Men's NCAA Basketball Tournament : Records per seed

[IceTea 2]

Sorry a little late, just thought it would be a good tool for some

Overall tournament record of #1 seeds: (503-137) 78.6%
vs. #1 (23-23) 50.0%
vs. #2 (40-34) 54.1%
vs. #3 (23-14) 62.2%
vs. #4 (51-22) 69.9%
vs. #5 (44-8) 84.6%
vs. #6 (11-5) 68.8%
vs. #7 (6-1) 85.7%
vs. #8 (69-17) 80.2%
vs. #9 (68-8) 89.5%
vs. #10 (6-1) 85.7%
vs. #11 (4-3) 57.1%
vs. #12 (19-0) 100.0%
vs. #13 (4-0) 100.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (135-1) 99.3%


Overall tournament record of #2 seeds: (357-153) 70.0%
vs. #1 (34-40) 45.9%
vs. #2 (3-3) 50.0%
vs. #3 (39-24) 61.9%
vs. #4 (4-5) 44.4%
vs. #5 (1-4) 20.0%
vs. #6 (26-10) 72.2%
vs. #7 (67-29) 69.8%
vs. #8 (4-5) 44.4%
vs. #9 (1-1) 50.0%
vs. #10 (35-22) 61.4%
vs. #11 (14-2) 87.5%
vs. #12 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (128-8) 94.1%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%


Overall tournament record of #3 seeds: (273-155) 63.8%
vs. #1 (14-23) 37.8%
vs. #2 (24-39) 38.1%
vs. #3 (1-1) 50.0%
vs. #4 (5-3) 62.5%
vs. #5 (2-2) 50.0%
vs. #6 (49-38) 56.3%
vs. #7 (11-7) 61.1%
vs. #8 (2-0) 100.0%
vs. #9 (3-0) 100.0%
vs. #10 (9-4) 69.2%
vs. #11 (37-17) 68.5%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (115-21) 84.6%
vs. #15 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%


Overall tournament record of #4 seeds: (231-158) 59.4%
vs. #1 (22-51) 30.1%
vs. #2 (5-4) 55.6%
vs. #3 (3-5) 37.5%
vs. #4 (1-1) 50.0%
vs. #5 (53-41) 56.4%
vs. #6 (2-4) 33.3%
vs. #7 (2-4) 33.3%
vs. #8 (4-7) 36.4%
vs. #9 (2-2) 50.0%
vs. #10 (2-0) 100.0%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (27-12) 69.2%
vs. #13 (108-27) 80.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%


Overall tournament record of #5 seeds: (180-160) 52.9%
vs. #1 (8-44) 15.4%
vs. #2 (4-1) 80.0%
vs. #3 (2-2) 50.0%
vs. #4 (41-53) 43.6%
vs. #5 (1-1) 50.0%
vs. #6 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #7 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #8 (1-3) 25.0%
vs. #9 (1-3) 25.0%
vs. #10 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (106-50) 67.9%
vs. #13 (14-3) 82.4%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%


Overall tournament record of #6 seeds: (182-158) 53.5%
vs. #1 (5-11) 31.3%
vs. #2 (10-26) 27.8%
vs. #3 (38-49) 43.7%
vs. #4 (4-2) 66.7%
vs. #5 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #6 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #7 (5-3) 62.5%
vs. #8 (1-3) 25.0%
vs. #9 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #10 (6-4) 60.0%
vs. #11 (99-57) 63.5%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (14-2) 87.5%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%


Overall tournament record of #7 seeds: (146-159) 47.9%
vs. #1 (1-6) 14.3%
vs. #2 (29-67) 30.2%
vs. #3 (7-11) 38.9%
vs. #4 (4-2) 66.7%
vs. #5 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #6 (3-5) 37.5%
vs. #7 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #8 (1-1) 50.0%
vs. #9 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #10 (98-62) 61.3%
vs. #11 (0-4) 0.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #15 (2-1) 66.7%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%


Overall tournament record of #8 seeds: (122-159) 43.4%
vs. #1 (17-69) 19.8%
vs. #2 (5-4) 55.6%
vs. #3 (0-2) 0.0%
vs. #4 (7-4) 63.6%
vs. #5 (3-1) 75.0%
vs. #6 (3-1) 75.0%
vs. #7 (1-1) 50.0%
vs. #8 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #9 (84-76) 52.5%
vs. #10 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #11 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #12 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #13 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%


Overall tournament record of #9 seeds: (93-160) 36.8%
vs. #1 (8-68) 10.5%
vs. #2 (1-1) 50.0%
vs. #3 (0-3) 0.0%
vs. #4 (2-2) 50.0%
vs. #5 (3-1) 75.0%
vs. #6 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #7 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #8 (76-84) 47.5%
vs. #9 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #10 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #11 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (1-0) 100.0%


