Announcement

**ez winners** · 03-18-2003, 04:56 PM

Few more trends.....

NCAA 1st Round Notes:
#1 Seeds off BB SU wins are 17-8 ATS
#3 Seeds off a SU favorite loss are 15-1 SU & 12-4 ATS
Single digit #4 Seeds are 10-3 ATS
#13 Seeds with a win percentage > .600 are 11-17 ATS
ACC champs are 7-16 ATS and also 5-12 ATS as favs 9 > points

NCAA 2nd Round Notes:
#8 Seeds are 12-2 ATS S/1996
#13 or worse Seeds are 5-15-1 ATS S/1991, including 2-8 ATS vs #1 Seeds
Teams playing in their same state are 43-19 ATS from 2nd round out
Overtime winners are 8-21-1 ATS in the 2nd and Sweet 16 rounds

NCAA Sweet 16 Round Notes:
Favorites of 9 > points are 21-11 ATS
#5 Seeds are 4-21 SU
Favorites off SU dog wins are 4-12-1 ATS
Favorites off BB ATS losses are 1-6 ATS
#4 Seeds are 1-6 ATS L3Y...

NCAA Elite 8 Round Notes:
#2 Seeds are 4-12-1 ATS S/95
#4 Seeds are 6-0 ATS S/92
Teams that score 67 < points are 4-23 SUATS
Teams that score 85 > points are 16-4 SU & 15-5 ATS
Teams entering Elite 8 off largest SU win are 12-7 ATS

NCAA Final Four Notes:
#2 Seeds are 2-7 ATS
#3 Seeds are 4-1 ATS
Teams off SU dog win are 4-10 ATS
Teams with revenge are 1-6 ATS
Teams entering Final Four off largest SU win are 14-9-1 ATS

NCAA Championship Round Notes:
Since 1989 only two eventual National Champions
did not finish either #1 or tied for #1 in their
Conference
Team in Championship Game off largest SU win is 7-4 ATS
Favs of < 6 points are 6-0 ATS
ACC teams are 6-1 ATS S/90

Good luck,
John

**maxell** · 03-18-2003, 06:31 PM

Excellent info! We should bump this daily.

**ez winners** · 03-19-2003, 02:03 PM

Here is some info on each seed's historical records.

No. 1 seeds

Since the NCAA Tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985, there has been only one sure thing: top-seeded teams will win their opening-round game against No. 16 seeds. They are a perfect 72-0, in fact. This will come either as a relief to No. 1 seeds and their fans or be an eventual a kiss of death. Sooner or later, a No. 1 seed is going to lose in the first round. And nobody wants that dubious distinction.

Top seeds are nearly as solid a lock to advance to the Sweet 16, winning more than 86 percent of their second-round games (62-10). They are especially hard on No. 9 seeds, posting a 37-2 record, while only going 25-8 against No. 8 seeds in the second round.

If you are filling out an office pool bracket ("For Amusement Only!"), you might as well pencil in the top seeds all the way to the Elite Eight. They are nearly as invincible in round three as in round two, posting a 50-12 record. Consider this: 50 of the 72 No. 1 seeds, a whopping 70 percent, have won their first three tournament games since the field expanded 64 teams.

Nearly half the No. 1 seeds (32 of 72) reach the Final Four. Not surprisingly, top seeds have the most trouble with No. 2 (15-11) and No. 3 seeds (5-4) in regional championship games. Against all other seeds, they are 12-3.

Figure on at least one top-seeded team making it to the national championship game. In the Final Four round, No. 1 seeds are 17-15 (8-6 excluding games in which they play each other). Their biggest nemesis? No. 3 seeds, which have beaten them three out of four times.

No. 1 seeds have won 11 of 18 championships since the tournament expanded to 64 teams. The next-best performance, by No. 2 seeds, is just three championships. In the final, top seeds are more likely to beat No. 2 and No. 3 seeds (5-1 combined) than they are other seeds (4-3).

No. 2 seeds

No. 2 seeds are nearly invincible in first-round games (68-4), but that is small consolation to the four teams (Syracuse '91, Arizona '93, South Carolina '97, and Iowa State '01) that have been upset by No. 15 seeds since the tournament expanded to 64 teams.

Nearly two-thirds of the No. 2 seeds make it through the second round (47 of 72), a much lower rate than the No. 1 seeds (62 of 72). Strangely, second-seeded teams have much more trouble against 10th-seeded opponents than against No. 7 seeds. They are 33-10 against No. 7 seeds and only 15-11 against No. 10s.

While nearly 70 percent of No. 1 seeds will advance to the Elite Eight, less than half of the No. 2 seeds will make it there.

