When Sweet Leads to Elite in College Hoops
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
* Play the Over in the Elite
8 when the higher seed is favored by more than 3 points. Past
results: 18-4, 81.8%
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!
|
More Tips for the
NCAA Tourney
The purpose of my article each
March is to reveal some of those trends in order to help our
readers enjoy their own magical betting “run” through the
tournament. Typically, this is one of the most anticipated
pieces I do, at least if you judge by reader feedback. It
seems that the “madness” brings everyone’s college basketball
wagering interest to its peak and there is no such thing as
information overload at this time of year.
Most people who either bet on
the individual games or invest their hard earned dollars in
office pools agree on one thing: It pays to do your homework
in the days following selection Sunday. Visitors are consumed
by the thirst for as much stats, trends, and situations as
possible for the Big Dance.
Among the things I will deliver
in this year’s tournament article are; favorite/underdog
results, how the various seeding affects ATS performance, how
each conference fares, and even how line & total placement can
be important. New for this year, I’ve added a section on which
stats are most important in predicting winners, both straight
up and against the spread.
Enjoy the piece; hopefully it
will help deliver you numerous “shining moments” over the next
three weeks!
Where do the upsets come from
then? What are other key points to remember?
Most fans would agree that the
#1 thing that makes the NCAA tournament exciting is the
possibility of the upset, the little guy taking down the
bully, the Cinderella story, and so on. However, the
analysis thus far has proven one thing …that there is no
foolproof method for determining where the upsets will come
from on a yearly basis. There are some general concepts that
have produced successful results in the last several years
though, both in terms of bracket contests and wagering.
One key point of note before
digging into the key points is that the 2007 NCAA Tournament
was highly unusual in that the favorites won and covered the
pointspread at previously unseen rates. In fact, 2007 was the
first year in the last decade in which more than 80% of better
seeded teams won their games outright. It was also the first
year when these same teams reached the 60% mark against the
pointspread. Here’s a look at those results in more detail:
Year: Better Seed
Straight Up Record, ATS Record
1998: 45-18(71.4%) SU, 29-32-1
(47.5%) ATS
1999: 38-23(62.3%) SU, 25-34-2 (42.4%) ATS
2000: 44-19(69.8%) SU, 26-23 (53.1%) ATS
2001: 42-21(66.7%) SU, 33-29-1 (53.2%) ATS
2002: 46-16(74.2%) SU, 30-29-3 (50.8%) ATS
2003: 42-21(66.7%) SU, 25-36-2 (41.0%) ATS
2004: 47-16(74.6%) SU, 36-27 (57.1%) ATS
2005: 43-19(69.4%) SU, 27-35 (43.5%) ATS
2006: 42-21(66.7%) SU, 25-36-2 (41.0%) ATS
2007: 50-12(80.6%) SU,
36-24-2 (60.0%) ATS.
1) Most
often, the upsets come when least expected. If too many
experts are projecting an upset, I’ve found it doesn’t happen.
Take last year’s tournament for instance. Some of the most
popular upset picks were teams George Washington (over
Vanderbilt), Long Beach State (over Tennessee), Davidson (vs.
Maryland), and Old Dominion (vs. Butler). Not only were those
teams beaten, they were beaten soundly, all four by
double-digit margins. Meanwhile, overlooked clubs like
Virginia Commonwealth and Purdue were two of the four teams
that actually won outright as pointspread underdogs. The
common thread those teams shared: Taking on a foe that played
its best basketball earlier in the season.
2) History says the team facing the Ivy
League representative will not be upset, despite the publicity
Princeton still receives for having beat Georgetown many years
ago. There are five other conferences, including the Sun Belt,
that have also failed to win a tournament game since ’98.
There are still five more conferences that have only won once
in 10 years.
3) The most lethal “mid-major” conferences in
terms of upsets have been the Colonial Athletic, Missouri
Valley, Mid-American, and Horizon League. These have produced
the most “Cinderellas” to reach the Sweet 16 and beyond, each
accumulating a winning of at least 39% SU since ’98.
4) Sunday of Round 2 has had the most upsets
of any typical day in the tournament schedule. Lower seeds on
that day win outright at a 44% rate, and cover the spread
55.0% of the time.
5) More from Round 2, underdogs of 5-points
or less are an incredible 39-25 SU & 42-22 ATS, for 65.6%!
6) In the Sweet 16 round, watch for seeds #7,
8, & 9, as these teams are on a nice run of 7-3 SU & ATS.
7) Worse seeds have held a large advantage in
the Elite 8 round since 1998, going 26-12-2 ATS (68.4%). Those
playing as underdogs of less than 7-points are a startling
12-7 SU & 15-4 ATS (78.9%)!
8) Favorites are the way to go in the
Semifinal and Championship games. Since the turn of the
century, the “Chalk” is 17-7 SU & 16-8 ATS for 66.7%. Those of
4-6 points on Final Four weekend are a sizzling 16-5 ATS since
’98.
9) Stay away from the Mountain West
Conference teams. As good as these teams have looked on paper
heading into tournaments; they are only 7-18 SU & 8-14 ATS in
the last 10 years.
10) Take note that the ACC has had a tendency
to be overrated by oddsmakers. Most of the double-digit lines
in recent years have belonged to this league and though the
ACC SU win % is still the best, the pointspread win rate is
23% less.
11) In years that the higher seeds won more
than 70% of their games, the following season they went on
to win less than 70%, in each case dropping at least 5% in
win rate. The 2008 tournament could see a return of the
Cinderella.
12) Beware of the #10 seed. This team has
taken over for the #12 where upsets are concerned. In the
second round they are particularly dangerous of late. Overall,
the #10 has won over 44% of its games, despite being a lower
seed in all but one. In fact, against the #2 seed in the
second round, the #10 actually owns a winning record at 10-7
SU & 12-5 ATS.
13) Don’t be afraid to ride the #3, 5, 6, or
8 seeds as they advance deeper into the tournament. While the
SU win percentage is just below .500, all four of these spots
have produced very well in terms of ATS success.
14) Watch for game totals at 125 or below and
bet them to go UNDER. In games with totals set at less than
125 points, the UNDER owns a stellar 30-14 mark, for 68.2%,
including 6-1 in 2007.
15) The UNDER in the first round games of the
top three seeds is 65-42 (60.7%) since ’98.
|
|