Celebrity March Madness Brackets: Who Has the Best NCAAB Bracket Record?
March Madness rewards preparation, instinct, and the ability to project how a tournament bracket will unfold under pressure. Every year, fans and public figures alike test their NCAAB knowledge by predicting which teams will survive six rounds of chaos.
We analyzed 15 Celebrity March Madness brackets from the 2024 and 2025 NCAAB tournaments, scoring each across all 63 games based on overall accuracy, upset performance, bracket depth, and championship selection. The results reveal which public figures built the most reliable brackets and whose strategies held up when it mattered most.
So, which celebrity truly knows March Madness best?
Key Insights
- Jay Bilas leads all celebrities with a 91 composite score and 89% accuracy, correctly predicting 56 of 63 games in 2025 while selecting the national champion.
- Joe Biden ranks second overall with 82% accuracy in 2024, converting 6 of 9 upset picks and correctly identifying the champion — outperforming Barack Obama’s 71% accuracy and emerging as the strongest-performing presidential bracket in the study.
- Only 40% of celebrities (6 of 15) correctly picked the tournament champion, highlighting how difficult it is to close out a bracket even with strong early round performance.
- Snoop Dogg and Dr. Pimple Popper selected the most upsets (14 each) but finished outside the top 10 after posting negative net upset scores and missing the champion.
Top Celebrity March Madness Brackets of 2024 and 2025
This ranking highlights the strongest Celebrity March Madness betting brackets from the 2024 and 2025 NCAAB tournaments. Jay Bilas, Joe Biden, and Nickelback led the field, separating themselves through accuracy, disciplined upset selection, and late-round depth.
The Top 5 Celebrity March Madness Brackets of 2024-2025
These five brackets demonstrated the strongest command of tournament forecasting, combining high accuracy with disciplined risk management and consistent performance through the championship stages.
#1 Jay Bilas – Analyst Precision Under Pressure
- Champ Pick: Florida
- Overall Score: 91/100
- Accuracy: 89% (56 of 63 games correct)
- Depth Score: 83/100
- Upsets: 8 selected, 6 correct
- Champion Correct: Yes
The ESPN college basketball analyst led the study with 89% overall accuracy and the strongest upset efficiency in the field. By limiting his bracket to eight upset selections and converting six, Bilas minimized volatility while maintaining control across every round. He advanced seven teams into the Sweet 16 and correctly identified the national champion, combining efficiency and late-round accuracy to produce the highest composite score overall.
#2 Joe Biden – Structured Fandom Pays Off
- Champ Pick: UConn
- Overall Score: 85/100
- Accuracy: 82% (52 of 63 games correct)
- Depth Score: 79/100
- Upsets: 9 selected, 6 correct
- Champion Correct: Yes
Joe Biden, former U.S. president, became known for publicly releasing his March Madness picks during his time in office. His 2024 bracket finished second overall, pairing 82% accuracy with disciplined upset selection. While not a professional analyst, Biden has long engaged with the tournament as a fan, and that familiarity showed in his results. He advanced six teams into the Sweet 16 and correctly selected UConn as champion, delivering the strongest non-analyst performance in the study.
#3 Nickelback – Depth as the Differentiator
- Champ Pick: Florida
- Overall Score: 83/100
- Accuracy: 78% (49 of 63 games correct)
- Depth Score: 85/100
- Upsets: 13 selected, 7 correct
- Champion Correct: Yes
Nickelback, the Canadian rock band, submitted a 2025 bracket that finished third overall. While not known for professional basketball analysis, the band has participated in public bracket challenges and demonstrated a calculated approach in this study. Their entry paired 78% overall accuracy with seven correct upset selections and a championship pick. Advancing two teams into the Final Four strengthened their depth score and secured one of the most competitive brackets in the field.
#4 Stephen A. Smith – Balanced and Efficient
- Champ Pick: Florida
- Overall Score: 81/100
- Accuracy: 79% (50 of 63 games correct)
- Depth Score: 77/100
- Upsets: 11 selected, 6 correct
- Champion Correct: Yes
Stephen A. Smith, ESPN commentator and longtime basketball analyst, submitted a 2025 bracket that ranked fourth overall. Known for his professional basketball coverage, he also regularly weighs in on March Madness sportsbook projections. His bracket balanced 79% overall accuracy with efficient upset conversion, hitting six of eleven underdog selections. A correct championship pick and steady performance through the later rounds secured one of the most complete brackets in the field.
