StatFox.com - Sports Handicapping Community

The Leading Logic In Sports Handicapping

The FoxDen Forum : Powered by vBulletin version 2.3.0 The FoxDen Forum > Sports Handicapping, Trends, and Stats > NCAAB Tournament Trends
Search The Fox Den Forum:

Subscribe to this Thread


Last Message   Next Message
    
Author
Message    Post A Reply
msudogs
Moderator

Registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 65535

NCAAB Tournament Trends

The NCAA Tournament is a three-week event that has grown into a far bigger phenomenon than anyone probably envisioned. The only other event that probably captivates the sports world’s attention more is the Super Bowl each February. It certainly doesn’t make things easier for those handicapping the action, as the enormity of the madness can change things.

The tourney attracts even the most casual fans, whether they are in pools, picking brackets, or choosing random games on which to place their wagers. In many cases, this can alter the bookmaking process and, hence, the routines of the bettors who have been grinding it out since November. This makes it the most important time of the year to have a foundation for your handicapping.

This past year’s tournament aside, some reliable patterns have formed in recent NCAA Tournament action. I can almost assure you that we won’t witness anything near the level of crazy we saw last March when not a single No. 1 seed reached the Elite Eight, and the Final Four consisted of a No. 4, two No. 5s, and a No. 9 seed. To put it mildly, brackets were busted, and bettors backing the big favorites, other than UConn, of course, suffered depleted bankrolls.

On top of that, 27 of the first 36 games went Under the total. Still, along the way, readers of this particular piece stayed afloat by following some of the trends and systems I shared that break down the tournament on a round-by-round basis. In it, I look for edges by seed, line range, conferences, and much more.

I caution every year that trends and systems can turn at any time. Still, they can also prove to be the foundation for successful wagering, especially if they form off of bettor’s misconceptions or are the result of physical mismatches that can arise and only the oddsmaking experts understand them. With all that said, gauge carefully for yourself whether or not you find there to be enough of a “foundation” to the info to make it bet-worthy.

Old Post 03-18-24 10:32 PM
msudogs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for msudogs Click here to Send msudogs a Private Message Edit post   Report post
msudogs
Moderator

Registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 65535

First Four Games

• Over the last 11 NCAA Tournaments, underdogs own a 24-19 ATS (55.8%) edge in the First Four round.

• Since 2001, there have only been eight First Four games with lines of 5 points or higher. Favorites are 7-1 SU and 6-2 ATS (75%) in those contests.

• More on point spread benchmarks, in that same span since 2001, favorites of less than 5 points are 26-22 SU but just 19-28-1 ATS (40.4%)

• Outright winners have gone 35-3 ATS (92.1%) in the First Four round since 2013, although in a strange most recent loss, Drake did win vs. Wichita State without covering in 2021 on a 1.5-point spread.

• Formerly, all First Four games used to match No. 16 seeds. Recently, First Four games featuring seeds 12 or better have trended 15-7 Under (68.2%)

• Higher totaled First Four games, or those higher than 139, have also trended 14-7 Under (66.7%)

Old Post 03-18-24 10:34 PM
msudogs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for msudogs Click here to Send msudogs a Private Message Edit post   Report post
msudogs
Moderator

Registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 65535

First Round Games
Overall Trends

• Teams that didn’t make their conference tournament championship game are on a first-round slide of just 37-58-2 ATS (38.9%) versus conference champions, good go-against teams. However, in another sign of how rare things were in the 2023 NCAA Tournament, this group was 5-1 ATS.

• Power conference schools that lost SU and ATS in their conference championship game are 60-16 SU and 42-32-2 ATS (56.8%) in the first round over the last 15 seasons, a sign that the tournament experience they gained was valuable despite the conference championship loss.

• Oddsmakers have done bettors a favor by signaling first-round upsets, as small first-round favorites of -1 to -3 are just 54-59 SU and 43-66-4 ATS (39.5%) since 2009. However, this trend also swung the other way last year, going 6-2 SU and ATS.

