From 1988 on for 16 years, Arizona was on an unbelievable run of going to the Big Dance as either  a #1, 2, or 3 seed except for three years.  In those three years, they were a 4 seed twice and a 5 seed once.  That is a remarkable run that many people are probably totally unaware of, especially many of the people from back East who don’t stay up late enough to catch any of the Pacific Time zone games. 
 
Except for other teams such as Duke, North Carolina, and Kentucky, there are not many schools that make it past the first two rounds on a consistent basis.  Making it to the Sweet 16 is a rare treat for many schools.  The NCAA Tournament still is a great event where any team, perhaps only in their dreams, can make it to the third round.  Then, as the cliché goes, “anything can happen”.

In a perfect world, the Sweet 16 consists of the teams that were seeded 1 through 4 in the original bracket.  Of course this is not a perfect world as evidenced by the fact that eating too much of Ben and Jerry’s Chunky Monkey ice cream does make you chunky and that the Three Stooges never did win an Academy Award for their work in movie shorts. 

Last year was close to Sweet 16 utopia with only a few teams making it to the Sweet 16 that shouldn’t have.  The East bracket saw #5 USC and #6 Vanderbilt win their first two games.  Number five Tennessee snuck into the South bracket after beating the #4 seed, Virginia.  Actually, in my opinion, the #4 and 5 seeds are almost interchangeable.  There really isn’t that much of a difference between the two teams. 

The Midwest bracket in 2007 did see that annoying mid-major Butler University make it to the Sweet 16 as a #5 seed along with improbable UNLV beating the odds as a #7 team when they crunched the #2 Wisconsin to advance and keep the dream alive. 

Making it to the Sweet 16 for teams seeded lower than the #8 slot has happened only 15% of the time over the past ten years, 24 teams out of 160.  It gets even rougher for the Cinderella’s to advance one step further, the Elite 8, as only 5 out of 80 teams were seeded higher than the midway number, 6.3%.

So, what happens in the Sweet 16 and the following Elite 8 from a betting perspective?  Do those lower seeds stand much of a chance in winning?  Do we see the slipper breaking for Cinderella?  How about the lined totals for each game?  Does defense take over and give the sports bettor a lot of Unders or do the high-octane offenses of the Blue Devils, Tar Heels, and Jayhawks cause a preponderance of games to go Over? 

To start with examining the Sweet 16 games over the past ten years, we first see a straight-up record of 57-23 by the higher-seeds.  However, against the point spread, betting on the lower seed has us winning 43 times out of 75 games with 5 pushes, a 57.3% clip. 

It sticks out in round 3 that there aren’t many outright upsets where a big dog as measured by the point spread clinches the victory.  For you underdog money-line bettors, it is worth knowing that since 1998, only one team has won outright that was a seven-point or great underdog.  In 2002, fifth-seeded Indiana met the top seeded Duke as a 13.5 point underdog.  The Hoosiers prevailed 74-73. 

The next closest outright upset happened in 2003 when the Marquette Golden Eagles beat Pittsburgh by three-points as a 6.5 point puppy. 

The first primo winning historical system in the third round is to play the Under if a team is favored by more than 6 points.  The ten-year record on this situation is 17-5 Under, a 77.3% winning spot for the bettor who isn’t afraid to bet the Under. 

I’m going to go off on a rant for a second.  Over the years, I have run into so many sports bettors, some sharp, some more like old paring knives, who refuse to bet the Under on a total in a game, especially in basketball.  They are scared to death of overtime.  Sure, overtime can happen, but they are putting blinders on and eliminating a frequent good betting opportunity.  The number of overtimes that happen in college hoops is so small that you probably should be more concerned about getting run over by a beer truck when you leave your favorite watering hole. 

Folks, this is gambling.  Not betting a game to go Under the total is similar to the fertilizer salesman from Valentine, Nebraska, who refuses to take a card at the blackjack table when he has 14 and the dealer is showing a ten.  To quote former President Harry S. Truman, “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. 

Okay, back to the article.  We have seen a profitable angle when the line is placed at a three-possession mark; let’s look at other trends in lines.  When the oddsmaker believes the game is going to end as a two-possession contest, -3.5 to -6, it has paid in the past to look at the favorite as the underdog is only 8-14 in those games, a losing 36.4% wager.  The total has seen a little pop to the Over at this line range going 14-10, 58.3%.

There really is nothing extraordinary in results of a one-possession line or even if the lower seed is the favorite.  The latter falls into one of those “wives’ tales” you hear or read about that “the linesmaker is telling you who to bet on by favoring the lower seed.”  You should believe that as much as believing in the Easter bunny or that there aren’t steroids in baseball. 

