March Madness Bracket 2016: Betting Advice, Historical Trends and Predictions

There's an instinctive reaction to scope out the upsets right after the NCAA tournament brackets are released. College basketball has turned all of us into Pavlov's dogs, conditioned to assume something will happen because that's the way things have always been done. 

The most famous example of this March madness phenomenon is the No. 5 vs. No. 12 matchup. It's an easy place to look, since 12 seeds have won 44 times since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985. 

When looking at this year's bracket, there are certainly trends to be followed as you place bets. Here's what the field looks like, followed by some trends and advice to follow before the round of 64 begins on Thursday. 

"

Sign up and play Bleacher Report's Bracket Challenge now for a chance to win the Ultimate Sports Trip to four events of your choice. And click here for B/R's Printable Bracket.

"

Don't Pick An Upset For The Sake of It

Chris Knight/Associated Press

Going back to the talk of 12-5 upsets, it's certainly not a bad place to start when looking for a potential bracket-buster. Historically, among teams seeded 11th or lower, 12 seeds have produced more upsets than any group. 

However, that's also an easy way to get in trouble. Last year saw all four No. 5 seeds win in the round of 64, days after Benjamin Morris of FiveThirtyEight.com wrote about why all No. 5 seeds were jinxed:

"

...the 5 vs. 12 matchup looks a lot more like the 6 vs. 11 one than it does the 4 vs. 13. The No. 5 seeds have been considerably weaker than No. 4 seeds, and No. 12 seeds have been considerably stronger than No. 13 seeds. The average No. 5 seed had a 6.6 point expected advantage going into a game against its No. 12 seed opponent. That’s only 2.2 points higher than the average advantage that No. 6 seeds held against No. 11 seeds (4.4 points), but it’s 5.1 points lower than the average advantage that No. 4 seeds held against No. 13 seeds (11.7 points).

"

It's certainly easy to find an upset in the No. 5 vs. No. 12 games, as there were at least two of them every year from 2012-14 and last year was the first time since 2007 that at least one 12 seed didn't win a game. 

Because we are so conditioned to assume at least one will happen, these things become a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's the equivalent of a detective finds one suspect they assume had to have perpetrated a crime and builds an entire narrative to prove it instead of studying facts that may end up showing something else entirely. 

Instead of assuming an upset will happen somewhere, focus on how teams are trending. Iowa is a perfect example in this case. There was a time when the Hawkeyes looked like they could be a No. 1 seed, earning 11 first-place votes in the Associated Press Top 25 for the week of February 8. 

The tide has turned in a hurry on Iowa, which enters the NCAA tournament having lost six of its last eight games. It will be an upset if the Hawkeyes make it out of the first weekend with a resume like that. 

On the flip side, a team like Arizona enters the NCAA tournament with a 3-3 record in its last six games and underachieved most of the season with a 25-8 record. Yet context helps the Wildcats in this case, because two of their three recent losses were against Pac-12 stalwarts Utah and in overtime against Oregon. 

It's not impossible for Arizona to be sent home early in the first weekend, but the recent body of work is not working against the Wildcats. 

No. 1 Seeds Aren't Bad

Reed Hoffmann/Associated Press

While not quite on the level of No. 5 vs. No. 12 trends, there can be a stigma against picking No. 1 seeds due to fear of missing out on an upset. 

It's entirely possible some of this paranoia comes out of watching conference tournaments, which ESPN Stats & Info pointed out before Saturday's games tipped off saw plenty of top seeds go down this year:

This is not helping make my point, though I will get to that in a moment. Let me state that I would never say to pick all four No. 1 seeds to reach the Final Four. History tells us that isn't likely, since it's only happened once in the current tournament format (2008). 

Betting against No. 1 seeds, however, is an easy way to have your bracket broken. Since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, there have only been two years (2006, 2011) in which at least one top seed failed to reach the Final Four. 

This year is unique because of how much parity there has been. It was only recently that teams like Kansas and Michigan State, which didn't even get a No. 1 seed but is clearly one of the four best in the nation, began to separate themselves from the rest of the pack in the polls.

North Carolina looks strong after beating Duke in the regular-season finale and Virginia to win the ACC tournament. The same goes for Oregon, which made an emphatic statement by knocking off Utah by 31 points in the Pac-12 title game. 

In February, Big Blue Nation offered an alarming stat about teams ranked in the Associated Press Top 10:

With few great teams in college basketball this year, it certainly wouldn't be a surprise if 2016 joined 2006 and 2011 as seasons without at least one top seed in the Final Four. I just am not willing to believe it will happen. 

Michigan State is the Nation's Best Team

You want an actual title prediction? 

Michigan State is going to be cutting down the nets in Houston on April 4. It took some time for the Spartans to click, as well as getting everyone back healthy, but Tom Izzo has his team firing on all cylinders at the right time. 

If you need evidence of how good and deep Michigan State is, Denzel Valentine could potentially be the Naismith National Player of the Year. Blake Froling of Impact Sports noted what the star senior did through most of the first half against Maryland in the Big Ten tournament semifinals:

Valentine would eventually score before the break, but Michigan State was still winning comfortably as its best player struggled to find his shot. That speaks to the tremendous amount of depth Izzo has accumulated. 

The Spartans are not a one-man team because Bryn Forbes, Matt Costello and Eron Harris are very good shooters capable of picking up any offensive slack. They have balance, ranking third in offensive efficiency and 16th in defensive efficiency. 

Izzo's reputation in March is legendary. He only has one national title on his resume, but seven Final Four appearances in the last 17 years and a 46-17 NCAA tournament record speak volumes about how well he prepares his teams. 

There are certainly arguments to be made for other teams as the nation's best, with Kansas being chief among them. It's hard not to like Bill Self's team, which hasn't lost since January 26 at Iowa State and owns a 30-4 record after winning the Big 12 tournament. 

But the Spartans get the edge over Kansas by virtue of a head-to-head victory back in November. A lot has changed in the last four months, but Michigan State has only gotten better since that win. 

If Izzo doesn't win a second national title this year, it's hard to see when a better opportunity will come his way. 

Stats per Sports-Reference.com