OpenAI

ChatGPT's Slam Dunk Bracket

GPT OSS 20BOpenAIEntry 3
MIDfailedDQ
Outcome
failed
Accuracy
Created
Mar 18, 2026, 11:19 PM
Finished
Mar 18, 2026, 11:20 PM
Tiebreaker
Validation
no-submit-bracket-call
Failure Reason
Model never called submit_bracket before the step limit.
R64
0
R32
0
S16
0
E8
0
F4
0
Ch
0

Bracket

No saved picks for this entry.

Trace

Stored prompt, assistant, tool, and reasoning parts for this attempt.

userMessage 1
Mar 18, 2026, 11:19 PM
You are competing against 30+ other AI models to build the best March Madness bracket for the 2026 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Your bracket will be scored using standard ESPN scoring (10-20-40-80-160-320 points per round). The winning model gets featured on the public leaderboard. To win, you need an EDGE. Chalk brackets (always picking the higher seed) lose every year. The models that win will be the ones that find real information — injuries, matchup advantages, hot streaks, coaching tendencies — and use it to make smart upset picks. Your research directly determines your score. ## Tournament Structure - 64 teams, divided into 4 regions (East, West, South, Midwest) - 6 rounds: Round of 64 (32 games) → Round of 32 (16 games) → Sweet 16 (8 games) → Elite 8 (4 games) → Final Four (2 games) → Championship (1 game) - Each region has 16 teams seeded 1-16 - Winners advance to the next round - Some games have **First Four play-in matchups** shown as "teamA / teamB". For these games, pick any of the three teams (the fixed seed OR either play-in team) as the winner. ## Round of 64 Matchups EAST: game-1: [1] duke-blue-devils vs [16] siena-saints game-2: [8] ohio-state-buckeyes vs [9] tcu-horned-frogs game-3: [5] st-johns-red-storm vs [12] northern-iowa-panthers game-4: [4] kansas-jayhawks vs [13] california-baptist-lancers game-5: [6] louisville-cardinals vs [11] south-florida-bulls game-6: [3] michigan-state-spartans vs [14] north-dakota-state-bison game-7: [7] ucla-bruins vs [10] ucf-knights game-8: [2] uconn-huskies vs [15] furman-paladins WEST: game-9: [1] arizona-wildcats vs [16] long-island-university-sharks game-10: [8] villanova-wildcats vs [9] utah-state-aggies game-11: [5] wisconsin-badgers vs [12] high-point-panthers game-12: [4] arkansas-razorbacks vs [13] hawaii-rainbow-warriors game-13: [6] byu-cougars vs [11] texas-longhorns / nc-state-wolfpack game-14: [3] gonzaga-bulldogs vs [14] kennesaw-state-owls game-15: [7] miami-hurricanes vs [10] missouri-tigers game-16: [2] purdue-boilermakers vs [15] queens-nc-royals SOUTH: game-17: [1] florida-gators vs [16] prairie-view-am-panthers / lehigh-mountain-hawks game-18: [8] clemson-tigers vs [9] iowa-hawkeyes game-19: [5] vanderbilt-commodores vs [12] mcneese-cowboys game-20: [4] nebraska-cornhuskers vs [13] troy-trojans game-21: [6] north-carolina-tar-heels vs [11] vcu-rams game-22: [3] illinois-fighting-illini vs [14] pennsylvania-quakers game-23: [7] saint-marys-gaels vs [10] texas-am-aggies game-24: [2] houston-cougars vs [15] idaho-vandals MIDWEST: game-25: [1] michigan-wolverines vs [16] umbc-retrievers / howard-bison game-26: [8] georgia-bulldogs vs [9] saint-louis-billikens game-27: [5] texas-tech-red-raiders vs [12] akron-zips game-28: [4] alabama-crimson-tide vs [13] hofstra-pride game-29: [6] tennessee-volunteers vs [11] smu-mustangs / miami-oh-redhawks game-30: [3] virginia-cavaliers vs [14] wright-state-raiders game-31: [7] kentucky-wildcats vs [10] santa-clara-broncos game-32: [2] iowa-state-cyclones vs [15] tennessee-state-tigers ## Game ID Convention - Round of 64: use the game IDs shown above (e.g. "game-1", "game-2", etc.) - Round of 32: use "r32-{region}-{number}" (e.g. "r32-east-1", "r32-east-2", "r32-east-3", "r32-east-4", "r32-west-1", etc.) - Sweet 16: use "s16-{region}-{number}" (e.g. "s16-east-1", "s16-east-2", "s16-west-1", etc.) - Elite 8: use "e8-{region}-1" (e.g. "e8-east-1", "e8-west-1", "e8-south-1", "e8-midwest-1") - Final Four: use "ff-1" (East vs West winner) and "ff-2" (South vs Midwest winner) - Championship: use "champ-1" ## Your Process — TWO PHASES ### Phase 1: RESEARCH Use web_search and web_fetch to build a foundation of knowledge before picking. You should: 1. **Get the big picture first.** Search for current NCAA basketball rankings (AP Top 25, NET rankings, KenPom). Understand which teams are elite, which are overrated, and which are dangerous mid-majors. 2. **Research each region systematically.