• Of late, mid-level favorites of -3.5 to -7.5 have also struggled, going 38-22 SU but 27-33 ATS (45%) since 2016 in the first round.

• In the last 10 NCAA Tournaments, first-round favorites of 13.5 points or more have only enjoyed one winning ATS season, that coming in 2022. In that span, they have compiled a record of 82-9 SU but 39-50-1 ATS (43.8%). Last year, these teams were 2-5 ATS, with Arizona and Purdue losing outright.

• On recent first-round totals, games posted with totals of 149 or higher have trended decisively Under in the last four tourneys, going 17-6 (73.9%).

Old Post 03-18-24 10:34 PM
msudogs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for msudogs Click here to Send msudogs a Private Message Edit post   Report post
msudogs
Moderator

Registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 65535

By Seeds

• There are some sweet spots for betting No. 1 seeds. As favorites of -19 to -25 points, they are just 13-24 ATS (35.1%) since 2009. When favored by 18.5 or less, they are on an 8-1 ATS run.

• No. 1 seeds have flexed their muscles defensively over the last six tournaments, going 12-4 Under the total (75%) while holding opponents to 60.6 PPG.

• Be wary of laying big numbers with No. 2 seeds, as they are just 13-23-1 ATS (36.1%) since 2005 when favored by 17 points or more. Those No. 2s favored by less than 17 points are on an impressive 20-8-2 ATS (71.4%) run since 2007.

• The last 23 No. 3 seeds to play in first-round games are on an impressive 22-1 SU and 14-9 ATS (60.9%) surge.

• No. 3 seeds playing as single-digit favorites are on a massive Under the total run, 20-7 (74.1%) since 2003, with games producing almost 6.9 PPG below their posted numbers on average.

• No. 4 seeds have been somewhat unreliable lately for bettors, going 13-22-1 ATS (37.1%) over the last nine tourney seasons, including 6-14-1 ATS (30%) when favored by 8.5 points or more.

• The No. 5 seeds broke a lengthy 18-31-3 ATS (36.7%) skid versus the No. 12 seeds last year by going 4-0 SU and ATS. Still, these No. 5s remain extremely vulnerable when playing as 6-point favorites or, more recently, 18-8 SU but 8-16-2 ATS (33.3%) since 2009.

• Power conference schools are 24-18 SU and 13-27-2 ATS (32.5%) as No. 5 seeds in the first round since 2008. As No. 12 seeds, they are on a 13-4-1 ATS (76.5%) surge.

• The No. 6 seeds are 27-29 SU and 21-34-1 ATS (38.2%) in their last 56 first-round games versus No. 11s (also 37-18-1 Under, 67.3%)

• In No. 6 vs. No. 11 games set with the No. 6 playing as an underdog or pick ’em, the No. 6s are just 4-11 SU and ATS (26.7%) since 2001. This is a classic trap set by oddsmakers, and it happened last in 2022, with No. 6 Colorado State losing to Michigan.

• Be aware of a total opportunity when No. 6 seeds are favored by 4 points or more, as Unders are 19-5 (79.2%) in such games since 2009, with games producing just 128.7 PPG on average and totals of about 138.2.

• Non-power conference schools playing as No. 7 seeds have been a sound wagering choice, 21-9-1 ATS (70%) since 2004. In the 2022 bracket, No. 7 Murray State (-2) edged San Francisco by 5.

• The No. 7 seeds playing in the +3 to -3 line range have proven to be quite profitable over the long haul, 38-21 SU and 35-23-1 ATS since 2003.

• The No. 7 vs. No. 10 matchups have been among the rare higher-scoring tilts of late, going 18-13 Over (58.1%) since 2015.

• The No. 8 seeds went 2-2 SU and ATS in 2023, running their five-year mark to just 7-13 SU and ATS (35%).

• As small favorites of 3 points or less over No. 9’s, No. 8 seeds are on a brutal skid of 8-15 SU and 5-17-1 ATS (22.7%)!

• Of the last 25 No. 8 vs. No. 9 matchups, 17 have gone Over the total (68%).

