The 68-team bracket is set with Auburn, Duke, Houston, and Florida earning the four No. 1 seeds. Auburn is the overall top seed, seeking its first national title. The regions are distributed as follows:

• South (Atlanta) – No. 1 Auburn headlines, with Michigan State (2), Iowa State (3), and Texas A&M (4) as other top seeds.

• West (San Francisco) – No. 1 Florida leads, joined by St. John’s (2), Texas Tech (3), and Maryland (4).

• East (Newark) – No. 1 Duke leads the East, with Alabama (2), Wisconsin (3), and Arizona (4) in pursuit.

• Midwest (Indianapolis) – No. 1 Houston fronts this region, alongside Tennessee (2), Kentucky (3), and Purdue (4).

First Four play-in games have already produced North Carolina (11 seed) and Xavier (11) as dangerous entrants, plus 16-seeds Alabama State and Mount St. Mary’s advancing to face top seeds. Below we analyze each region’s matchups and key factors to optimize bracket picks.

Advanced Analytics & Upset Trends

Efficiency Ratings: KenPom and NET rankings provide a data-driven view of team strength. Notably, UC San Diego (12-seed) is ranked No. 36 on KenPom, higher than several single-digit seeds like Creighton, Oklahoma and Memphis. This signals UCSD as a potential giant-killer. Similarly, Colorado State (12) finished the season on a tear – Bart Torvik’s analytics rated them the 8th-best team in the nation since Feb. 15 (Memphis ranked only 79th in that span). Such metrics help identify undervalued teams that the committee seeded lower than their performance suggests.

Common Upset Patterns: Historically, first-round upsets are most common in the 10–15 seed range. No. 11 seeds beat No. 6 seeds about 39% of the time, and No. 12 seeds beat No. 5 seeds about 35%. In fact, 12-seeds have pulled off 55 upsets in 156 matchups since 1985. This year’s 12-seeds are particularly dangerous: Colorado State, Liberty, UC San Diego, and McNeese each enter with 25+ wins or major momentum. We’ll lean on two to three of these classic upset picks (a strategy experts recommend – don’t pick all four 12s, but a couple is wise). By contrast, 15- or 16-seed shockers are extremely rare (only 7% and 1% historically), so we advise keeping all 1- and 2-seeds safe in the Round of 64.

Tempo and Efficiency Mismatches: Upsets often occur when a lower seed’s style creates a matchup problem. For example, Drake (11) plays the slowest adjusted pace in the nation and leads in steal rate, a formula that could frustrate an up-tempo Missouri (6) that ranks No. 228 in defensive efficiency since March 1. Likewise, Liberty (12) is among the nation’s best shooting teams (10.6 made 3’s per game on 39% shooting), a direct threat to a defensively average Oregon (5). Identifying such contrasts (fast vs. slow, 3-point heavy offense vs. poor perimeter defense, etc.) can point to potential bracket busters.

Past Bracket Trends: It’s rare for all top seeds to dominate the tournament. In fact, only once have all four No. 1 seeds reached the Final Four (2008). Most years, 1 or 2 No. 1s make it, and the other slots are filled by lower seeds. Additionally, each of the past 14 Final Fours included at least one team seeded 4th or worse – the Cinderella factor. With that in mind, an optimal bracket will balance favorites with a few upset picks. We won’t shy away from advancing multiple No. 1 seeds deep (this year’s crop is exceptionally strong offensively), but we’ll also slot a couple of lower seeds into late rounds to capture that upside.

Key Injuries & Player News

Injuries can swing a team’s tournament fortunes. Yesterday I posted a breakdown of 2025 NCAA March Madness Pre-Tournament Injuries to be aware of on potential contenders.

• Memphis Guards: The 5-seed Tigers enter banged up – starting guard Tyrese Hunter (third-leading scorer nationally) hurt his foot in the AAC tournament and missed the title game, and backup PG Dante Harris is also dealing with injuries. Memphis’s backcourt depth is thin, which could spell trouble against a well-rounded Colorado State.

• Iowa State: The Cyclones (3-seed) will be without guard Keshon Gilbert due to injury. Gilbert’s absence and Iowa State’s recent slide (7–7 in its last 14 games) diminish their margin for error, making them a prime upset target.

• Lamont Butler (Xavier): Butler, a hero of last year’s Final Four run with San Diego State, now starts for 11-seed Xavier. He’s been playing through a shoulder injury all season, but continues to hit clutch shots. His leadership gives Xavier a fighting chance in close games.

