NCAA March Madness: Less Than 6% Of Brackets Remain Perfect On First Day Of Tournament

Forbes - Mar 20th, 2025

The NCAA March Madness men's tournament kicked off with a surprising upset, as McNeese State University, a No. 12 seed, defeated No. 5 seed Clemson University in a closely contested game, 69-67. This shocker, the biggest upset of the tournament so far, drastically reduced the number of perfect bracket predictions from 11 million to under 2 million. An unprecedented 34 million brackets were submitted, but the first game, Creighton University's victory over Louisville, already busted more than half of these entries. The odds of predicting all 63 games perfectly are staggeringly low, estimated at one in 9.22 quintillion, dropping to one in 120.2 billion with team knowledge.

The allure of a perfect bracket extends beyond statistical glory. Unique incentives this year include X's offer of a trip to Mars or a $250,000 cash alternative with SpaceX perks. ESPN, USA Today Sports, and the NCAA have also set up various prizes for top brackets, enticing millions to participate despite the overwhelming odds. Historically, no one has ever achieved a perfect bracket, with the closest attempt predicting 49 out of 63 games correctly. With Duke University favored to win, the tournament continues to captivate fans with its blend of unpredictability and high stakes.

Duke University Clemson University Ncaa March Madness Mc Neese State University Perfect Bracket Odds Basketball Tournament Upset

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a timely and engaging overview of the NCAA March Madness bracket challenge, highlighting the improbability of achieving a perfect bracket and the enticing rewards offered. It is generally accurate, with credible sources like the NCAA and ESPN, though it lacks direct citations for some claims. The story maintains a neutral tone and clear structure, making it accessible to a broad audience. However, it could benefit from greater transparency and more diverse perspectives to enhance its depth and credibility. While it captures public interest, it is unlikely to drive significant societal impact or provoke controversy.

Accuracy

The article provides a generally accurate account of the NCAA March Madness bracket statistics and related facts. It correctly states that over 34 million brackets were submitted and that 1.9 million remained perfect after six games. This aligns with typical figures reported in March Madness coverage. The claim about the McNeese State upset reducing perfect brackets from 11 million to just under 2 million is plausible, though specific verification would be ideal. The odds of picking a perfect bracket are stated as 1 in 9.22 quintillion, which is consistent with widely accepted statistics. However, the rewards offered by X for a perfect bracket, including a trip to Mars, require further verification due to their extraordinary nature.

Balance

The story provides a balanced view of the March Madness bracket phenomenon, highlighting both the challenge of achieving a perfect bracket and the rewards offered for doing so. It does not exhibit any clear bias towards any team or organization, maintaining a neutral tone throughout. However, it could have included perspectives from participants or experts in probability to provide a more rounded view of the difficulty involved in predicting a perfect bracket.

Clarity

The article is clear and well-structured, making it easy for the reader to follow the main points. It uses straightforward language and logically sequences the information, starting with the number of brackets and progressing to the odds and rewards. However, the inclusion of more detailed explanations or examples could further enhance understanding, particularly regarding the statistical odds.

Source quality

The article references the NCAA and ESPN as sources for bracket statistics, which are credible and authoritative in this context. However, it lacks direct citations or links to these sources, which would enhance the credibility of the information. The mention of rewards from X (formerly Twitter) and USA Today Sports could benefit from direct quotes or official statements to substantiate these claims.

Transparency

The article provides basic transparency regarding the statistics and rewards discussed, but lacks detailed explanations of how the data was collected or calculated. It does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or biases that might affect the reporting. Including more context about the methodology behind the odds calculations and the sources of reward information would improve transparency.