Nonetheless, second-seeded teams have a better winning percentage (34-13, .723) in third-round games than they do in second-round contests (47-21, .691).

No. 2 seeds meet their Waterloo in the Elite Eight round, recording a record of 15-19. Much of the problem is due to the fact that they struggle (11-15) against top-seeded teams. But, at 4-4, they are no great shakes against non-No. 1 seeds with a Final Four berth on the line.

Figure on no more than one No. 2 seed making it to the Final Four; then flip a coin to decide if they'll win. No. 2s are 7-8 in the national semifinals, performing slightly better (4-4) against No. 1 and No. 3 seeds than against all others (2-3).

Odds are less than even that a No. 2 seed will make it to the championship game. If they get there, the last thing they want is to face a top seed. No. 2s are 1-4 in those circumstances (Louisville broke the mold in 1986 with a win over top-seeded Duke). On the other hand, they are undefeated against No. 3 seeds in the final (2-0, with Duke winning in '91 and Kentucky in '98). No. 2 seeds have never played against each other in the championship game.

No. 3 seeds

While more than 80 percent of No. 3 seeds win their first-round games, they are three times more prone to upsets than second seeds. How can you tell a first-round victor from an upset victim? The two most significant characteristics of No. 3 seed upset victims are team inexperience and a lack of scoring punch. If you're rooting for a No. 3 seed that hasn't been to the tournament more than two years running or that scores less than 80 points per game, watch out. They are more than twice as likely to be upset than No. 3 seeds without those characteristics (30 percent losing rate versus 12 percent).

Amazingly, only 32 of the 72 No. 3 seeds win their first two games. To put this in perspective, 32 of 72 top seeds win their first four games. The drop-off in winning percentage from the first round to the second is dramatic (.819 to .542). Of their two potential opponents in the second round, No. 3 seeds have much more trouble with No. 6 than No. 11 seeds. They aren't even .500 against sixth-seeded teams (19-20), while they are 13-7 against No. 11 seeds.

Third-seeded teams are just 15-17 in Sweet 16 games. Not surprisingly, their biggest nemesis is No. 2 seeds. What is surprising, though, is just how poorly No. 3s perform against No. 2s. They are just 6-13 (worse than the record of No. 11 seeds against No. 3 seeds in round two).

As poorly as No. 3 seeds do in rounds two and three, they make a startling turnaround in Elite Eight games. Their 8-7 record is better than the record of No. 2 seeds (11-15). And they are the only seed able to give top seeds a run for their money in regional championship games, posting a 4-5 record against them.

Third-seeded teams have the best record (5-3) in Final Four games of any seed with more than two wins. What's more impressive is that they are 3-1 against No. 1 seeds in national semifinal games.

A No. 3 seed has won only one championship since the tourney expanded to 64 teams in 1985. Michigan did it in 1989. Their opponent? Another No. 3 seed, Seton Hall.

No. 4 seeds

Fourth-seeded teams perform nearly as well as No. 3 seeds in the first round, winning almost 80 percent of their games (57-15, .792). Which No. 4 seeds are more prone to upsets? Teams with thin benches and a lack of momentum going into the tournament. Fourth-seeded teams that get less than 20 percent of their scoring from the bench are nearly twice as likely to be upset than teams with more balanced scoring (a 29 percent losing rate vs. 14.6 percent). No. 4s going into the tourney with less than eight wins in their last 10 lose 25 percent of the time; those with eight or more wins have a losing rate of just 14.3 percent.

The record of No. 4 seeds in second-round games is better than that of No. 3 seeds (34-23 versus 32-27). The main reason for this is that No. 4 seeds dominate No. 5 seeds quite disproportionately. They are 24-15 against fifth-seeded opponents. Curiously, No. 4 seeds have a harder time with No. 12 seeds in second-round games, over which they hold just a 10-8 advantage.

No. 4 seeds have a nasty habit of disappearing in the Sweet 16. Just 11 of 34 No. 4s have survived. Most of the problem has to do with running into top-seeded teams. No. 4 seeds are only 8-20 against top seeds. They are a disappointing 3-3 against No. 8 and No. 9 seeds.

The No. 4 seeds that do survive round three are a tough bunch. They are 7-4 in Elite Eight games; that's nearly as good a winning percentage as top seeds have in regional finals.

Excluding No. 11 seeds, who lost their only appearance in the Final Four round, fourth-seeded teams have the worst record of any seed in the national semifinals. Only two of seven No. 4 seeds-Syracuse in '96 and Arizona in '97-have advanced from the Final Four to the championship game.