Well, we took the time to look how Sweet 16 games fared by what they are lined at against the point spread.  Let’s look the results games that are lined within certain totals ranges provide the sports bettor. 

We have a couple of past winning trends based on the lined total, but the sample size is small so there is a question of credibility to the future of the trend.  However, when the total is lined below 130, the Under cases 4 out of 15 times, a definite past advantage.  When the total is lined in the 130’s in the Sweet 16 round, the dog has covered 64.7% of the time, 11-6 ATS. 

In last week’s article we spoke about the rating of the conference and how conferences performed based on a basic A, B, C, and D rating. 

The conferences for each group rating are as follows:

A:  ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, SEC, and PAC 10
B:  Atlantic 10, Conference USA, Mid-American Conference, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, and the WAC
C:  Big Sky, Big West, Colonial, Horizon, Metro Atlantic, Ohio Valley, Sun Belt, West 
      Coast Conference
              D:  America East, Atlantic Sun, Big South, Ivy League, Mid-Continent (now Summit),      
              Mid-Eastern, Northeastern, Patriot, Southern, Southland, SWAC. 

An argument can be made regarding the ratings of the conferences.  Perhaps the most compelling would be the West Coast Conference being in the “C” group.  Sure, Gonzaga is in the WCC and emerging powers St. Mary’s and San Diego University are also.  However, our ratings go back ten years.  We have to average the entire conference over this extended period of time.

Out of the 80 Sweet 16 games that have been played since 1998, interestingly enough, only seven times has the higher seed not been a team from one of the Big 6 conferences, our “A” group. 

The previous two years has given us Memphis from Conference USA, a “B” Conference.  We had some crazy upsets in 2006 with Wichita State, a #6 seed, playing #11 seed George Mason.  1998 had six-seed Utah beating 10-seed West Virginia.  The other three “B” Conference schools were all from the Atlantic 10.  For the record, the “B” Conference schools were 4-3 ATS. 

In fact 2006 was the year that helped put a halt on the upset of the larger school by the mid-majors.  Television ratings came very close to an all-time low on the broadcast of the Final Four which included the Ultimate Cinderella, George Mason.  Low ratings mean lower dollar amounts the network and its affiliates can charge for commercials.   

Ratings for the Final Four were higher last year and the lack of upsets in 2007 might, in fact, be the reason for the better ratings: George Mason was a good story in 2006, but when fans tune in to the Final Four, they want to think they're actually watching the best teams. That wasn't the case with the Colonial Athletic Association representative. Last year the Final Four had big schools that have big alumni bases and well-known players taking the floor. 

One way to solve the “too many upsets” scenario is to have more mid-majors play each other rather than having the chance to knock out a team from one of the Big 6 Conferences.  Thus, we have Davidson playing Gonzaga, South Alabama versus Butler, and UNLV playing Kent State.  There is an immediate reduction of smaller schools and therefore the potential for fewer viewers tuning in to see teams that don’t even know what state they are from. 

If the lower seeded  team in the Sweet 16 has a scoring differential of +10 points or higher, they have only covered the point spread 11 out of 28 times and have also gone Under the lined total 18 out of 28 games. 

In playing with the numbers, I ran across something that was interesting.  When comparing the higher seed’s scoring margin over their opponents over the season versus their Sweet 16 foe’s point differential, if they have a margin of 8 points or better over their competition, they have only covered the point spread 33% of the time.  Perhaps expectations are running too high with the supposed better team who is outscoring their opponents at such a higher margin and the point spread line is shaded too much in that team’s favor. 

Another interesting and profitable result was discovered by looking at the higher-seeded teams that had a shooting percentage of 4% or higher over their competition in the Sweet 16.  Once again, you would assume they would have the better spread record.  It was just the opposite, a 9-18-3 ATS mark with an 11-16 OU record. 

In the Elite 8 round, betting on the lower seeds is very profitable, 26-12-2, 68.4%.  Not quite as lucrative, but still cashing tickets at a 65.7% pace is betting the Over in the Elite 8, 23-12-1 since 1999.  In 1998, there were no totals on the games so we only have nine years of data to look at. 

Breaking it down by the line as we did with the Sweet 16, if the higher-seeded team is a one-possession favorite, pick-em to minus 3, bet against them as they have only covered one out of the ten instances that has happened since 1998.  I can’t speak for everyone, but that is one stat I am remembering for the coming week!

I mentioned the Elite 8 games went Over the lined total 65.7% of the time.  The sweet spot to remember is when the higher-seed is favored by more than one-possession, -3.5 and up.  Betting the Over has filled many a coffer to the tune of 18-4, 81.8%. 

