Looking for the chalkiest region in the first round of the NCAA Tournament? Our model thinks it’s likely to be the East. Only two of six Bracket Breaker games have an upset chance of greater than 10 percent, and no team has more than a 28 percent chance of springing an upset.

Below is a game-by-game analysis of every first-round matchup with Bracket Breaker implications in the East. We’ve already examined the Midwest and the West and will break down the South on Wednesday and every potential second-round matchup. To qualify as a Bracket Breaker game, opponents need to be separated by at least five seeds (which is why we don’t cover the 8/9 or 7/10 games). Our analysis adjusts teams’ basic strengths according to how closely they statistically resemble favorites and underdogs from past tournaments and, where appropriate, by style matchups. We can’t tell you how to bet — that depends on how richly your pool rewards deep upsets and your tolerance for risk. But if you’re interested in how our model works, check out this piece.

And now, onto the upsets!

More Bracket Breakers: Men’s Top 10 Upsets | Midwest Region Preview | West Region Preview | Women’s Top 10 Upsets

Odds are from BetMGM. For more Underdogs, listen to Peter and Jordan’s podcast. For all our…

Watching Creighton and Gonzaga struggle mightily from 3, Iowa smashing the spread against Southeastern Louisiana, Mississippi State hitting everything it threw at the basket, Miami coming back from a 17-point deficit and James Madison giving Ohio State all it could handle is a good reminder that anything can happen in March. Trends and stats gleaned from the regular season don’t always translate in March.

My overall record (picks are based against the spread, not straight-up winners) from the first round is 19-13. I underestimated Notre Dame to cover the spread, overestimated South Carolina’s ability to achieve a near 50-point margin, and should have trusted my gut with FGCU. But that’s part of the madness, right?

On to the second round.

If you’re unfamiliar with betting numbers, the general idea is you subtract whatever the number is from the score, and that should make it even. So “South Carolina -25.5” basically means the Gamecocks should win by 26 points against South Florida. The .5 allows you to pick a side, so there are no ties. In short, the team with the “-” number next to it is giving the other team that much of a lead in this figurative world. If “PK” is listed, it means the teams are rated even strength and it’s a straight win or loss…

On Thursday, we started looking for potential Cinderellas in the Women’s NCAA Tournament, and our statistical model got off to a pretty good start if we do say so ourselves.

Only two first-round matchups in our top 10 list took place on Friday. In one of them, Mississippi State was the third-most likely longshot to pull an upset (with chances of 40.3%), and the Bulldogs upended Creighton, 81-66. In the other, we warned you the implied gap on betting lines between Michigan and UNLV was closing so fast that the underdog Lady Rebels were actually looking overvalued, and Vegas lost by a dozen.

Beyond Mississippi State, three other teams defeated higher-seeded foes on Friday, setting up a first installment of seven giant vs. killer matchups (where opponents are separated by five or more seeds). Now, this is where the power of chalk in the women’s game really begins to show. Even for the Bulldogs or a successful double-digit seed such as Princeton, the reward for first-round success is often a nearly impossible follow-up.

Our colleague Austin Mock estimates that of the Sunday underdogs, only three have a 20% or greater chance of winning. In two of those cases, women’s Goliaths have been pretty severely overseeded.

Sunday second round upsets to watch

No. 2 Maryland vs. No. 7

Filling out the women’s NCAA Tournament bracket is fun, sure. But with betting lines included, the stakes are raised and it’s a whole other ballgame — even if you’re sure of the winner, you can still pick against the spread. Last year, I had a hard time finding lines for the women’s tournament. This year, the information was much more available. I took all info into account — stats, schedules, personnel matchups, strengths and weaknesses — as I began the arduous task of analyzing each pick and selecting game winners. (And I reminded myself, more than once, not to overthink it.)

If you’re unfamiliar with betting numbers, the general idea is you subtract whatever the number is from the score, and that should make it even. So “South Florida -1.5” means the Hurricanes should win by two against Marquette. The .5 allows you to pick a side, so there are no ties. In short, the team with the “-” number next to it is giving the other team that much of a lead in this figurative world. If “PK” is listed, it means the teams are rated even strength and it’s a straight win or loss pick.

My picks for the first round are based against the spread, not straight-up winners. Check back, as I’ll have subsequent picks for every round of the tournament.

Friday

No. 9…

Over the last month, The Athletic has spoken with more than 30 women’s college basketball coaches about an array of topics from name, image and likeness to athletic directors to sleeping giants in the sport. These coaches, who hail from power conferences and high mid-majors, were granted anonymity to allow them to speak openly without fear of retribution from their own programs or the NCAA. Throughout the week, we’re sharing coaches’ thoughts on the most pressing issues in their sport. Though not every response to each question is included, answers represent all opinions expressed.

Coaches always have an eye on their peers. There’s a bond among individuals in this line of work, and it helps to have camaraderie among people who have chosen a similar path. But oftentimes, coaches are scouting for best practices; they’re looking to lift plays and sets from other teams that might work for their own. In the Big Ten regular-season finale, Iowa coach Lisa Bluder noted to reporters she took a play out of Las Vegas Aces head coach Becky Hammon’s book to run on the Hawkeyes’ last possession, which ended in a Caitlin Clark game winner. The best coaches openly acknowledge they’re thieves of whatever works best on the court, whether that comes from high school, college or…

March is only two days away, but the madness has already begun in college basketball. Two major conference races came down to the wire in the Pac-12 and ACC. Then, Iowa and Indiana delivered the game of the year to date on Sunday to close out the Big Ten regular season as Caitlin Clark punctuated her candidacy for conference player of the year with 34 points, nine assists, nine rebounds and a buzzer-beating game-winning 3-pointer.

But the national player of the year award isn’t in Clark’s hands — at least not yet. The crown still resides with Aliyah Boston, and Boston added another accolade to her resume by leading South Carolina to an undefeated regular season with 25 points and 11 rebounds in the final contest against Georgia. The Gamecocks completed a wire-to-wire regular season atop these power rankings as well (yes, there are more games to be played in other conferences; and no, South Carolina will not be dethroned no matter those results). Only a truly mad March would see the defending champs removed from that perch.

Dropped out: Florida State

Almost famous: UNLV, Florida State, South Florida, Columbia

• Indiana remains No. 2 despite the loss to Iowa. The outright Big Ten champions for the first time in program history acquitted themselves well, even in defeat, and…