Is It Profitable To Bet On Every Underdog Team In March Madness?

The 2023 NCAA Tournament was the first NCAA Tournament in history to have an Elite Eight without a No. 1 seed, reflecting the increased parity in college basketball.

Additionally, there have been two instances in the past six years of a No. 16 seed upsetting a No. 1 seed – something that never happened between 1985 and 2017. There have also been seven double-digit seeds to reach the Sweet Sixteen since 2018.

The tournament has become more unpredictable, perhaps because of an increased reliance on the 3-pointer. The 3-pointer can be a valuable weapon for underdogs looking to upset more heavily favored opponents, enabling them to build leads and erase deficits more quickly.

As a result, double-digit seeds have made plenty of history in recent years.

The NCAA Tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, giving us 39 tournaments to analyze. There was no tournament in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the tournament expanded to 68 teams in 2011, the four play-in games that were added won’t factor into our analysis.

Before diving into betting statistics, let’s see if we can identify a trend that shows underdogs are having more success in the tournament.

We’ll start by separating the last 39 NCAA Tournaments into three different groups: 1985-1996, 1997-2009 and 2010-2024. Then we’ll add up the seed numbers of each Final Four team every year.

That will tell us whether higher seeds, which are underdogs in virtually every game, are making the Final Four more regularly now compared to years past.

For example, the teams that made the Final Four in the 2024 NCAA Tournament were No. 11, No. 4, No. 1 and No. 1 seeds, so the total for that year would be 17 (11+4+1+1). We add that total for each year in a time period, then divide by the number of years to get an average total for the time period.

After that, we divide by four to get the average seed for each Final Four team.

Here are our findings below:

• 2010-2024 (14 tournaments) Avg. Combined Seed of All Final Four Teams: 15.3
• 1997-2009 (13 tournaments) Avg. Combined Seed of All Final Four Teams: 9.7
• 1985-1996 (12 tournaments) Avg. Combined Seed of All Final Four Teams: 10.1

The 1985-1996 and 1997-2009 groups had an average Final Four seed of 2.5 and 2.4, respectively, which is remarkably consistent for a tournament with so much volatility.

The lowest combined seeding in those two datasets came in 2008 (4), when all four No. 1 seeds made it to the Final Four. The highest was in 2000 (22), when two No. 8 seeds made the Final Four.

With so many varying outcomes in the tournament year-to-year, the minuscule difference between these two groups is surprising.

However, that number is considerably higher for the most recent time period, rising to 3.8. That proves higher seeds have become more common in the Final Four recently.

The Final Four seeds added up to double-digits in 13 of the 14 (92.9%) tournaments in the most recent group. In the two previous sets (1997-2009 and 1985-1996), the Final Four seeds summed to double-digits in three of 13 (23.1%) and seven of 12 (58.3%) tournaments, respectively.

That suggests lower seeds are getting knocked out earlier, while higher seeds are surviving longer.

Now, let’s look at the frequency of a No. 16 or No. 15 team upsetting a No. 1 or No. 2 seed.

Since 1985, No. 1 seeds are 150-2 against No. 16 seeds, but the two upsets have both happened in the last six seasons.

Virginia was upset by UMBC in 2018 – the first time a No. 16 seed beat a No. 1 seed in the men’s NCAA Tournament. Purdue was knocked off by Fairleigh Dickinson in 2023.

No. 15 seeds beating No. 2 seeds is more common, especially recently. Eleven No. 15 seeds have beaten No. 2 seeds since 1985, with seven of those wins coming since 2012.

Breaking it down, a No. 15 seed has upset a No. 2 seed just 11 times in 152 games (7.2%). In the 27 tournaments from 1985 to 2011, No. 15 seeds won only four times in 108 games (3.7%).

Since then, No. 15 seeds have seven wins in 48 games over the last 12 tournaments – a winning percentage of 14.6%. That’s a drastic increase.

Now it’s time to answer the real question: has it been profitable to bet on every underdog in March Madness?

While betting the underdog in every NCAA Tournament ever would put you in the negative, it would have been a profitable endeavor recently thanks to research from BetLabs via SportsInsights.

If a bettor placed a $100 moneyline bet on every underdog in the NCAA Tournament from 2017 to 2023, they’d be up $1,132.

There’s a similar trend for the spread as well. Bettors who wagered $100 on every underdog spread during that span would be up $723.

Spread bets are safer and more likely to hit because the underdog doesn’t need to win the game to cover. However, spreads also come with worse odds and lower potential payouts, so there’s a trade-off there.

Regardless, both bet types have been profitable lately on March Madness underdogs.

The average seed of a Final Four team since 2010 has been substantially higher than in previous years, indicating that higher seeds and underdogs are having more success in the tournament.

That trend has only accelerated in recent years. If you had wagered on every underdog from 2017 to 2023 on either the spread or moneyline, you’d be in the green.

Much of that success can be attributed to two No. 16 seeds (UMBC and Fairleigh Dickinson) knocking out No. 1 seeds for the first time ever, resulting in historic moneyline winnings. No. 15 seeds have been winning more often as well.

Accordingly, underdogs have become more viable bets based on recent trends. No. 15 and No. 16 seeds are still far more likely to lose than win, but upsets are becoming more common.

Time will tell if those trends continue, as tournaments vary every year. In the meantime, wagering a small amount of money on a large underdog appears to be a reasonable betting strategy that could prove profitable this March.

Photo by Maddie Meyer/Getty Images