For wagering on the point spread in relationship to the lined total, it is worth mentioning that betting the lower-seeded team when the total is 140 or higher has been profitable 14 of the 19 times we’ve seen it since 1999. 

To summarize sweet betting situations mentioned in this article:

* Bet the UNDER in the Sweet 16 round if a team is favored by 6.5 or more points. Past results: 17-5 Under, 77.3%

* Play against higher-seeded short favorites up to -3 in the Elite 8.  Past results: 1-9 ATS

Looking at past history in the coming NCAA Tournament rounds doesn’t guarantee profits for us this year, but it can open your eyes to certain situations and give you an advantage over the uninformed sports bettor.  Enjoy the tournament!

Winning NCAA Tournament Angles  

This year we very well could see some games that achieve legendary status.  For people who wager money on individual March Madness games and who live and die by the point spread or the lined total in a game, the winner of the contest doesn’t always make a difference.  Legendary status to the sports bettor can be earned by a meaningless basket in the closing seconds of a game by a third-stringer or a bad call by a referee that changes the complexion of the game.

I have looked at the past ten years of every game played in the NCAA Tournament from 1998 to last year in trying to discover some trends, edges, or advantages that can help us return a profit in this year’s tournament.  Just because certain results, trends, or tendencies appear in the past, it is no guarantee that they will continue this year.  If that was the case, there would be a lot more people making very good money betting sports.

However, we are looking at a very good sample size of data, which gives our study validity.  Using small sample sizes or results over a very short period of time are shortcomings many handicappers exhibit in their work in breaking down games. 

As always, I like to start with a baseline of results to work from.  First, let’s just look at the results against the point spread and versus the lined total each round over the past ten years combined has recorded. 

In the opening round, it is almost an exact 50% result against the spread (ATS) with a record of 163-158 with four pushes.  However, it appears there is a very profitable betting angle wagering on the lined total to go Over or Under (O/U).  With the O/U results, we only have nine years of data as there were not lined totals offered back in the first year of our data, 1998.  Also, as a point of reference, Las Vegas did not offer odds on UNLV games in the Rebels 1998 and 2000 games in the NCAA Tournament.  This changed shortly thereafter and all UNLV games do have point spreads and lined totals. 

In the opening round over the past nine years, blindly betting the Under would have given you a sweet profit on a record of 191-132 Under, 59.1% winners!
 
In Round 2, betting on the lower seed now turns a profit winning 54.4% of the time, 86-72-2 ATS.  We still are profitable betting the Under, however we have dropped to a winning rate of 53.5% on a 85-74-1 mark. 

Moving on to the Sweet 16, gives us two profitable trends.  Again, betting on the lower seed has us winning 43 times out of 75 games, 57.3%.  The gravy train betting the Under continues with 61.5% winners, 48-30-2. 

The lower seeds are very profitable in the Elite 8 round, 26-12-2, 68.4%.  Interestingly enough, our Under meal ticket goes against us for the first time, with the Overs cashing 59.1% of the time, 23-16-1.

The Elite 8 round has a 13-7 mark, 65%, in favor of the higher seed.  The Under is back to being profitable with a 7-12-1 OU mark, 63.2%.  There were two games with equal seeds playing each other with 1-1 ATS and 1-1 OU records.

The Finals had three occasions with both teams being #1 seeds.  Eliminating those results, we are 5-2 ATS betting on the higher seed and 4-3 O/U. 

Here is a chart with each round based on the higher seed being the team of record:

The Higher Seed By Round

Round: ATS W-L (%), O-U
Round 1: 163-158 (50.8%), 132-191
Round 2: 72-86 (45.6%), 74-85
Sweet 16: 32-43 (42.7%), 30-48
Elite 8: 12-26 (31.6%), 23-16
Semi-Final: 13-7 (65%), 7-12
Final: 6-4 (60%), 6-4
Total, 298-324 (47.9%), 272-356

From there it is time to drill down and see what else we can uncover.  Other ways we want to look at the results are:

* How do teams from smaller conferences do against their larger counter parts?
* What are the results of teams in certain price ranges?  
* Are there any tendencies of Totals depending upon the lined number?
    
A very good way to get a quick look at how certain conferences perform is to group the conferences by perceived general strength.  We have four conference ratings:  A, B, C, and D. The conferences for each group rating are as follows:

A:  ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, SEC, and PAC 10
B:  Atlantic 10, Conference USA, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, and the WAC
C:  Big Sky, Big West, Colonial, Horizon, Metro Atlantic, Ohio Valley, Sun Belt, West Coast Conference
D:  America East, Atlantic Sun, Big South, Ivy League, Mid-Continent (now Summit), Mid-Eastern, Northeastern, Patriot, Southern, Southland, SWAC. 