• Cooper Flagg (Duke): On a positive note, Duke’s star freshman Flagg – the nation’s No. 1 recruit – is healthy and peaking. He dominated the ACC tournament, and experts note the Sweet 16 is where “Cooper Flagg shows just how good he is”. Duke’s roster is loaded, and importantly, complementary around Flagg, making them one of the most balanced teams.

No top contender has lost a superstar to injury heading into the tournament, but these subplots (especially Memphis and Iowa State) inform our upset picks below.

Team Momentum & Recent Performance

How a team finished the season often carries into March:

• Colorado State (12) is riding a 10-game winning streak after winning the Mountain West title. Star wing Nique Clifford has been on a tear, averaging 25.3 points in March. The Rams have effectively been in “elimination game” mode for weeks and are battle-tested. By contrast, their first-round foe Memphis (5) may have peaked earlier – despite an 8-game streak of its own, Memphis “hasn't faced a team as strong as Colorado State since 2024” and could struggle without full backcourt strength.

• UC San Diego (12) boasts the longest win streak in the field at 15 straight games. The Tritons stormed through the Big West and haven’t lost since January. They have momentum and the metrics to match (Top-40 in KenPom).

• Marquette (7) limped to the finish, dropping 3 of its last 4 and 7 of its last 12. That downturn raises red flags as they face an up-tempo New Mexico team. Meanwhile, New Mexico (10) enters confident after a solid season and a Mountain West at-large bid; they “love to push the pace” and are coached by Richard Pitino – and teams coached by a Pitino tend to overperform in March. This contrast in momentum makes the 7–10 game ripe for an upset.

• Missouri (6) struggled down the stretch (1–4 since March 1), largely due to porous defense and rebounding. They now face Drake (11), a veteran squad that just rolled through its conference tourney with two 15+ point wins. Drake has proven it can beat major-conference teams (wins over Miami and Vanderbilt this year). Mizzou will need a major turnaround to avoid the upset.

Keeping an eye on hot (or cold) teams is crucial. In general, we favor champions of strong mid-major leagues (e.g., Drake, Liberty, Yale) and power-conference teams that finished strong (e.g., Duke won the ACC; Florida won the SEC) over teams that backed into the tournament.

Bracketology Insights & Odds

Las Vegas point spreads and expert brackets provide additional insight. In a notable instance, No. 12 Colorado State is actually favored by oddsmakers over No. 5 Memphis. When a lower seed is favored to win, it’s a strong upset signal – the selection committee seeding might not reflect the true team quality. We will capitalize on such value picks. Similarly, many analysts are picking 12-seeds to knock off 5-seeds this year, including Liberty over Oregon and UC San Diego over Michigan, given those underdogs’ statistical profiles.

Experts also advise not to overstuff your bracket with too many shocking upsets. The optimal strategy is picking a few key upsets in early rounds, then riding the best teams (the 1s and 2s) deep into the tournament. History shows that 13 of the past 17 national champions were No. 1 seeds, so while Cinderella stories are fun, the title is usually won by an elite team. Our bracket reflects this wisdom: take calculated risks on upsets in the Rounds of 64 and 32 – where they occur most – but trust the cream to rise by the Final Four.

With all these factors in mind, here is our complete bracket pick-by-pick, followed by explanations for the most pivotal choices.

South Region (Atlanta) Picks & Analysis

Round of 64 – Initial picks (winner in bold):

• (1) Auburn over (16) Alabama State – Auburn’s talent and pace are too much for a 16-seed. (No 16 has beaten a 1 since 2018, and Alabama St. isn’t built for that miracle.)

• (8) Louisville over (9) Creighton – Louisville quietly went 27–7 as ACC runners-up, while Creighton had inconsistent guard play. The Cardinals’ defense can disrupt Creighton enough to advance.

• (12) UC San Diego over (5) Michigan – Upset pick: UCSD is an analytics darling with 15 straight wins. They force ~16 turnovers per game with aggressive defense, a bad recipe for Michigan’s sometimes sloppy ball-handling. Michigan did surge to win the Big Ten tourney, but their reward is a dangerous draw against a hot Tritons squad.

• (13) Yale over (4) Texas A&M – Upset pick: Yale’s elite shooting (38.5% from deep, 9th in D-I) meets a Texas A&M team that struggles to score from outside (31.1% 3PT, ranked 317th). Yale knocked off a 5-seed (Auburn) last year by bombing from long range, and nearly the same core returns. If the Bulldogs get moderately hot from three, they can shock the Aggies, who rely on offensive rebounding but might find fewer second chances if shots are clanking long.