Overall tournament record of #10 seeds: (100-160) 38.5%
vs. #1 (1-6) 14.3%
vs. #2 (22-35) 38.6%
vs. #3 (4-9) 30.8%
vs. #4 (0-2) 0.0%
vs. #5 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #6 (4-6) 40.0%
vs. #7 (62-98) 38.8%
vs. #8 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #9 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #10 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #11 (1-2) 33.3%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #15 (5-0) 100.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%


Overall tournament record of #11 seeds: (91-156) 36.8%
vs. #1 (3-4) 42.9%
vs. #2 (2-14) 12.5%
vs. #3 (17-37) 31.5%
vs. #4 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #5 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #6 (57-99) 36.5%
vs. #7 (4-0) 100.0%
vs. #8 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #9 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #10 (2-1) 66.7%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (5-0) 100.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%


Overall tournament record of #12 seeds: (71-156) 31.3%
vs. #1 (0-19) 0.0%
vs. #2 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #3 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #4 (12-27) 30.8%
vs. #5 (50-106) 32.1%
vs. #6 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #7 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #8 (1-0) 100.0%
vs. #9 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #10 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (8-3) 72.7%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%


Overall tournament record of #13 seeds: (33-136) 19.5%
vs. #1 (0-4) 0.0%
vs. #2 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #3 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #4 (27-108) 20.0%
vs. #5 (3-14) 17.6%
vs. #6 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #7 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #8 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #9 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #10 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (3-8) 27.3%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%


Overall tournament record of #14 seeds: (23-136) 14.5%
vs. #1 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #2 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #3 (21-115) 15.4%
vs. #4 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #5 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #6 (2-14) 12.5%
vs. #7 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #8 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #9 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #10 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #11 (0-5) 0.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%

[IceTea 2]

Overall tournament record of #15 seeds: (9-136) 6.2%
vs. #1 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #2 (8-128) 5.9%
vs. #3 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #4 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #5 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #6 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #7 (1-2) 33.3%
vs. #8 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #9 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #10 (0-5) 0.0%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%


Overall tournament record of #16 seeds: (1-136) 0.7%
vs. #1 (1-135) 0.7%
vs. #2 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #3 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #4 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #5 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #6 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #7 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #8 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #9 (0-1) 0.0%
vs. #10 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #11 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #12 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #13 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #14 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #15 (0-0) 0.0%
vs. #16 (0-0) 0.0%

[Coachv29]

Thank you for your work

[HypothesisMan]

Overall record...... since when? What round? The whole tournament? Since what year?

[steviev]

Overall record...... since when? What round? The whole tournament? Since what year?

William Lee or jack. Not hard to figure out 136 divide by 4 looks like the last 34 years. this is what others are talking about, rather than appreciate the work Ice Tea did and with no effort of your own, you want to question everything a person post. Be grateful someone post this information and do some work yourself. You claim you are a sports service and you didn't know what the MVC was, click on ESPN once in a while. Or maybe just say thanks once in a while when someone post a lot of info.

[HypothesisMan]

Who said there's a problem if I question something? OF COURSE I'm gonna question something if it seems confusing to me! If unclear information is presented to you, you'd be a fool to not question what exactly is unclear. Or at least that's how I operate.... Why the hell do I need to be grateful when no one asked him to post those confusing records? And where do you get the last 34 years from? why would you divide it by 4? Unlike the OP, I am not a mindreader !!!

And yes, hell yeah I am a Sports Service operating one of the world's best FOOTBALL picks. Email me for more info at: williamleesports@yahoo.com. Packages start as low as $600/month and we hit for 70% this year. 100% Verifiable. Thank Q.

[Buckeyefan80]

How do you sell a sports service and can’t figure out any of the questions you asked? If you take the record of 16 vs 1 seeds (1-135 since last year was the first time a 16 beat a 1) that’s 136 games, divide it by 4, because that's how many 1 vs 16 matchups there are every year, it equals 34. So that tells you the records are for the past 34 years. Does that dumb it down enough for you or do you need someone else that doesn't tout being a sports service to explain again how simple math works to you???

[Buckeyefan80]

Damn I responded before I realized he was banned. I'm sure he'll be back with another name soon so he'll see it anyway...

[IceTea 2]

Sorry if my posts confused anyone.

[Buckeyefan80]

They didn't confuse 99% of us. It's not hard to figure out how to read. That poster just likes to stir the pot. It's crazy anyone would buy picks from him, especially for $600/mo, when he can't figure out basic numbers. We appreciate your contributions.