An argument can be made regarding the ratings of the conferences.  Perhaps the most compelling would be the West Coast Conference being in the “C” group.  Sure, Gonzaga is in the WCC and emerging power St. Mary’s is also.  However, our ratings go back ten years.  We have to average the entire conference over this extended period of time.

First, let’s look how conferences do against equally rated conferences.  The value of taking the lower rated seed when “A” conferences meet each other is evident with the 57.5% ATS rate, 119-88.  Playing the Under has a small advantage at 109-98, 52.7%. 

There are no discernible advantages when the lower rated conferences meet each other and there really is not a very large result set.

When our highest rated conference group plays a “B” or “C” conference, the results show no edge ATS or O/U.  However, when the “A” group goes against the lowest rated squads, they do cover 55.7% of the time, with 54-43.  But, the most profitable wager found in comparing conference groups is playing the Under when an “A”, one of the “Big Six”, goes against a regularly non-lined “D” group.  You normally don’t find a 70 percent or higher winning blind wager, but that is what you have in this mismatch of talent. 

While we don’t have a large result set when the higher seed is the “B” conference group, there are a couple of edges there.  The “B” group only covers the spread in 12 of 30 games, a paltry 40% winning ATS rate.  The Under is 19-11, a nice 63.3% winning rate when you play it that way. 

In examining results by what the line is, there are some opportunities that arise.  We are ignoring what round is; only concerned about the point spread and the results.  There is nothing exciting about the ATS results when a team is favored by 20+ points, but the O/U is 28-21 in favor of the Under, 57.1%. 

Similar results are obtained when a team is favored by 15 to 19.5 points, regardless of the round.

An 18-17 ATS record produces nothing; however a 13-22 O/U mark gives us an edge worth considering. 

Tantalizingly good stuff shows up when we take a peek at -9.5 to -14.5 point spreads in the Big Dance.  Taking the points gives you a nice winning mark of 58-40, 60.2%.  Even more profitable is playing the Under with a 62-37 ticket cashing record.  Obviously, the better team is able to shut the weaker underdog down more times than not and not only get the cover but also throttle the other team defensively enough to get the Under.  

Moving the favorite into three possession territory and you don’t have anything outstanding, however the favorite did cover 54.5% of the time. 

Going into a two possession line range and we have some results that are worth noting.  The underdog getting 3.5 to 6 points has a record of 77-63, 55.0%.  The Under is more profitable with an 82-61 tally, 57.3%. 

Underdogs in a one-possession line, pick’em to +3, win at a 54.3% clip.  Definitely not strong enough to look too seriously at but still it is an edge. 

I did believe when the higher seed is an underdog to a lower seed, the results would show a significant spread-covering advantage for the disrespected higher seed.  I was disappointed when the ten-year scorecard was virtually a 50% wager. However, it is worth remembering when the higher seed is a dog up to three points, the Under cashes 31 out of 49 times, 61.2%. 

As someone who enjoys playing totals and firmly believes it is one of the areas in sports betting that has some of the best potential for profits, I thought there might be some eye-opening trends based upon the lined total in an NCAA Tournament game.
 
I was immediately rewarded with an exceptionally strong winning trend, albeit with a small sample size, with games with a lined total of 160 or higher.  Does a 10-1 ATS record for the higher seed make it worth you while to remember this trend?  The one loser happened in 1999 and was the only game with a #1 seed playing a #16 seed, Duke squaring off against Florida A&M.  Duke was a 46.5 point favorite, which also happens to be the most points given to a team over the past ten years of the NCAA Tournament.  Duke missed covering the line by six points.

I was surprised games with totals in the 150’s finished virtually in an exact even O/U.  However, the lower seed in such a game did cover the spread 61.0% of the time, 47 out of 77 games.

The Under was a winner with a 55.6% frequency to games lined in the 140’s, while the Over cashed your ticket 55.9% of the time with a total in the 130’s.  As we moved down into the 120’s, the Under was 54-40, 57.4%, with the lower seed covering the point spread 55.9% of the time.  Below the120 figure saw the Under with a 13-6 record. 

If you are wondering if the round of the tournament made any difference regarding the outcome of playing the Over and Under, you will be happy to know that it definitely does! 

