Number of upsets in the Round of 64
Short Answer
Both the model and the market expect 3+ upsets in the 2026 Round of 64, with no compelling evidence of mispricing.
1. Executive Verdict
- The Round of 64 concluded on March 19-20, 2026.
- Pre-tournament expectations indicated around seven total upsets.
- One-bid league teams #12 seeds never won an NCAA championship.
- No specific betting lines for 2026 tournament games were found.
- Mid-seeds in 2026 displayed distinct KenPom AdjEM efficiency gaps.
- No top PIPM players on #5-#8 seeds suffered reported injuries.
Who Wins and Why
| Outcome | Market | Model | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome | — | — | Insufficient data |
Current Context
Eight upsets occurred during the NCAA Tournament's Round of 64. In the 2026 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Round of 64, which encompassed 32 games played on March 19-20, a total of eight upsets were recorded where a higher-seeded team lost to a lower-seeded opponent [^], [^], [^], [^]. Confirmed upsets included No. 9 Saint Louis defeating No. 8 Georgia, No. 9 TCU triumphing over No. 8 Ohio State, No. 10 Texas A&M besting No. 7 Saint Mary's, No. 11 Texas overcoming No. 6 BYU [^], No. 11 VCU narrowly beating No. 6 North Carolina, and No. 12 High Point stunning No. 5 Wisconsin [^], [^]. These results confirmed that eight lower-seeded teams advanced to the Round of 32 [^].
The eight upsets exceeded pre-tournament prediction market expectations. Prior to the tournament, prediction markets generally anticipated around seven upsets in the Round of 64 [^], [^], [^]. Analysis showed a 52% probability for seven or more upsets to occur, while the likelihood of eight or more upsets was estimated at 33% [^]. The final count of eight upsets surpassed these market expectations, marking a notably unpredictable start to the tournament [^].
2. Market Behavior & Price Dynamics
Historical Price (Probability)
Outcome probability
Date
This market's price chart shows a decisive upward trend, starting at a 0.0% probability and ultimately settling at 99.0%. The primary price action occurred in early March, well before the tournament began. A significant spike on March 7th moved the price from 0.0% to 30.0%, immediately followed by a much larger 62.0 percentage point spike on March 9th, which brought the probability from 33.0% to 95.0%. After this explosive movement, the price stabilized and consolidated in a high range, trading between 93.0% and 99.0% for the remainder of the market's duration as the event played out.
The sharp price increases on March 7th and 9th indicate that early market participants developed strong conviction that a high number of upsets would occur. These spikes happened prior to the event, reflecting predictive speculation rather than a reaction to games being played. This early sentiment was ultimately validated by the context provided, which states that eight upsets did occur on March 19-20, causing the market to resolve in the affirmative. The high total trading volume of 28,152 contracts suggests significant market interest and liquidity. The continued, steady volume even after the price surpassed 90% shows that conviction remained strong as traders bought the remaining probability during the event itself.
From a technical perspective, the market established a firm price floor at 0% before quickly breaking out. After the spike on March 9th, the low 90s acted as a new support level, from which the price never significantly retreated. The chart illustrates a rapid and sustained shift in market sentiment from neutral to overwhelmingly confident in a "YES" outcome. This suggests that traders collectively anticipated an environment ripe for upsets and positioned themselves accordingly, a forecast that proved to be accurate upon the market's resolution.
3. Significant Price Movements
Notable price changes detected in the chart, along with research into what caused each movement.
Outcome: 8+ upsets
📈 March 20, 2026: 53.0pp spike
Price increased from 38.0% to 91.0%
What happened: The primary driver for the 53.0 percentage point spike was widespread social media activity surrounding the dramatic Round of 64 games on March 19, 2026. The No. 11 VCU upset over No. 6 North Carolina, specifically VCU's historic 19-point comeback, was explicitly identified as a "key social media catalyst" [^]. This viral narrative of an unprecedented upset, coupled with four other upsets on the first day [^], significantly heightened expectations for "8+ upsets" for the full round. This social activity appeared to LEAD the market's price surge. Social media was the primary driver.