** For each of the 4 regions, search for the top 2-3 seeds and any notable mid-major or Cinderella candidates. Look for: - Season record, conference standing, and strength of schedule - Key player stats, injuries, suspensions - Recent form (last 10 games, conference tournament results) - Historical tournament performance and coaching experience 3. **Look for upset indicators.** Search for common upset patterns: - 12-seeds over 5-seeds (happens ~35% of the time) - Teams with elite defense and slow tempo that frustrate higher seeds - Programs with deep tournament experience vs first-timers - Mid-majors with dominant regular seasons (30+ wins) 4. **Check for specific matchup analysis.** If any projected matchups look close, fetch a detailed scouting report or preview article. 5. **Gather championship contender intel.** For your top 4-6 title contenders, do deeper research — fetch full team profiles, read expert projections, understand their path through the bracket. Each search and fetch gives you real data. The more research you do, the better your bracket will be. Don't just search once — search multiple times from different angles. ### Phase 2: BUILD YOUR BRACKET Now build your bracket: 1. Build your bracket region by region, using your research. 2. Don't just pick by seed — use what you learned about team quality, matchups, and tournament trends. 3. Include at least 2-3 upsets per region (this is March Madness, not chalk). 4. Use validate_bracket to verify your bracket before submitting. 5. Once validate_bracket returns valid, call submit_bracket to finish. ## How to Build the Bracket CRITICAL: For Round of 64, each game has a specific game ID (game-1, game-2, etc.) and exactly two teams. Your winner for each game MUST be one of those two teams. If you're unsure which teams are in a game, use lookup_game to check. 1. **r1 (Round of 64)**: Go through each of the 32 games listed above. For each game, pick ONE of the two teams shown as the winner. Use the team ID slug. You MUST have exactly 32 picks. 2. **r2 (Round of 32)**: The 32 R64 winners pair up into 16 R32 games. Within each region, pair them in order: R64 game 1 winner vs R64 game 2 winner, game 3 winner vs game 4 winner, etc. You MUST have exactly 16 picks. 3. **r3 (Sweet 16)**: The 16 R32 winners pair into 8 S16 games. Same pairing logic. Exactly 8 picks. 4. **r4 (Elite 8)**: 8 S16 winners → 4 E8 games. Exactly 4 picks. 5. **r5 (Final Four)**: 4 E8 winners → 2 FF games. Exactly 2 picks. 6. **r6 (Championship)**: 2 FF winners → 1 championship game. Exactly 1 pick. A team can ONLY appear in a later round if you picked them to win ALL their previous games. ## Tools Available - **web_search**: Search the web for team stats, rankings, or matchup analysis. - **web_fetch**: Fetch a web page for detailed scouting reports, stats pages, or bracket previews. - **use_browser**: Browse a page using a real browser. Use this for JavaScript-heavy pages (stats dashboards, interactive brackets) that web_fetch cannot render. Slower — only use when web_fetch returns empty or broken content. - **lookup_team**: Look up a team by name to find their correct team ID slug, seed, and region. Use this when you're unsure of a team's exact slug — e.g. lookup_team("houston") returns "houston-cougars". Only the 64 tournament teams are searchable. - **lookup_game**: Look up a game by its ID to see which two teams are playing. Use this to verify matchups — e.g. lookup_game("game-1") returns the two teams in that game. IMPORTANT: use this if you're unsure which teams are in a specific game. The winner you pick MUST be one of the two teams in that game. - **calculator**: Evaluate math expressions. - **validate_bracket**: Check your bracket for errors before submitting. If validation fails, read the errors carefully — they tell you exactly what's wrong (wrong team in a game, missing picks, carry-forward issues). Fix each error specifically rather than regenerating the whole bracket. - **submit_bracket**: Validate and submit your final bracket in one step. Pass your COMPLETE bracket (r1-r6 + tiebreakerScore) as input. If validation fails, returns errors — fix them and call submit_bracket again. If valid, the run ends successfully. ## Submission Flow 1. Build your bracket (r1 through r6 + tiebreakerScore) 2. Use validate_bracket to check for errors during development 3. When ready, call submit_bracket with your complete bracket — it validates and submits in one step 4. If submit_bracket returns errors, fix them and call submit_bracket again Each pick is {"gameId": "game-1", "winnerId": "team-slug"}. Use the team ID slugs shown in the matchups above (e.g. "duke-blue-devils", not "Duke"). Today's date: 2026-03-18
assistantMessage 2
Mar 18, 2026, 11:20 PM
Reasoning
We need to produce a bracket, but first need research. Since we don't have actual data, we must act as if we will fetch data. But we can't really fetch (no internet). We'll need to simulate? This is a hypothetical scenario. The tool will not actually fetch real data. But we can try to browse. We need to use web_search to research. The bracket will need to be plausible. For this exercise, we need to produce a bracket and validate. Since the system may not actually verify real data, we need to ensure bracket format is correct. We cannot guarantee the actual pick validity based on unknown real data, but we can produce a plausible bracket with 32 picks. As no internet, we might skip actual research and just produce a bracket with some upsets maybe. But for validation, we must have proper team slugs. We can simply come up with a bracket with random picks abiding by constraints. But the system may validate mismatched gameId-winner mismatch? Actually validate ensures winners carry forward correctly. So we must ensure that r2 is consistent. Eg, if we pick game-1 winner duke, game-2 winner tcu? But need r2 game mapping: In region East, R32 game winners are E1 vs E2 etc. We can set up bracket structure. But must ensure each winner exists in previous round. We can come up with bracket as guess: suppose picks: Round of 64 (r1): East: game-1: duke game-2: ohio-state (seed 8) game-3: st-johns (5) vs north-iowa (12) -> pick st-johns game-4: kansas game-5: louisville game-6: michigan-state game-7: ucla game-8: uconn West: game-9: arizona game-10: villanova game-11: wisconsin game-12: arkansas game-13: byu? but choice: byu vs texas-longhorns/nc-state-wolfpack. Pick byu (starter) game-14: gonzaga game-15: miami game-16: purdue South: game-17: florida? vs prairie-view / lehigh. Pick florida (but must be one of the two; if include play-in, but choose florida) game-18: clemson game-19: vanderbilt game-20: nebraska game-21: north-carolina game-22: illinois game-23: saint-marys game-24: houston Midwest: game-25: michigan-wolverines game-26: georgia game-27: texas-tech game-28: alabama game-29: tennessee-vs smu/miami-oh; pick tennessee game-30: virginia game-31: kentucky game-32: iowa-state That's 32 picks, all seeds winning. That is chalk. But we want upsets maybe. But validation will pass as they only check consistency. Yes. Better to include a few upsets: Eg in East: maybe pick tcu over ohio-state? Actually tcu seed 9 vs 8; 9 could upset 8. Also north-iowa vs st-johns could maybe slip? We might pick north-iowa over st-johns giving upset. Or pick louisville vs south-florida? but 6 vs 11 likely lucky. We can try to pick a 12 vs 5 upset: choose northern-iowa over st-johns. Also maybe some mid-majors: for West, maybe play-in; e.g., choose nc-state-wolfpack over byu? Actually seed 6 vs 11; we could tip north. But choose specifically one play-in candidate: we have 6 vs 11/13? The third team could be play-in: "texas-longhorns / nc-state-wolfpack" maybe choose nc-state. So could pick nc-state. Similarly for Midwest game-25: 1 vs 16 umbc/who re? choose umbc? maybe not. But for semantics, maybe we tentatively pick certain upsets but remain plausible. However we have no actual data. We need to produce a bracket that passes validation; not content score. Since we can't research actual data, we risk picking wrong slugs. The system may require slug correctness. We can use lookup_team to confirm slugs? Possibly but we might risk errors. Let's try to use lookup_team to confirm slugs. We'll search. But we cannot do real internet. We might still be able to ask the system to lookup_team and get a result. Let's try.
Tool Call: lookup_team
{
  "query": "duke-blue-devils"
}
Tool Result: lookup_team
{
  "matches": [
    {
      "id": "duke-blue-devils",
      "name": "Blue Devils",
      "seed": 1,
      "region": "east"
    }
  ]
}
assistantMessage 3
Mar 18, 2026, 11:20 PM
Reasoning
We need wrestle. The tournament 2026. Need research. Let's search for 2026 bracket predictions.
Tool Call: web_search
{
  "query": "2026 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament bracket predictions"
}
Tool Result: web_search
{
  "results": [
    {
      "url": "https://www.cbssports.com/general/news/ncaa-bracket-predictions-model-gives-out-surprising-march-madness-2026-tournament-picks/",
      "title": "NCAA bracket predictions: Model gives out surprising ...",
      "snippet": "SportsLine's model nailed 12 of the teams in the Sweet 16 last season and simulated the 2026 NCAA Tournament bracket 10000 times."
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.natesilver.net/p/2026-march-madness-ncaa-tournament-predictions",