In the opening round with a lined total in the 140’s, just playing the Under blindly would have given you 64% winners, 55-31.  Betting the Over would happen on games with a total in the 130’s in the opening round is not quite as lucrative, but a 60-41 record will keep you coming back for more!  A winning rate of 63.6% comes up with the Under when the total is less than 120 in Round 1.  Sometimes it pays to do your research!

Although there are only 13 games that fall into this result set, another nice tidbit I uncovered was playing the Under in the Sweet 16 round when the total is in the 120’s gave you a winning record of 10-3. 

Are there any opening rounds that have some land mines in them, rounds that have a strong tendency towards one side or the other or to the Over or Under?  Yes, and your tireless reporter has uncovered those!  How about when the #2 seed plays the #15 seed?  Good ol’ #2 has only covered 15 out of 39 times with one push.  And, even better, the Under has a superb record of 24-12.  (Remember in 1998, there were no posted totals.)

The winning angle on the Under continues with the 3 vs 14 opening round, a tidy 23-13 mark, 63.9%.  The Under continues to come in a winner, now at a 60% pace, for the opening round with the #6 and #7 seeds. 

The only other sides that showed any distinct advantage was betting on the #3 and #4 seeds in their first games, combing for a 55.7% winning ATS mark. 

Ready for even more information, how about the conferences living outside of the Big Six, especially the small conferences, how have they fared?  There are a few that show a profit when you are backing them.  The Colonial Athletic Association jumps forward with a 13-5 ATS record being led by Virginia Commonwealth, George Mason, and UNC-Wilmington.  They have also produced a 12-6 O/U mark.

Excluding play-in games, the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference has only won one NCAA Tournament game straight-up, that memorable one-point Hampton win over Iowa State in 2001.  However, they do have a nice 8-2 ATS record coupled with a 2-7 O/U mark the past ten seasons.

I realize most people cannot name a team from the America East Conference, but if you knew they were 3-7ATS the past ten seasons you might learn that Vermont and Albany are conference members. 

When a Mountain West team is the lower seed, it pays to bet against them to the tune of 13-6 ATS. 

Even though the Ivy League beats everybody in smarts, they don’t with their pocketbook as they are 1-9 ATS and 3-6 O/U since 1998. 

Conference USA has not been a money-maker going 27-38 ATS be it the higher or lower seed in a game. 

Large conferences that have done well as the lower seed include the Big 12 at 30-20 against the spread, Big East at 28-20, and the SEC at 26-14.

I have supplied a ton of data, a bunch of profitable trends that the casual and sophisticated sports bettor should pay attention to.  After all, if you have the edge, you should be able to grind out some profits and make this just as memorable of NCAA Tournament as it was to the Tar Heel Tommy Kearns and the University of North Carolina fans and players over 50 years ago.

Conferences to Watch in NCAA Tournament

The 2008 NCAA Basketball Tournament is now just around the corner, and they do not call it March Madness for nothing, as many have come to expect the unexpected.

In fact, it may be considered an upset if there are no early round upsets, so the question becomes which of the small conferences have the ability to shock the world and which of the major conferences are the most vulnerable. In an attempt to make some sense of the madness, we have analyzed all post-season games since the 2000-01 season and broken the results down by conference.

Now bear in mind that by post-season, we mean both the NCAA and NIT Tournaments combined, so this data can be used for either tournament. We have broken the last seven years down by records against the spread and by totals for each conference. Additionally, we have supplied the average margin of victory (AMOV) for each conference, which can be valuable when compared to this year’s point spreads, as well as the average combined total points per game, which can be used as an aid for selecting totals.

Here are the full results for every current conference, followed by some notable commentary for selected conferences.

Post-Season ATS and Total Records by Conference - Since 2000-01 (Pushes Omitted)

ACC – For a conference that has generally been regarded as the best in the country for many years, that 45.1 percent ATS mark sure leaves a lot to be desired. Furthermore, ACC underdogs are just 15-21-1, 41.7 percent ATS. As if that is not bad enough, the conference is more top-heavy than ever this season, as there is a drastic dropdown from North Carolina and Duke down to Clemson, and there is virtually nothing after that.

AMERICA EAST – It looks like the 7-2 UNDER mark for this conference is not a fluke, given that their tournament games average 128.1 points. However, Maryland-Baltimore County appears to be the favorite to earn a berth this season, and they have played an up-tempo pace with their games averaging 144.8 points. Still, they probably won’t score as much vs. better competition, so we’d consider the UNDER if the total is higher than 135 or so.

BIG 12 – It is interesting that the UNDER has hit at 54.5 percent while the average combined score has been a respectable 140.5 points. Both Kansas and Texas have played good defense this season, so look to play UNDER in games involving Big 12 schools that have posted totals in the 140s (or higher).

