INDIANAPOLIS — When Bryce Yoder, a sports management major at Indiana University-Indianapolis, needs a break from studying, he turns his attention to an engaging hobby this time of year: bracket science. This practice involves predicting winners for the NCAA Tournament brackets, which Yoder is eager to participate in before Thursday’s first-round games. Crafting the perfect bracket requires significant effort, persistence, and a bit of luck.
Yoder’s passion for March Madness is shared by millions across the nation, from die-hard sports enthusiasts to casual fans and college alumni. As they fill out their brackets, many dream of achieving the elusive perfect bracket—a feat the NCAA describes as having a 1 in 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 chance for those guessing and 1 in 120.2 billion for those with basketball knowledge.
However, for participants like Yoder, it’s more about the thrill of competition, as he explains, “The satisfaction of being right” drives him to fill out numerous brackets, aiming to outperform friends, family, or even strangers.
Brackets have become big business and a significant distraction nationwide, with various competitions ranging from office pools to family contests. A 2023 study by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a work outplacement firm, estimated a $17.3 billion loss in productivity during the tournament. Additionally, a Finance Buzz survey reported that 36% of employees watch games during work hours, and nearly a quarter use paid time off or sick days to catch the action.
Even sectors such as elective surgery have tapped into this craze, with clinics promoting procedures timed for patients to recover while watching the tournament.
Historically, brackets weren’t always the cultural staple they are today. The NCAA Tournament began in 1939, but it wasn’t until the ’70s that brackets became recognized. The tournament expanded in participation and popularity, with key milestones including the decision in 1978 to seed teams and the 1979 face-off between Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, captivating audiences with a 24.1 television rating, the highest for the tournament.
Charlie Creme, now an ESPN women’s basketball bracketologist, recalls being enchanted by the tournament from a young age, crafting his own brackets and predictions.
The phenomenon surged when ESPN broadcast early games in 1980 and CBS later acquired rights, enhancing coverage that included the first televised selection show. Brackets gained cultural significance, sparking debates fueled by sports commentators like Dick Vitale.
While initially popular among students, brackets soon infiltrated workplaces and family competitions. Despite the NCAA’s past concerns about gambling associations, they now run an online bracket game as part of “fan engagement.”
The allure of unpredictable outcomes, such as North Carolina State’s 1983 win, or upsets like Georgetown’s near fall to Princeton in 1989, amplifies the excitement. According to Joe Lunardi, ESPN’s men’s basketball bracketologist, a perfect bracket is unlikely, referencing Warren Buffet’s $10 million challenge for a perfect bracket, confident it wouldn’t be claimed.
Participants like Yoder embrace the challenge, often mixing logic with daring predictions. “If I feel strongly about a game, I’ll pick the same outcome,” Yoder explains, yet embraces unpredictability by adding potential upsets.
Bracketology has evolved with time, incorporating tools like NET rankings and analytical sites such as kenpom.com. NCAA officials, including Dan Gavitt, continually refine bracket considerations to balance tradition with modern metrics. The idea of incorporating artificial intelligence into bracket selection is contemplated but remains resisted by enthusiasts who treasure the human element in predictions.
While technological advances could shape future brackets, fans like Creme enjoy the intricate puzzle of strategizing potential winners, embracing the unpredictable nature that keeps March Madness thrilling year after year.