• Combined, non-power conference programs playing in the No. 4-No. 6 seeds over the last 21 years have gone 28-23 SU but 20-30-1 ATS (40%). They have been far more successful against the spread in the lesser pressure No. 7 and No. 8 seeds, 33-24-4 ATS (57.9%) in that same time range.

• Power conference programs have been very dangerous in the No. 11-No. 14 seed range, going 27-19 SU and 28-17-1 ATS (62.2%) since 2008.

Old Post 03-18-24 10:35 PM
msudogs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for msudogs Click here to Send msudogs a Private Message Edit post   Report post
msudogs
Moderator

Registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 65535

Second Round Games
General trends

• Bettors have not enjoyed a winning second round of the NCAA Tournament since 2017, going 21-37-1 ATS (36.2%) in moving opening lines since then. This is a change from the first round, perhaps explained by the shorter prep period for the second round.

• Second-round top-4 seeds that won but didn’t cover the spread in the first round are 44-16 SU and 33-26-1 ATS (55.9%) since 2013. They are also 34-23-3 Under (59.6%) the total.

• Second-round double-digit favorites are 49-2 SU and 31-20 ATS (60.8%) since 2001. Fifteen of the last 22 such games went Under (68.2%) the total, with the favorites allowing just 60.8 PPG.

Old Post 03-18-24 10:36 PM
msudogs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for msudogs Click here to Send msudogs a Private Message Edit post   Report post
msudogs
Moderator

Registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 65535

Trends by seed

• Over the last 25 years, there has been a clear benchmark for when heavily favored No. 1 seeds struggle to win ATS, which comes at the 12-point line. In fact, in that span, No. 1 seeds favored by 12 or more are 23-1 SU but 9-15 ATS (37.5%).

• The No. 1 seeds are currently on a 4-12 ATS (25%) skid versus No. 8s in the second round but are 9-7 ATS versus No. 9s in that same 10-year window.

• Second-round No. 2 seeds have felt the upset pressure, going just 14-23-2 ATS (37.8%) in their last 39 games. Those favored by five points or less are just 13-19 SU and 10-20-2 ATS (33.3%) since 2002.

• It’s been a struggle lately in the second round for the top 3 seeds overall, as here are the current ATS slides they are on: No. 1s 12-18 ATS, No. 2s 14-23-1 ATS, No. 3s 9-17 ATS.

• Seeds No. 4-No. 6 have been stellar lately in the second round, with these spread runs entering 2020: No. 4s 18-11 ATS, No. 5s 20-9 ATS, No. 6s 20-10 ATS. Surviving the first-round upset attempt has seemingly propelled these teams to solid round-two performances.

• Second-round No. 10 seeds are on a 4-13 SU but 10-5-2 ATS (66.7%) run since 2011

• In second-round games between two double-digit seeds, the better seed is 12-2 SU and ATS since 2001, playing each time as the favorite. Alternatively, when facing seeds in the 5-7 range, double-digit seeds are just 5-21 SU and 8-15-3 ATS (34.8%) in that same timeframe.

• The No. 14 seeds that pulled off upsets in the first round are 0-10 SU and ATS (0%) in the second round since 1998, losing by an average of 14.8 PPG.

• Better-seeded teams are just 10-16 SU and ATS (38.5%) when playing as underdogs to worse-seeded teams in the second round since 2001.

• In second-round games between mid-major teams, underdogs of more than 7 points are on a 6-5 SU and 9-2 ATS run (81.8%).

Old Post 03-18-24 10:36 PM
msudogs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for msudogs Click here to Send msudogs a Private Message Edit post   Report post
msudogs
Moderator

Registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 65535

Sweet 16 Round
• Laying big points seems to be getting riskier in the Sweet 16 of the NCAA Tournament in recent years, as favorites of 5 points or more are 13-9 SU but just 7-15 ATS (31.8%) since 2017.

• Sweet 16 favorites of 8 points or more are on a 26-8-3 Under (76.5%), the total run allowing 63.0 PPG

• The Sweet 16 No. 1 and No. 2 seeds have taken care of business lately. Together, they are on a 35-12 SU and 28-18-1 ATS (60.9%) run over the last nine seasons. However, they were just 1-3 SU and ATS a year ago.