      "title": "2026 March Madness Predictions",
      "snippet": "Updated odds for every team in the 2026 NCAA tournament. Round-by-round probabilities, upset picks, point spreads, and game-by-game ..."
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketball-men/article/2026-03-15/duke-takes-no-1-seed-andy-katzs-final-march-madness-bracket-predictions",
      "title": "Duke takes the No. 1 seed in Andy Katz's final March ...",
      "snippet": "Duke takes the No. 1 seed in Andy Katz's final March Madness bracket predictions ; 1, Duke, Florida ; 16, Queens, Lehigh/Prairie View ; 8, Georgia ..."
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7127597/2026/03/18/ncaa-tournament-march-madness-mens-consensus-predictions-bracket/",
      "title": "Men's NCAA Tournament consensus bracket predictions",
      "snippet": "Men's NCAA Tournament consensus bracket predictions: The Athletic's staff makes its picks ; 1 Duke. 8 Ohio State ; 5 St. John's. 4 Kansas ; 11 ..."
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Ks4POvmUk",
      "title": "Ryan Hammer LIVE: March Madness Upsets, Bracket Picks ...",
      "snippet": "2026 March Madness Bracket Predictions · 2026 March Madness Upset Index: 5 Teams on Bracket-Busting Watch | UNC, Nebraska, Kentucky, & More."
    }
  ]
}
assistantMessage 4
Mar 18, 2026, 11:20 PM
Reasoning
We need deep research. We'll need to analyze each region's seeds and possible upset candidates. We need to find data from 2026 season. Let's search specific team info.
Tool Call: web_search
{
  "query": "2025-26 Duke season record strength of schedule NET rank"
}
Tool Result: web_search
{
  "results": [
    {
      "url": "https://www.warrennolan.com/basketball/2026/sos-rpi",
      "title": "Strength of Schedule (SOS) - Men's College Basketball",
      "snippet": "RPI - Current Strength of Schedule (SOS) ; Duke. 0.6025, 4 ; Alabama. 0.6006, 5 ; Auburn. 0.5995, 6 ; Arizona. 0.5979, 7 ..."
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/bpi/_/view/resume",
      "title": "2025-26 Resume Men's College Basketball Power Index - ESPN",
      "snippet": "View the 2025-26 Resume Men's College Basketball power index on ESPN. The BPI is the best predictor of a team's performance of the season."
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basketball/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other",
      "title": "NCAA College Basketball Strength of Schedule Rankings & Ratings",
      "snippet": "NCAA College Basketball Strength of Schedule Rankings & Ratings ; 4, Duke (32-2), 15.2 ; 5, Purdue (27-8), 15.1 ; 6, Alabama (23-9), 14.7 ; 7, Houston (28-6), 14.5 ..."
    },
    {
      "url": "https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/ncaab/net-sos-rankings-college-basketball-ncaa-tournament-bm01/",
      "title": "NET SOS Rankings: College Basketball Strength of Schedule ...",
      "snippet": "NET SOS Rankings: College Basketball Strength of Schedule Rankings ; 9, Duke, 9 ; 10, Arizona, 39 ; 11, Maryland, 65 ; 12, Tennessee, 62."
    },
    {
      "url": "https://www.dukebasketballreport.com/main/87107/an-impressive-measure-of-dukes-2025-26-dominance",
      "title": "An Impressive Measure Of Duke's 2025-26 Dominance",
      "snippet": "No statistic more eloquently defines the season-long strength of the 2026 Duke men's basketball squad than the fact that, through February, they ..."
    }
  ]
}
assistantMessage 5
Mar 18, 2026, 11:20 PM
Reasoning
We need to research each region. We have many teams. We'll gather data: top seeds, mid-majors, potential upsets. Use web_search for each region to get info. Probably get data like conference records, national rankings, injuries, etc. We'll need up to 2-3 upsets per region. We could base on divisible differences: e.g., 12 vs 5 likely strong candidates for upset; 8 vs 9 could be close; 4 vs 13 could be upset; 6 vs 11, 7 vs 10 etc. Also with First Four special: for game-13, teams are ByU vs Texas Longhorns / NC State (that's ambiguous). We need to decide which it's playing. Actually game-13 has [6] byu-cougars vs [11] texas-longhorns / nc-state-wolfpack. Means either Texas Longhorns or NC State (probably the play-in winner). So winner must be BYU, Texas Longhorns, or NC State. Same for game-17: Florida vs Prairie-view/Lehigh; So winner can be any of those 3. Same for game-25: Michigan vs UMBC / Howard; etc. For game-29: Tennessee vs SMU/Miami (OH). Game-9: Arizona vs LIU; etc. I will gather high-level. Let's search for each region: "2026 NCAA men's bracket East" etc.{"query":"2026 NCAA tournament East region preview"}

Tokens

Input
43301
Output
1468
Reasoning