BIG SOUTH – This conference’s 6-3 ATS mark is obviously the result of getting enormous lines, based on the negative -11.0 AMOV. Then again, there is nothing wrong with that as long as we are cashing tickets. The two best teams in the conference this season appear to be Winthrop and UNC Ashville, and each of those teams is capable of continuing the ATS success in the first round, as Winthrop has beaten Miami Florida and Georgia Tech this year while Ashville is 23-8 with an enormous 7’ 7’’ center that could be a load for any team.

BIG TEN – The Big Ten may be getting a bad rap as it is usually considered to be an overrated conference, yet the 53.7 percent ATS rate has actually turned a slight profit the last seven years. The league has a similar MO every year, that being it usually has one team that goes very deep in the tournament while the rest of the conference gets knocked out fairly early. We think that Wisconsin is the team to back this season, although Purdue could surprise a lot of folks.

BIG WEST – That 9-2 OVER record should not come as a surprise when you consider that tournament games involving the Big West have averaged 155.6 points. However, there appears to be some more emphasis on defense this season, as the UNDER is 49-23 in all regular season games involving the conference with an average combined total of just 137.8 points. Cal State Fullerton is the only legitimate contender for a tournament berth that plays the “old” style, as their games are averaging 156.7 points. If the Titans are the team that gets in, we would follow the OVER trend as long as the total is within reason. If some other team gets the nod, we’d most likely pass.

CONFERENCE USA – The major knock against Memphis this season is that they play in a weak conference, but given that Conference USA has a sparkling 64.3 percent ATS mark the last seven tournaments, the Tigers should be just fine. Also take note of the fine 55.6 percent OVER mark for the conference, and we would follow that pattern as long as the total is less than 145 or do, which would not be a given for Memphis games.

HORIZON – Here again, the major knock against Butler has been a weak schedule, especially since the Bulldogs have beaten just one RPI Top 50 team all year. However, the 63.3 percent success rate of the Horizon League shows that the conference can compete with anyone, and the Bulldogs should be nice investments as long as they are not laying double digits.

IVY LEAGUE – It used to be that none of the major schools wanted the play either Princeton or Penn in the first round, but the Ivy has been on the decline from an ATS perspective the last seven years at 3-8, and this year’s representative Cornell is new to this post-season experience. A first round blowout loss seems fairly likely.

MAC – What is noteworthy about the MAC is the 59.3 percent UNDER mark, and this year’s likely representative Kent State fits that mold, as Golden Flashes games are averaging just 132.4 points on the season.

MEAC – The Mid Eastern Athletic Conference has nothing to be ashamed of, as this conference has always been matched with a powerhouse in the opening round. Thus, the 8-4 ATS record makes sense given the respectable -10.7 AMOV, and who could forget the memorable upset by Hampton over second-seeded Iowa State in 1991. This conference will probably be worth a shot as an underdog of almost 20 points.

MOUNTAIN WEST – For people that criticized the pollsters this season for never ranking BYU over the course of the year, take a look at the lousy 38.6 percent ATS record the MWC has logged this decade. We would look to fade BYU this season, especially if they turn up as slight favorites. Also take note of the 63.6 percent OVER record for the conference, although their games only averaged 138.8 points. We would consider the OVER in games involving the Mountain West teams that have a smallish total.

PAC 10 – We would like to point out the drastic change in philosophy for this conference, as the top three teams this season (UCLA, Stanford, Washington State) are all defensively oriented. Thus, we would not put much stock in the 56.0 percent OVER record unless a total comes up extraordinarily small.

SOUTHERN – This has been the most UNDER-friendly conference in the nation over the last seven post-seasons at 83.3 percent. Now this year’s likely representative Davidson can score in bunches, but the Wildcats have also defended well allowing only 64.2 points per game with the UNDER going 15-11. The UNDER could be a good bet assuming they get in, as the total may be inflated a bit due to their offensive reputation.

SOUTHLAND – This conference has not competed well at 3-7 ATS, which means that either Stephen F. Austin, Sam Houston or Lamar will have their work cut out for them. The -15.4 AMOV shows that the conference simply can’t handle the jump up in class, and if it is Stephen Austin that gets in, that could set up a nice bet against the conference as the Lumberjacks may get some respect with their record currently at 23-4.

SOUTHWESTERN – The Southwestern Athletic Conference did not win a game straight up the last seven years, usually due to porous defense as the conference is surrendering 86.0 points per game in tournament play. That would explain both the 2-4 ATS record and the 5-1 OVER mark. The conference AMOV of -22.7 points suggests that the representative would be a nice first-round fade at just about any price, and the OVER would certainly be worth a look, especially if it is less than 150.

SUMMIT – This conference may have a new name, but the current teams in the conference are 0-6 SU, with only Southern Utah being able to cover the number in a 68-65 loss to Boston College in 2001. The leading candidates to get in this year are Indiana Purdue and Oral Roberts, and those schools are a collective 0-4 ATS in tournament play the last seven years.

WAC – The WAC is just 40 percent ATS, mainly due to the fact that few of their teams play well on the road, and their usually low seeding means that the neutral court tournament games are usually closer to their opponent. This year is no exception as Boise State, Utah State, New Mexico State and Nevada have all performed noticeably better at home than on the road. The translation should be another early exit.

WEST COAST CONFERENCE – Gonzaga put this conference on the map, but the Zags have become a very public team in recent years, and as a result they are just 2-5 ATS in their last seven tournament games. They should have some company from the conference this year though in St. Mary’s, but the Gaels failed in their only post-season appearance this decade, falling to Southern Illinois in 2005. Now we do think that both Gonzaga and St. Mary’s are talented and capable of knocking off some heavyweights this season, so we will reserve judgment as to whether or not to continue to fade this conference until we see the matchups.
 

Conference Specific Trends

  The SU winner of games in the ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE are 87-22-1 ATS.

ATLANTIC TEN CONFERENCE #5 seeds are 3-13 ATS as dogs.

BIG EAST CONFERENCE favs playing with revenge are 3-11 ATS vs. opponent off back to back wins.

BIG 10 CONFERENCE #10 and #11 Seeds are 9-1 ATS off a loss.

BIG 12 CONFERENCE teams who are 3-0 SU+ATS L3 games are 1-7 ATS as dogs, 1-8 ATS off a DD ATS win and 1-6 ATS with revenge.

BIG WEST CONFERENCE #9 and #10 seeds are 7-0-1 ATS.

COLONIAL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION #1 Seeds are 10-4 ATS L14 games.

CONFERENCE USA teams playing with revenge off SU+ATS loss are 13-4-1 ATS.

HORIZON CONFERENCE teams off win by 10 points or less are 5-11 SU and 4-11-1 ATS.

MID AMERICAN CONFERENCE #3 Seeds are 3-10 ATS L13 games.

MISSOURI VALLEY CONFERENCE teams off 3-0 SU+ATS L3 games are 12-5 ATS (7-1 ATS as dogs).

MOUNTAIN WEST CONFERENCE #5 Seeds are 7-2-1 ATS L10 games.

PAC 10 CONFERENCE teams off BB wins are 6-1 ATS vs. .714 > opponents.

SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE #2 Seeds are 8-1 ATS as favs 9 or less points.

SUN BELT CONFERENCE #1 Seeds are 6-1 ATS L7 games.

WEST COAST CONFERENCE home favorites are 9-1 ATS.

WESTERN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE #1 Seeds are 9-0 SU + ATS L3 years.

NCAA Tourney Tips

Many times during the season, and even in some conference tournament games, you can find teams that are less likely interested in wanting to play hard. That is, they know they’re going to get hammered, or they’ve slumped so badly down the stretch that they realize they have no shot at going anywhere in tourney play. In short, they’ve given up on the season or on a particular game where they are a big underdog and know their season is over.

This is a bit less likely in March, however, with tournament play rolling this week and many teams battling the bubble. This is a good time to examine some late season college basketball tourney tips:

Road Play: Some teams have a noticeable weakness on the road, such as poor road defense, or they consistently fail to cover when away from home. Toledo has been the poster child of that this season, at 8-3 at home with a winning (7-4) spread mark, but 1-15 SU, 5-11 ATS on the road! Why? Poor ball-handling ability and a defense that allows 48.6% shooting on the road and an offense that is inept at 55 PPG away from home. Some college tournament games are neutral courts, but it can be helpful to check both teams’ road play when analyzing individual matchups to get a sense of how they play away from home.

Non-Conference Competition: Some helpful sports wagering web sites have this broken down in easy-to-read columns. North Carolina, for instance, is 15-0 SU, 11-1 ATS against non-conference foes this season. This shows that they do well outside their conference. On the other hand, you must take this a step further, too: Examine next who those non-conference games were against. If they were against all small-school teams with poor records, then it’s not as helpful as if they played against top-notch non-conference opponents. The Tar Heels, for instance, won and covered against BYU, Ohio State and at Kentucky, and whipped two by double digits. They are also 23-2 SU, 18-7 ATS as chalk, so they don’t go easy on teams they are supposed to beat. Florida State, on the other hand, is 3-7 ATS as chalk.