• (6) Ole Miss over (11) North Carolina – UNC looked impressive in the First Four, but consistency has eluded them all year. Ole Miss’s guard play and physicality (from the SEC grind) should exploit the Tar Heels’ defensive lapses. This Rebels team is in the Big Dance for the first time since 2019 and will be motivated to prove themselves.

• (3) Iowa State over (14) Lipscomb – Lipscomb’s efficient offense (they shoot well from 3, 2, and FT) makes this a trendy upset pick. However, Iowa State’s defense is stout when focused, and they won’t overlook the Bisons – especially with memories of recent early exits. Note: Iowa State will miss guard Keshon Gilbert, but they should have enough to survive this round, albeit in a close call.

• (10) New Mexico over (7) Marquette – Upset pick: Marquette stumbled to the finish line, losing 7 of its last 12 and showing vulnerability on defense. New Mexico, on the other hand, is under-seeded and dynamic. They rank top-5 nationally in pace of play, led by lightning-fast guard Donovan Dent pushing in transition. Marquette’s transition defense, while usually solid (90th percentile per KenPom), has been out of sorts lately. With Richard Pitino’s coaching and Marquette’s form dipping, the Lobos can run their way to a first-round upset.

• (2) Michigan State over (15) Bryant – Tom Izzo’s Spartans are too disciplined to get caught by a 15. Bryant’s size (one of the tallest teams in the nation) and frenetic pace might keep it interesting early, but Sparty’s experience and shooting (nearly 40% from three as a team) allow them to pull away.

Round of 32:

• (1) Auburn over (8) Louisville – Auburn’s athletic frontcourt and uptempo attack will wear down Louisville. The Tigers can score inside or out, and Louisville doesn’t have a clear matchup for Auburn’s star center Johni Broome (16 PPG, 9 RPG). Expect Auburn to dominate the paint and advance.

• (12) UC San Diego over (13) Yale – The Tritons continue their Cinderella run. Here, their pressure defense could fluster Yale’s guards. Yale’s reliance on the three can be a double-edged sword; against UCSD’s active perimeter defenders, a cold shooting night is likely. UCSD also boasts more depth. (If Michigan or Texas A&M advance instead, we’d favor whichever of UCSD/Yale emerges to keep rolling – both 12/13 seeds in this pod are very capable.)

• (2) Michigan State over (10) New Mexico – New Mexico’s run meets a wall against Michigan State’s balanced attack. The Lobos will push the tempo again, but MSU has the athletes (and coaching acumen) to play fast or slow. Senior guard A.J. Hoggard and sharpshooter Tyson Walker give the Spartans an edge in backcourt talent. Izzo won’t let his team look past a double-digit seed – Sparty grinds out a win in a high-scoring affair.

• (6) Ole Miss over (3) Iowa State – Upset pick: A mild upset as the 6-seed Rebels take advantage of Iowa State’s weakened state. The Cyclones have been inconsistent (just .500 over the last several weeks) and may struggle to score if Ole Miss packs the paint. Ole Miss forward Jaemyn Brakefield is an X-factor – if he can stretch ISU’s defense with a few early threes, the Rebels can open up a lead. Given Iowa State’s offensive funk and adjustment without Gilbert, Ole Miss advances to its first Sweet 16 in decades.

Sweet 16: (Regional Semifinals)

• (1) Auburn over (12) UC San Diego – The clock strikes midnight for UCSD. Auburn, one of the nation’s best teams all season, has a significant size and athleticism advantage at every position. The Tigers play fast, and while UCSD likes to force turnovers, Auburn’s guards (led by dynamic PG Wendell Green Jr.) are adept at breaking pressure. Expect Auburn to dominate the boards and end the Tritons’ 15-game win streak. (This matchup would be reminiscent of a 1 vs 12 game in 2021 when top-seeded Gonzaga overwhelmed UCSB – talent wins out.)

• (2) Michigan State over (6) Ole Miss – Izzo’s crew marches on. Ole Miss will put up a fight – they’re here for a reason – but Michigan State’s tournament experience is key. In a close game, Sparty has multiple options for a go-ahead bucket, whereas the Rebels often rely on one scorer (SEC Player of the Year Matthew Murrell). MSU’s defense keys in to force late turnovers. Tom Izzo reaches yet another Elite Eight, and the SEC’s last hope in this region falls.