Outcome: 6+ upsets
📈 March 19, 2026: 13.0pp spike
Price increased from 68.0% to 81.0%
What happened: The primary driver of the 13.0 percentage point price spike was the real-time occurrence of multiple dramatic upsets during the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Round of 64 on March 19, 2026, directly confirming the "6+ upsets" outcome. Key catalysts included No. 12 High Point's improbable victory over No. 5 Wisconsin and No. 11 VCU's 19-point comeback win against No. 6 North Carolina [^]. These surprising outcomes, widely reported by major sports outlets as a "wild start" [^], generated immediate and widespread discussion across social media platforms. While specific influencer posts aren't detailed, the dramatic finishes, like High Point's game-winning shot, drove significant real-time user engagement that coincided with the event and amplified its impact [^]. Social media was a contributing accelerant.
Outcome: 7+ upsets
📉 March 16, 2026: 21.0pp drop
Price decreased from 75.0% to 54.0%
What happened: No direct evidence in the provided sources identifies a specific social media catalyst for the 21.0 percentage point drop in the "7+ upsets" market on March 16, 2026 [Web research] [^]. While a "bracket reveal controversy over Miami (OH) seeding" was a social media topic coinciding with the bracket announcement on that date, its impact on the prediction market's specific 21.0pp drop is not documented [Web research] [^]. Consequently, based on the available information, social media's role in causing this particular market movement was (d) irrelevant [^].
📉 March 13, 2026: 10.0pp drop
Price decreased from 79.0% to 69.0%
What happened: The 10.0 percentage point drop on March 13, 2026, in the "7+ upsets" market was tentatively attributed to "conference tournament news" indicating "chalk-heavy outcomes" [^]. However, the specific examples of conference tournament results provided for that period primarily highlight upsets [^], which would logically lead to an increase in expected NCAA tournament upsets, contradicting the observed market drop. No specific social media activity from influential figures or viral narratives were identified as occurring on or around March 13, 2026, to explain this price movement. Therefore, the precise primary driver remains unconfirmed from the available information. Social media was (d) irrelevant to this specific price movement.
Outcome: 5+ upsets
📈 March 11, 2026: 36.0pp spike
Price increased from 62.0% to 98.0%
What happened: The provided research does not identify a primary driver for the 36.0 percentage point spike on March 11, 2026. This date predates the NCAA Round of 64, with the available news primarily covering conference tournament games such as UCF vs. Cincinnati or Loyola Chicago's upset over Richmond [^]. No social media activity from key figures or viral narratives are linked to this specific prediction market movement concerning future Round of 64 upsets. Based on the provided information, social media was (d) irrelevant, as no evidence connects it to the observed price movement.
4. Market Data
Contract Snapshot
This Kalshi market resolves to "Yes" if 10 or more upsets occur in the Round of 64 of the men's college basketball tournament, defined as a higher numerical seed defeating a lower numerical seed; otherwise, it resolves to "No." The market opened on March 7, 2026, and will close once the outcome is determined, no later than March 28, 2026, with projected payouts 5 minutes after closing. Outcomes are determined using information from ESPN, Fox Sports, and Kalshi sourcing the NCAA, and trading is prohibited for individuals with material non-public information or affiliations with relevant teams, leagues, or source agencies.
Available Contracts
Market options and current pricing
| Outcome bucket | Yes (price) | No (price) | Last trade probability |
|---|
Market Discussion
Traders are split on the number of upsets in the Round of 64, with some expressing confidence in 11+ upsets. Arguments for more upsets (Yes) highlight the perceived strength of #9 and #10 seeds, along with expectations for 1-2 upsets from #11+ seeds such as Texas and VCU. Conversely, a viewpoint for fewer upsets (No) suggests the tournament is currently playing out as "chalk," with favorites winning.
5. What are the 2026 NCAA Tournament mid-seed KenPom AdjEM gaps?
The 2026 NCAA Tournament exhibits distinct KenPom AdjEM gaps among mid-seeds. While the explicit average KenPom Adjusted Efficiency Margin (AdjEM) gap between teams seeded #5-#8 and those seeded #9-#12 in 2026 is not directly available, specific seed-line comparisons offer insight [^]. The 8 seeds in 2026 show an average AdjEM of +20.49, making them the second strongest ever for that seed line [^]. Concurrently, 9 seeds average an AdjEM of +19.77, marking them as the strongest ever at their seed line [^]. This results in an exceptionally narrow average AdjEM gap of +0.72 between 8 and 9 seeds, which is the smallest ever recorded, suggesting highly competitive matchups [^]. In contrast, the AdjEM gap between 5 seeds and 12 seeds in 2026 is +14.26, noted as the highest ever [^].