• The Sweet 16 round is usually the end of the line for double-digit seeds. However, they have been very competitive as underdogs, going 15-7-1 ATS (68.2%) in that role since 2011.

• The popular No. 1-No. 4 matchup has been all No. 1 lately, 12-2 SU and 9-4-1 ATS (69.2%) over the last nine tournaments.

• In Sweet 16 games between teams “both not supposed to be there” or both seeded 5 or worse, the lower-seeded team is 11-7 SU and ATS (61.1%) since 2001.

• Better-seeded teams playing as underdogs or pick ’ems in Sweet 16 games are on a 6-2 SU and ATS (75%) surge.

• In recent Sweet 16 games featuring a better seeded mid-major team taking on a lesser seeded Power 6 conference team, the latter are on a 7-5 SU and 7-4-1 ATS (63.6%) run.

• Since 2010, in Sweet 16 games involving at least one non-major conference program, Under the total is 24-14 (63.2%).

• Over the last 23 years, there have been 23 Sweet 16 games with totals of 128 or less, and Under the total is 16-6-1 (72.7%).

Old Post 03-18-24 10:36 PM
msudogs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for msudogs Click here to Send msudogs a Private Message Edit post   Report post
msudogs
Moderator

Registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 65535

Elite Eight Round
• The Elite Eight round of the NCAA Tournament has long been a dangerous spot for better-seeded teams, as they are just 47-45 SU and 33-55-4 ATS (37.5%) since 2000.

• Elite Eight favorites of 4 points or fewer have gone just 2-10 SU and 1-10-1 ATS (9.1%) in their last 12 games and are just 15-33-1 ATS (31.3%) since 1998.

• Elite Eight games have been decisive, with outright winners owning a stellar record of 61-5-2 ATS (92.4%) since 2006.

• Cinderella teams, or those not from power conferences, have been good bets when they reach the Elite Eight round, 14-12 SU and 15-10-1 ATS (60%) since 2003, including 9-2-1 ATS as underdogs of 3 points or more.

• The Elite Eight round is clearly a “survival round” for No. 1 seeds, as they are just 32-25 SU but 23-30-4 ATS (43.4%) in this round since 2001.

• Elite Eight No. 1-No. 3 seeds have struggled mightily against teams seeded No. 4 or worse, going 17-14 SU and 8-21-2 ATS (27.6%) since 2001.

• The Elite Eight round has easily been the best round to play Overs on totals, 87-63-2 (58%) since 2001. In games with lower totals of 143 or less, it has been 59 Overs and 29 Unders, for 67%.

• In Elite Eight games between teams “both not supposed to be there” or both seeded 3 or worse, the lower-seeded team has gone 7-3 SU and 8-2 ATS (80%) since 2013.

Old Post 03-18-24 10:42 PM
msudogs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for msudogs Click here to Send msudogs a Private Message Edit post   Report post
msudogs
Moderator

Registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 65535

Rick Barnes is 9-21 ATS in the NCAA Tournament since 2005 - worst coaching record


75% of money is on Tennessee -21.5 vs. Saint Peter's

Old Post 03-19-24 08:12 AM
msudogs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for msudogs Click here to Send msudogs a Private Message Edit post   Report post
msudogs
Moderator

Registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 65535

let's get some nice spots here
GL

Old Post 03-22-24 09:14 PM
msudogs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for msudogs Click here to Send msudogs a Private Message Edit post   Report post
msudogs
Moderator

Registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 65535

here we go with more spots today
GL

Old Post 03-24-24 06:52 PM
msudogs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for msudogs Click here to Send msudogs a Private Message Edit post   Report post
msudogs
Moderator

Registered: Nov 2005
Posts: 65535

here we go
GL

Old Post 03-28-24 07:44 AM
msudogs is offline Click Here to See the Profile for msudogs Click here to Send msudogs a Private Message Edit post   Report post
Post A Reply
  
  Last Message   Next Message

Quick Links: