Golden Greek........or anyone else

[harold_bush]

In the bowl games you posted the trends involving rushing offese, rushing defense, etc. I know that was spread talk, but I was wondering if you or anyone else had any key indicators for picking brackets? I see a post you started about ATS trends the last three years, but I'm just looking to pick bracket winners.

Are there any stats any of you have found effective in breacket research? RPI, FT %, better offensive teams, better defensive teams, etc. Jus tlooking fo rany edge

Thanks.

[GOLDENGREEK]

havent seen anything yet -- will definately post if i do

[GOLDENGREEK]

Tips for the NCAA Tourney


This year’s NCAA tournament will be the 11th in the ******* college basketball database, thus my annual college tournament article now proudly boasts a full decade of data behind it. In that time, there have certainly been enough games in which to derive some significant patterns of performance.

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. In fact, statistics show that those are always three of the most heavy traffic days at *******.com. Visitors are consumed by the thirst for as much stats, trends, and situations as possible for the Big Dance.

Well, for this particular article, you won’t be getting the full ******* March Madness article, but you will be getting a quick summary filled with tips and top trends. If you are interested in the entire piece, be sure to pick up a copy of the ******* College Tournament Handicapping Guide in the store on the site.

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.

Of course, what you’ll see here are merely historical generalities. Most experts will argue that these types of facts and figures provide only for water cooler fodder and that what really matters most when it comes to NCAA tournament action are factors like momentum, matchups and execution. To those folks we oblige the importance of those critical factors, and offer up our FoxSheets for the latest and greatest when it comes to analyzing each game on its own merit. With that said though, ******* has always subscribed to the theory that when it comes to sports handicapping information, the more you know, the better you are!

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

There are hundreds of other trends and stats that I go through each year and those can again be found in the ******* College Tournament Handicapping Guide, but for purposes of helping you win this year’s office pool or at the betting window, here are 15 quick tips that I uncovered in my research this year. Make sure to refer to these when projecting your tournament bracket or placing that wager at the betting window.

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.

[GOLDENGREEK]

This is a copy and paste job

This is not my work -- im saying that because the article speaks in the forst person



Winning NCAA Tournament Angles

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.