The 2026 field's mid-seed competitiveness contrasts with historical trends. Explicit historical average AdjEM gaps for these specific matchups across the last 10 tournaments are not provided in the available sources [^]. However, general trends based on older data indicate a typical KenPom AdjEM gap of approximately 3-5 points per 100 possessions between various seed lines [^]. The 2026 field is uniquely characterized as unusually strong and flat in these mid-seed ranges, particularly between 8 and 9 seeds, implying a smaller gap than what might typically be expected [^]. This heightened competitiveness, especially in the 8-9 games, suggests a potential for fewer Round of 64 upsets in those specific matchups [^].
6. Are 2026 NCAA Tournament Round of 64 Betting Lines Available?
| Opening Betting Lines for 2026 NCAA Round of 64 | Not available in provided research [^] |
|---|---|
| Point Spreads for Lower Seed Favorites | Cannot be determined without betting lines [^] |
| Detailed Team Matchups for Round of 64 | Not included in research findings [^] |
No specific betting lines for 2026 NCAA Tournament games were found. The web research results did not contain the necessary opening betting lines for the 2026 NCAA Tournament Round of 64 games [^]. This critical information is required to determine the number of lower-seeded teams (#9-#13) that are point-spread favorites over their higher-seeded opponents (#4-#8). The 'Web Research Results' section, which would have detailed this information, was empty.
The content from identified sources was not included in the findings. Although a list of potential 'Available Sources' was provided, the actual content detailing opening betting lines, point spreads, and team matchups for the individual 2026 Round of 64 games was not present in the research findings [^]. Without access to this specific data, it is not possible to identify which teams are favored in each game.
Consequently, a comprehensive answer on favored teams cannot be provided. Therefore, a complete answer with specific facts, data points, or statistics regarding the number of lower-seeded teams favored in the 2026 NCAA Tournament Round of 64 cannot be furnished based on the information available in the provided web research.
7. Have one-bid league #12 seeds ever won NCAA championships?
| One-bid league #12+ seeds winning NCAA title | None (since 1979) [^] |
|---|---|
| Overall #12 seed Round of 64 win rate | 33.6% (81-160) [^] |
| R64 win rate for one-bid #12+ vs power conferences | Not specifically documented [Web Research Results] [^] |
One-bid league teams seeded #12 or better have never won a championship. Since seeding began in 1979, no teams from conferences that do not receive at-large bids, seeded #12 or better, have ever won the NCAA men's basketball championship [^]. Historically, all champions seeded #12 or better have originated from multi-bid power conferences.
Specific win percentage data for one-bid #12 seeds is not documented. The precise historical Round of 64 win percentage for one-bid league teams seeded #12 or better against opponents from power conferences (P6 + Big East) is not explicitly available in existing sources. However, the overall Round of 64 record for all #12 seeds, regardless of their conference type or opponent's conference, stands at 81 wins and 160 losses as of 2025 [^]. This equates to an approximate win rate of 33.6% for #12 seeds in the Round of 64.
8. Can 2026 NCAA Tournament Tempo Clashes Be Determined?
| 2026 Tournament Bracket Data | Not available [^] |
|---|---|
| 2026 Team Adjusted Tempo Rankings | Not available [^] |
| Extreme Tempo Clash Analysis | Cannot be performed without specific data [^] |
Determining extreme tempo clashes for the 2026 NCAA tournament is currently impossible. The specific matchups for the 2026 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Round of 64 are not available in the provided web research results. Consequently, it is not possible to identify how many of the twelve 5-12, 6-11, and 7-10 matchups would feature an extreme tempo clash, as defined by one team ranking in the top 75 for Adjusted Tempo and their opponent ranking below 275 [^].
Two critical data components are missing for a complete analysis. To accurately address this question, detailed information regarding the 2026 NCAA Tournament bracket is essential, specifically the 5-12, 6-11, and 7-10 seed pairings [^]. Additionally, the Adjusted Tempo rankings for all participating teams in the 2026 tournament are required from a reliable source to evaluate the tempo clash condition [^]. Without both the specific bracket matchups and the corresponding team tempo data, an analysis of extreme tempo clashes for the 2026 tournament cannot be performed.
