In past years, I was frustrated by the inability to find detailed historical tournament data upon which to perform analysis. Sure, you could find a list of the tournament winners, and even final four data was not hard to find. But drilling down to the earlier rounds was virtually impossible, at least for all but the most recent years. So, I decided to do my own research.

What you'll find here are tables of data and analysis that covers the tournaments from 1985-2019. These are the 35 years during which the field has consisted of 64 (or 65 or 68) teams. While that's not necessarily a lot of data upon which to develop credible averages, the resulting records do seem to make intuitive sense.

First, let's take a historical look at how teams would have done using this year's contest scoring. In 35 years, we have data for 140 #1 seeds, 140 #2's, etc. Following are some statistics grouped by seed:

1985-2019 NCAA Tournament Results using Guru's Scoring Format [ Scores are valued in GuruDollars (G$) ]
Seed	Average	Worst	25%-ile	Median	75%-ile	Best Result (who, when, what)
1	17.3	-16	-6	6	37	79	N. Carolina 1993 - won
2	12.1	-15	-13	-3	23	113	Villanova 2016 - won
3	9.9	-14	-11	0	14	128	Syracuse 2003 - won
4	7.3	-13	-9	-9	16	144	Arizona 1997 - won
5	6.3	-12	-12	5	18	107	Florida. 2000 - lost in Final 4
6	6.0	-11	-11	6	12	186	Kansas 1988 - won
7	6.0	-10	-10	7	7	214	UConn 2014 - won
8	5.6	-9	-9	-9	8	242	Villanova 1985 - won
9	6.4	0	0	0	9	139	Wichita State 2013 - lost in Final 4
10	7.6	0	0	0	10	146	Syracuse 2016 – lost in Final 4
11	10.4	0	0	0	11	166	LSU 1986 - lost in Final 4
12	6.0	-1	0	0	12	37	Missouri 2002 - lost in Elite 8
13	3.3	0	0	0	0	26	Happened 6 times - lost in Sweet 16
14	2.3	0	0	0	0	28	Happened twice - lost in Sweet 16
15	1.0	0	0	0	0	30	Florida Gulf Coast 2013 - lost in Sweet 16
16	0.1	0	0	0	0	16	UMBC 2018 - beat Virgina in 1st round
Legend Average: Average score for all 140 seed occurrences over 35 years Worst: Worst result actually experienced in any tournament. 25%-ile: One-fourth of the results were worse than this, and three-fourths were better. Median: Half of the results were worse than this, and half were better. 75%-ile: Three-fourth of the results were worse than this, and one-fourths were better. Best: Best single score actually achieved in any tournament.

The table points out an important statistical feature of a single elimination tournament like this. The distribution of results is not symmetrical. This is because half of the teams in any year lose their first game, and are done. Three-fourths of all teams fail to win more than one game. You can see the impact of this by comparing the median score with the average score. Median scores are all pretty low (some are even negative), while averages tend to look more similar to the 75% percentile scores. (Actually, the averages aren't quite that good, but hopefully, you see the point I'm making.) So the typical distribution of results includes lots of lousy scores, a few reasonable scores, and (depending on the seed) a handful of great scores.

The 2000 Contest introduced the availability of "seed basket" units. A seed basket contains all four teams with the same seed. For example, in 2019, the #1 seed basket would have included the combined results of Duke, Gonzaga, Virginia, and North Carolina The following table shows the range of results that seed baskets would have experienced over the past 35 years.

Seed Basket Return History 1985-2019
Seed	Average	Worst	25%-ile	Median	75%-ile	Max	Best Year
1	69.0	-29	33	67	100	181	2008
2	48.4	-45	12	49	76	161	1995
3	39.7	-47	-13	17	84	203	1989
4	29.0	-44	-8	10	60	167	1997
5	25.4	-31	-1	16	36	183	2010
6	23.8	-44	0	9	35	216	1988
7	23.8	-40	-6	11	34	218	2014
8	22.6	-36	-19	-2	34/FONT>	271	2000
9	25.5	0	9	18	31	148	2013
10	30.3	0	10	25	39	156	2016
11	41.7	0	11	25	47	198	2011
12	23.9	-1	12	24	36	61	2002
13	13.0	0	0	13	26	26	10 times
14	9.2	0	0	14	14	42	1986
15	3.9	0	0	0	0	30	twice
16	0.5	0	0	0	0	16	2018

Best Potential G$ Return by Seed
Seed	Round in which Team Loses
	1	2	3	4	5	6	win
1	-16	-15	-6	7	38	54	80
2	-15	-13	-3	26	62	78	114
3	-14	-11	14	29	75	91	137
4	-13	-9	16	32	87	103	159
5	-12	5	18	34	99	115	181
6	-11	6	20	35	111	127	203
7	-10	7	22	36	122	138	224
8	-9	8	24	37	132	148	244
9	0	9	25	38	143	159	265
10	0	10	25	39	155	171	287
11	0	11	25	40	166	182	308
12	0	12	25	41	176	192	328
13	0	13	26	42	187	203	349
14	0	14	28	43	199	215	371
15	0	15	30	45	211	227	393
16	0	16	32	48	224	240	416

It thought it might also be instructive to show the best conceivable score which can be realized by each seed, depending on the round of exit. This score is produced if the specified seed faces the best possible seeds in each game. A table showing the "art of the possible" appears immediately to the right.

If you compare these maximum potential values to the actual best results by seed (above), you'll note that no team has yet produced the maximum. The best #1 seed result fell only G$1 short of the best possible, and Villanova's 1985 win as a #8 seed was only G$2 shy of the maximum potential for a #8 seed. (In the 3rd round, 'Nova faced the #5 seed instead of the #4, and in the first round of the final four they faced a #2 seed instead of a #1.) Arizona had a tough path to win in 1997, beating 3 #1 seeds along the way, but they faced a #12 seed in the second round, and a #10 seed in the fourth round, thereby falling G$15 short of the maximum potential for a #4 seed.