Location: Sometimes teams luck out by getting placed in a tourney game that is very close to home. The Sun Belt conference opens play this week with the team having the better record hosting the game. The Missouri Valley opens play Thursday in the Scottrade Center in St. Louis, a neutral court for all the participants. A close location can mean more fans in the stands cheering for a particular team, giving it a slight edge.

Their Role as a Dog: Check how some teams fared as an underdog during the season. Western Kentucky, for instance, is the No. 3 seed (but the best team) in the Sun Belt, but it is 0-4 SU as a dog. However, a closer look finds it lost to Gonzaga as a dog, 74-71, and to Tennessee 88-82. The Hilltoppers covered both games. They may not have won all season as a dog, but those losses are very impressive. A bigger name school like Kentucky is just 2-7 SU, 3-6 ATS as a dog. You get the sense that they just aren’t talented enough to step it up when the competition is better.

History: Has this team been here before? Some teams are new to tournament play and beyond. Check their recent history. Is this a surprise team that came out of nowhere to get this far? Does their starting five have any experience at all in March tournament play? Digging into various details can help turn a profit during March madness.
If you didn't get enough madness this weekend, or were out of town, don't sweat it. You get to go mad all over again! This is a unique week as teams play for conference titles with trips to the postseason play at stake. One of the great parts of March tournament play is the amount of sidebars that can pop up with respect to handicapping. That is, tournament play offers bettors many different factors to analyze and digest.

With the games meaning so much, this is a great time to mention how important defense is. Strong defense requires an all-out effort from players, and we are now reaching that point in the year where the meaning of games is at its highest. Win or go home is far different than the regular season, when you have a chance to play again. Soon it will be win or your season, no matter how great it might have been, it’s over.

Don't be surprised to see a lot more fierce defensive games with so much on the line now. We got a glimpse of this when No. 6 Duke hosted No. 1 North Carolina in an ACC regular season showdown. The Tar Heels held Duke scoreless for the final 5 minutes, 41 seconds in a 76-68 win at Cameron Indoor Stadium. The total on the game was 170, but it went under by almost 30 points! Sure, both teams like to play an uptempo style, but with so much at stake, intense defense rose up on both sides.

"We are getting better defensively," said North Carolina coach Roy Williams. "I think the statistics show that." Yes they did! Notice that a change in defensive strategy helped North Carolina win. In an 89-78 loss on Feb. 6 in Chapel Hill, Duke made 13 3-pointers to North Carolina's three, partly because the Tar Heels struggled to defend ball screens. In practice following last week's defeat of Florida State, Williams told his players to do something he'd never done as a coach. He asked them to switch on every ball screen to prevent players from getting open 3-pointers.

Offense requires timing, practice and even rhythm, with so much passing and cutting involved. It’s not that difficult for defenses to put in new wrinkles to upset the opponent’s timing or attack the shooter. With so much at stake in March, it’s not surprising coaches will stress the importance of defense and demand it, many times on every possession.

Think back to last season’s tournament run by Florida and Ohio State. The Gators had a reputation of a run-and-gun offense, yet in the first tourney game they shut down Georgia, 74-57, in an SEC tournament game that went under the total. In the SEC title game, the Florida defense was great again and held Arkansas to 56 points in a game that went under the total.

Ohio State also went 2-1 under the total in the Big 10 tournament, holding Purdue to 52 and Wisconsin to 49 in the final two games. Even uptempo teams can bring a fierce defensive effort that oddsmakers and bettors might not expect. The Conference USA championship a few years ago pitted Memphis and UAB, two strong running teams. Yet, they played lights-out defense in a 57-46 Memphis win. That game went under the total by 41 points! That same season uptempo Florida beat South Carolina for the SEC title, 49-47, in a game going under the total of 130. It's common to see close games and intense defensive battles.

Four years ago, UConn went 2-1 under the total in the Big East tournament, holding Notre Dame to 58, Villanova to 67 and Pitt to 58, one that started a 5-1 under the total run the rest of March. That same season Wisconsin turned on the defense, going 2-1 under the total in the tourney, knocking off Illinois 70-58 as a one-point dog in the title game. This is the time of the year for spirited defense!

Wisconsin continues to be a monster defensive team under Bo Ryan, currently at 17-9 under the total allowing 54 PPG. Don’t expect that strategy to change during tourney play. On Saturday, they clinched their first outright crown since 2003 with a 65-52 decision over Northwestern. It went UNDER the total, their fourth straight game UNDER. Over the next few weeks you will see upsets, fantastic finishes and plenty of rugged defense. Because March is money time!