9. Were Top-Ranked PIPM Players on #5-#8 Seeds Injured in 2026 NCAA Tournament?
| Confirmed Top 10% PIPM Injuries (5-8 Seeds) | None explicitly identified (Web Research Results, 1-10) [^] |
|---|---|
| Nolan Winter Injury Status | Questionable with ankle injury for #5 seed Wisconsin (Web Research Results) [^] |
| Mikel Brown Jr. Injury Status | Questionable with back injury for #6 seed Louisville (Web Research Results, 4, 6) [^] |
Based on web research conducted for the week of March 15-20, 2026, no players met both top PIPM and injury criteria [^] . No players from teams seeded #5 through #8 were explicitly identified as ranking in the top 10% nationally for Player Impact Plus-Minus (PIPM) while also being reported as injured or limited in practice [Web Research Results] [^]. The provided sources did not offer explicit national PIPM rankings for the mentioned injured players, making it impossible to confirm they met the top 10% threshold [Web Research Results, 1-10] [^]. Several players on #5-#8 seeds reported injuries or limited participation [^]. Despite the unconfirmed PIPM ranking, several players from #5-#8 seeded teams were reported with injuries or limited practice participation during that week [^]. Nolan Winter, a forward for #5 seed Wisconsin, was listed as questionable due to an ankle injury; he averaged 13.3 points and 8.6 rebounds per game with a Player Efficiency Rating (PER) of 22.5 [Web Research Results] [^]. Additionally, Mikel Brown Jr., a guard for #6 seed Louisville, was questionable with a back injury [Web Research Results, 4, 6] [^]. Other key players faced significant injury setbacks during the week [^]. Jayden Quaintance, from #7 seed Kentucky, was reported out with a knee injury [Web Research Results] [^]. Furthermore, JT Toppin, a top player for #5 seed Texas Tech, sustained a season-ending injury prior to the tournament [Web Research Results, 1] [^].
10. What Could Change the Odds
Key Catalysts
The Round of 64 for the 2026 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament concluded on March 19-20, prior to the March 28 timestamp of the query [^] . Prediction markets, such as Kalshi, were actively tracking the total number of seed-based upsets during this phase [^]. Pre-tournament implied probabilities for the number of upsets indicated an expectation of around 7 [^]. Specifically, there was a 52% chance for 7 or more upsets, 33% for 8 or more, and 17% for 9 or more, as tracked by prediction markets [^]. At least six seed upsets were confirmed by March 20, including No [^]. 9 Saint Louis over No [^]. 8 Georgia, No [^]. 10 Texas A&M over No [^]. 7 Saint Mary's, No [^]. 11 Texas over No [^]. 6 BYU, No [^]. 11 VCU over No [^]. 6 North Carolina (in overtime), No [^]. 12 High Point over No [^]. 5 Wisconsin, and No [^]. 9 TCU over No [^]. 8 Ohio State [^]. While the full 32-game results and exact total upset count are not available in the provided data, the final tally will be crucial for the resolution of these prediction markets [^].
Key Dates & Catalysts
- Expiration: March 28, 2026
- Closes: March 28, 2026
11. Decision-Flipping Events
- Trigger: The Round of 64 for the 2026 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament concluded on March 19-20, prior to the March 28 timestamp of the query [^] .
- Trigger: Prediction markets, such as Kalshi, were actively tracking the total number of seed-based upsets during this phase [^] .
- Trigger: Pre-tournament implied probabilities for the number of upsets indicated an expectation of around 7 [^] .
- Trigger: Specifically, there was a 52% chance for 7 or more upsets, 33% for 8 or more, and 17% for 9 or more, as tracked by prediction markets [^] .
13. Related News
14. Historical Resolutions
Historical Resolutions: 1 markets in this series
Outcomes: 1 resolved YES, 0 resolved NO
Recent resolutions:
- KXMARMADUPSET-26R64-3: YES (Mar 20, 2026)
Get Real-Time Research Updates
Sign up for early access to live reports, historical data, and AI-powered market insights delivered to your inbox.