#5 Charles Barkley – Controlled Risk, Strong Finish
- Champ Pick: Florida
- Overall Score: 80/100
- Accuracy: 78% (49 of 63 games correct)
- Depth Score: 76/100
- Upsets: 9 selected, 5 correct
- Champion Correct: Yes
Charles Barkley, former NBA MVP and longtime TNT analyst, submitted a 2025 bracket that finished fifth overall. With decades of basketball experience and a history of outspoken tournament predictions, Barkley approached his selections with measured restraint. He limited upset exposure to nine picks, converting five while keeping multiple teams alive into the later rounds. A correct championship selection and consistent depth secured his place inside the top five.
Upset Accuracy in Celebrity March Madness Brackets: Who Converted Underdogs Best?
Underdog selection created one of the clearest separation points in the dataset. While many celebrities selected double-digit upsets, only a handful converted them at a rate that improved overall standing.
| Name | Upset Picks | Upset Correct | Upset Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jay Bilas | 8 | 6 | 100 |
| Joe Biden | 9 | 6 | 91 |
| Nickelback | 13 | 7 | 73 |
| Stephen A. Smith | 11 | 6 | 73 |
| Charles Barkley | 9 | 5 | 73 |
| Bugs Bunny | 12 | 6 | 64 |
| Dick Vitale | 10 | 5 | 64 |
| Alex Bregman | 12 | 6 | 63 |
| Jordan Howlett | 12 | 5 | 45 |
| Jason Kelce | 10 | 4 | 45 |
| Barack Obama | 11 | 4 | 36 |
| Jimmy Fallon | 11 | 4 | 36 |
| Snoop Dogg | 14 | 5 | 27 |
| Dr. Pimple Popper | 14 | 4 | 9 |
| Tim McGraw | 13 | 3 | 0 |
High-Risk Celebrity March Madness Brackets: Snoop Dogg and Dr. Pimple Popper
Snoop Dogg (#13) and Dr. Pimple Popper (#14) selected 14 underdogs each — the highest totals in the dataset — reflecting the most aggressive risk tolerance in the field. However, Snoop converted just 5 of 14 (36%) and Dr. Pimple Popper 4 of 14 (29%), both finishing outside the top 10. Neither is known for NCAAB analysis, suggesting a more instinctive approach rather than matchup-based forecasting.
What it says: Elevated risk tolerance without structured basketball evaluation did not translate into competitive results.
Measured Approach in Celebrity March Madness Brackets: Jay Bilas
Jay Bilas selected just eight underdogs, the fewest in the study. As a longtime ESPN college basketball analyst and former Duke player, his experience likely influenced a more restrained approach. His limited exposure reduced volatility while preserving efficiency.
What it says: Long-term familiarity with NCAAB trends appears to encourage disciplined upset selection rather than aggressive risk-taking.
Highest Underdog Conversion Rate: Jay Bilas (75%)
Bilas converted 6 of 8 underdogs (75%), earning a perfect Upset Score of 100 and finishing first overall. His analyst background likely shaped a calibrated threshold for identifying statistically viable underdogs rather than chasing high-variance matchups.
What it says: Selecting the right underdogs, not the most, aligned most strongly with top-tier performance.
Lowest Underdog Conversion Rate: Tim McGraw (23%)
Tim McGraw selected 13 underdogs but converted just 3 (23%), producing the lowest Upset Score in the dataset. Several early-round misses limited recovery potential before deeper stages of the tournament.
What it says: High risk without strong conversion made it difficult to sustain competitive positioning.
Upset Efficiency Tiers: Where March Madness Rankings Diverged
While total upset picks varied widely, conversion rate ultimately determined ranking impact.
- Elite Efficiency: Jay Bilas (75%) and Joe Biden (67%) aligned with top-two finishes.
- Above Baseline: Nickelback, Stephen A. Smith, and Charles Barkley exceeded the 50% threshold, reinforcing top-five placement.
- Below Baseline: High-volume entries clustered outside the top 10, where lower conversion rates reduced composite scores.
What it says: Across the full dataset, upset conversion rate closely tracked overall placement, creating a clear performance tier between top-five finishers and the rest of the field.
Celebrity March Madness Brackets With Strong Starts but Missed Finishes
Several brackets posted competitive overall accuracy but ultimately plateaued outside the top five due to limited championship-week impact.