Elite Eight: (Regional Final)

• (2) Michigan State over (1) Auburn – Key upset to send a team to the Final Four. Auburn has been fantastic, but we’re picking Michigan State in a minor surprise to win the South. Why? Coaching and guard play. Izzo famously shines in regional finals, and his backcourt is more reliable than Auburn’s. Auburn’s one weakness is occasionally streaky shooting and turnovers under pressure. By this stage, the pressure is immense – and Auburn, as the overall No. 1 seed, will be feeling it (note: since 2004, only 4 of 20 overall No.1 seeds won the title, while 8 failed to even make the Final Four). Michigan State exploits that with a poised performance, hitting clutch threes late. It’s razor-close, but the Spartans upset Auburn to reach the Final Four. (If Auburn manages to avoid mistakes, their talent could certainly carry them – but to maximize our pool-winning odds, we’re zigging with Michigan State where others may zag with Auburn.)

South Region Champion: Michigan State (2-seed) 🏆

Why MSU? This pick provides slightly contrarian value in bracket pools while still being realistic. Auburn is a popular choice, but the Spartans have the tournament pedigree and a veteran squad that’s peaking at the right time. They defended extremely well in the first weekend and have the kind of elite coaching that gives an edge in tight Elite Eight games.

---

West Region (San Francisco) Picks & Analysis

Round of 64:

• (1) Florida over (16) Norfolk State – The Gators, champions of the SEC, are loaded with experience and athleticism. Norfolk State (MEAC champ) has pulled a 15-over-2 stunner in the past (2012), but lightning won’t strike here. Florida’s depth and versatility (four players average double figures) means they roll comfortably.

• (8) UConn over (9) Oklahoma – A classic 8/9 toss-up. UConn won the 2024 NCAA title and, while not as dominant this year, still has remnants of that championship core and a strong interior presence. Oklahoma’s first tournament appearance in a few years might start slow, and if UConn’s Adama Sanogo controls the paint early, the Huskies will advance.

• (12) Colorado State over (5) Memphis – Upset pick: Many experts circled this one, and for good reason. Colorado State not only won the Mountain West tourney, they looked great doing it. They’ve won 10 straight and have a star in Nique Clifford who can go toe-to-toe with anyone. Memphis, meanwhile, has injury question marks at guard (Hunter and Harris) and hasn’t seen a team as complete as CSU in a while. Worth noting: oddsmakers made CSU a slight favorite despite the seed gap. The Rams’ efficient offense and superior recent form give them the edge over Memphis’s raw talent.

• (4) Maryland over (13) Grand Canyon – Maryland is a solid, if under-the-radar, Big Ten squad that went 25–8. They defend the perimeter well, which is key against GCU’s shooters. Grand Canyon will have crowd support (they travel well and have a famous cheering section), but Maryland’s guards (Jahmir Young and Julian Reese) should control the tempo. Barring a GCU 3-point barrage, the Terps move on.

• (11) Drake over (6) Missouri – Upset pick: Drake is built to bust brackets. The veteran Missouri Valley champs feature conference POY Bennett Stirtz, a crafty guard who can light it up from deep or dissect defenses in pick-and-roll. Missouri’s defense has been abysmal lately (again, *228th in efficiency since March 11) and they rank 300th in defensive rebounding. That’s a fatal flaw against Drake, which crashes the offensive glass relentlessly (17th-best OReb rate). Add in Drake’s slow pace forcing Mizzou out of rhythm, and the ingredients are there for a notable 11-over-6 upset.

• (3) Texas Tech over (14) UNC Wilmington – Texas Tech brings Big 12 toughness and a high-powered offense. They won’t overlook UNCW, the CAA champs who are capable but lack the size to handle Tech’s frontcourt. Red Raiders star Fardaws Aimaq should feast in the post. Tech’s multifaceted offense (they shoot well from outside and have slashing guards) is too much for the Seahawks to handle.

• (10) Arkansas over (7) Kansas – Upset pick: Arkansas has been a giant-killer in recent tournaments (Elite Eight in 2021 and 2022, upsetting Kansas in 2023). They have a roster full of NBA-level athletes and a coach in John Calipari known for March magic. Kansas, on the other hand, is not the typical KU juggernaut – at 21–12, they struggled with consistency and lack the veteran leadership of past Jayhawk squads. The Razorbacks’ wing length and relentless attacking (watch freshman Nick Smith Jr.) will exploit Kansas’s defensive lapse. In a pro-Arkansas environment (their fans travel well), the Hogs take down the Jayhawks in a thriller.

• (2) St. John’s over (15) Omaha – St. John’s is back in the tourney and earned a 2-seed by going 30–4 and winning the Big East. Their uptempo style and pressure defense should overwhelm Omaha (a first-time Summit League champ). Look for the Johnnies to rack up steals and transition buckets. Omaha’s “Mavericks” moniker might fit their Cinderella aspirations, but the Johnnies won’t let this one slip.

Round of 32:

• (1) Florida over (8) UConn – This is a heavyweight matchup early on. UConn’s size and pedigree will test Florida, but the Gators can play any style. As CBS analyst Matt Norlander noted, Florida “can play any type of game, with any type of personnel, and feel completely comfortable. Their versatility – they can grind or run – helps them counter UConn’s post game. Expect Florida’s veteran guards (Kyle Lofton and Will Richard) to handle UConn’s pressure and make enough plays late. Florida advances, showing why they’re considered a top title contender.

• (4) Maryland over (12) Colorado State – The ride ends here for Colorado State. Maryland matches up far better than Memphis did; the Terps have multiple forwards to throw at Nique Clifford and won’t be out-toughed inside. Also, Maryland’s Derik Queen is a formidable big who can exploit CSU’s lack of frontcourt size. The Rams might keep it close with three-point shooting, but Maryland’s balance (top-30 in both offensive and defensive efficiency) should carry them to the Sweet 16.

• (3) Texas Tech over (11) Drake – Drake’s savvy and deliberate style could frustrate Texas Tech for a while – don’t be surprised if this game is tied at half. But ultimately, Tech’s talent wins out. The Red Raiders have “too many ways to attack, especially beyond the arch, and one cold shooting stretch from Drake could doom the Bulldogs. Look for Tech’s guards to speed up the tempo in spots, creating mini-runs. Drake’s fantastic season ends here, as Tech’s athletic wings close out on shooters and seal the game late.

• (10) Arkansas over (2) St. John’s – Upset pick: Another upset for the Razorbacks! If Arkansas gets past Kansas, they’ll be brimming with confidence. St. John’s, despite a gaudy record, hasn’t faced a team with Arkansas’s blend of size and speed all year (Big East competition wasn’t at this level). The Johnnies like to play fast, but that plays right into Arkansas’s hands – the Razorbacks thrive in chaos. St. John’s also hasn’t been past the Round of 32 in decades; that lack of experience could show. Arkansas’s star freshman guard (Anthony Black) and veteran forward (Trevon Brazile) make big plays in a high-scoring affair. The Razorbacks claw into the Sweet 16, leaving the West without its 2-seed.

Sweet 16:

• (1) Florida over (4) Maryland – Florida continues to flex its muscle. Maryland will try to slow the pace and make this a halfcourt game, but Florida is comfortable in grind-it-out contests too. The Gators have an outstanding front line led by 6’11” Colin Castleton and a do-everything wing in Riley Kugel. They can neutralize Maryland’s top scorers and dominate the glass. On the perimeter, Florida’s Walter Clayton Jr. (transfer from Iona) provides the clutch shooting needed. Maryland simply doesn’t have enough offensive firepower to break Florida’s defense. The Gators move on, looking every bit the juggernaut their 30–4 record suggests.

• (3) Texas Tech over (10) Arkansas – The run ends for Arkansas as Texas Tech grinds out a win. This game will be about contrast: Arkansas wants to run, Tech will aim to make it a halfcourt contest. Tech’s defense, anchored by shot-blocker Daniel Batcho, can protect the rim and force the Razorbacks to shoot from outside – not Arkansas’s strength. On offense, the Red Raiders share the ball well; five players average in double figures. They’ll find the cracks in Arkansas’s defense. In the end, Tech’s discipline on both ends wins out. (If St. John’s were here instead, we’d actually favor Tech as well – the Red Raiders’ experience and coaching give them an edge in either scenario.)

Elite Eight:

• (1) Florida over (3) Texas Tech – The West regional final pits Florida’s adaptability against Texas Tech’s grit. We’re picking Florida to reach the Final Four. The Gators simply have more ways to beat you. They can play up-tempo or slow, they shoot 37% from three as a team, and they can lock down defensively when needed. CBS’s bracket expert put it best: *“The Gators have every tool – guard play, experience, versatility, NBA-level talent, physicality and 3-point shooting – to beat anyone”. In a close game, that versatility is the difference. Tech might throw a zone at Florida or try to bully them, but Florida can counter with skilled forwards and quick guards. Expect a tight first 30 minutes, then a spurt by Florida to create separation. Coach Todd Golden (Florida) in just his second year will guide his team to the Final Four, validating their No. 1 seed.

West Region Champion: Florida (1-seed) 🏆

Florida has been somewhat under the radar nationally, but advanced metrics and expert eyes love this team. They were a unanimous pick by our panel to win the West, and we agree – their balance and the road opening up (with the 2-seed gone) sets them up perfectly.