- Respectable Accuracy, Limited Climb: Jordan Howlett (#8) delivered 73% overall accuracy, yet his bracket did not generate enough separation in later rounds to challenge the top tier.
- Elite Eight Presence Without Breakthrough: Bugs Bunny (#6) and Dick Vitale (#7) each advanced multiple teams deep into the bracket but lacked the final push needed to overtake the top five.
- Depth Without Conversion: Alex Bregman (#9) remained competitive through much of the tournament but fell short of championship-week positioning, preventing upward movement.
What it says: Solid accuracy keeps a bracket competitive, but without decisive championship-week performance, upward mobility becomes limited.
| Name | Round of 64 | Round of 32 | Sweet 16 | Elite 8 | Final Four |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jay Bilas | 29 | 15 | 7 | 3 | 1 |
| Joe Biden | 27 | 14 | 6 | 3 | 1 |
| Nickelback | 25 | 13 | 6 | 3 | 2 |
| Stephen A. Smith | 26 | 13 | 6 | 3 | 1 |
| Charles Barkley | 26 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 1 |
| Bugs Bunny | 25 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 1 |
| Dick Vitale | 24 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 1 |
| Jordan Howlett | 24 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 1 |
| Alex Bregman | 24 | 12 | 6 | 3 | 0 |
| Barack Obama | 24 | 12 | 5 | 2 | 1 |
| Jason Kelce | 23 | 11 | 6 | 2 | 1 |
| Jimmy Fallon | 24 | 12 | 6 | 2 | 0 |
| Snoop Dogg | 22 | 11 | 5 | 2 | 1 |
| Dr. Pimple Popper | 23 | 11 | 5 | 2 | 0 |
| Tim McGraw | 22 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
Round-by-Round Depth in Celebrity March Madness Brackets
While several brackets appeared similar through the first two rounds, structural separation emerged when projecting teams into the Sweet 16, Elite Eight, and Final Four.
- First-Weekend Control: Jay Bilas (#1) led the field with 29 correct picks in the Round of 64 and 15 in the Round of 32 , the strongest opening performance in the dataset. Joe Biden (#2) followed closely with 27 and 14, preserving early structural stability.
- Final Four Leverage: Nickelback (#3) was the only top-five finisher to advance two teams into the Final Four, giving their bracket additional scoring leverage entering championship weekend.
- Sweet 16 Disparity: Tim McGraw (#15) advanced just three teams into the Sweet 16, the lowest total in the field, which significantly reduced his ability to accumulate depth points later in the tournament.
What it says: Early-round positioning establishes opportunity, but projected depth into later rounds, especially the Final Four, determines scoring leverage and final ranking.
Who Really Knows March Madness Brackets?
The results make one thing clear: measured bracket strategy outperformed high-risk swings. Selective upset picks, correct championship selections, and accurate Final Four projections defined the strongest entries. Jay Bilas set the benchmark with the highest overall accuracy, while Joe Biden finished as the top-performing president in the study. Nickelback emerged as an unexpected contender, reinforcing that bracket success was not limited to analysts or former players.
Across all 15 entries, advancement into the Final Four proved to be the clearest dividing line in the rankings. As the next tournament approaches, readers building their own brackets can apply the same principles using The Sports Geek’s free printable March Madness bracket template to track picks round by round.
Methodology
Each bracket was scored across four weighted components:
- Overall Accuracy (63 Games Total): Accuracy was measured across all 63 NCAA tournament games. This score reflects the percentage of correct picks from the Round of 64 through the National Championship.
- Upset Score (Efficiency Over Volume): We measured how efficiently each celebrity selected underdogs. The baseline was 50% accuracy. For example, selecting 12 upsets and correctly predicting 6 results in a neutral score. Converting more than half of upset picks produced a positive score, while finishing below 50% resulted in a penalty. This ensured volume alone was not rewarded — efficiency mattered most.
- Depth Score (Late-Round Performance): Depth measured how many projected teams advanced to the rounds predicted, including the Sweet 16, Elite Eight, and Final Four. For example, correctly selecting 5 of 8 Elite Eight teams and 2 of 4 Final Four teams would generate a strong depth score. These scores were scaled relative to the field, with the strongest depth performance receiving 100 and the weakest receiving 0.
- Champion Bonus: Additional points were awarded to celebrities who correctly selected the national champion.
This structure ensured brackets were rewarded for sustained performance across all rounds rather than isolated early-round success.