Only one fourth-seeded team has won the NCAA Tournament since it was expanded to 64 teams in 1985. Arizona defeated top-seeded Kentucky in 1997.

No. 5 seeds

In first-round games, No. 5 seeds perform more like No. 6 seeds than No. 4 seeds. Their record (49-23) is identical to that of sixth-seeded teams, and much worse than No. 4 seeds (57-15) in the first round. What separates the nearly one-third of fifth-seeded teams that get upset from the two-thirds that win? Mostly, team inexperience. No. 5s that have gone to the tournament less than three years in a row lose more than 40 percent of the time, while those with three or more consecutive tourney appearances lose just 23 percent of the time.

Fifth-seeded teams have a sub-.500 record (23-26) in the second round, due mainly to the fact that they struggle against No. 4 seeds (15-24). No. 6, No. 10 and No. 12 seeds all perform better than No. 5 seeds in the second round.

Things go from bad to worse for No. 5 seeds in the Sweet 16. They are a woeful 4-19, worse than every seed higher than 12. Why so bad? Basically, they cannot beat top-seeded teams (4-17). Of course, they are also 0-2 against No. 8 and No. 9 seeds, to whom they have little business losing.

While only four of the 72 No. 5 seeds have made it to the Elite Eight since the tourney expanded in 1985, those four teams are a competitive bunch. They are 3-1 in regional title games, posting the best winning percentage for that round of any seed.

Fifth-seeded teams also have the best winning percentage of any seed in Final Four games (tied with No. 6 seeds at .667). Of course, they've only played in three national semifinals. Mercifully, they've avoided playing top seeds in the Final Four. Florida beat No. 8 seed North Carolina in 2000 and Indiana defeated No. 2 seed Oklahoma last year.

No. 1 seeds come back to haunt No. 5 seeds in the championship game. Both Florida and Indiana fell to top-seeded teams in the final, the latter to Maryland and the former to Michigan State in 2000.

No. 6 seeds

Sixth-seeded teams are the surprises of the tournament. In the first round, they do as well as No. 5 seeds, winning nearly 70 percent of their games (49-23) against No. 11 opponents. Upset victims among No. 6 seeds tend to be teams with better regular-season records -- likely due to weaker competition. Sixth-seeded teams with a winning rate of greater than or equal to .750 are just 4-9 in the first round.

The second round is where No. 6 seeds are the most surprising. They are 28-21 overall, better than both No. 3 and No. 5 seeds. Their main opponents in round two are No. 3 seeds, and they beat them more often than they lose (20-19). Against No. 14 seeds, they win a solid 80 percent of their games (8-2).

Despite having to play No. 2 seeds in the Sweet 16, No. 6 seeds have a respectable 11-17 record, better than both No. 4 and No. 5 seeds. They are 5-14 against second-seeded teams, and a combined 6-3 against No. 7 and No. 10 seeds.

Only three No. 6 seeds have won a regional championship game -- Providence in '87, Kansas in '88 and Michigan's Fab Five in '92. It's not just that No. 6 seeds perform poorly against top seeds (2-5), either. They do even worse against other seeds (1-3).

No. 6 seeds have the best winning percentage in Final Four games (tied with No. 5 seeds at .667). Of course, they've only won two out of three. Kansas beat a No. 1 seed in '88 (Duke) and Michigan beat a No. 4 seed (Cincinnati) in '92.

Kansas is the only No. 6 seed to win a national championship. Danny Manning & Co. beat their Big Eight rival, No. 1 seed Oklahoma, in 1988. No. 6 Michigan lost to top-seeded Duke in '92.

No. 7 seeds

You wouldn't think that seeding would be that big of a factor when No. 7 seeds square off against No. 10 seeds in the first round. But you would be wrong. Seventh-seeded teams still beat No. 10 seeds about 60 percent of the time (43-29).

When a No. 7 seed does lose to a No. 10 seed, however, it isn't exactly considered an upset. What are the telltale signs of a doomed seventh-seeded team? Look at their regular-season record and their average margin of victory. No. 7 seeds with less than a .675 winning rate are just 17-15 in round one, and those who win by an average of less than seven points per game are 18-18.

Only of six No. 7 seeds will make it past the second round. Why? Because their second-round opponent is almost always a No. 2 seed. They are just 11-32 against in those games. Things could be worse. If they were No. 8 or No. 9 seeds, they'd be getting trounced by top-seeded teams, who are a combined 62-10 against their second-round opponents.

The No. 7 seeds that do manage to squeak past the second round are pretty much dispensed with in the Sweet 16. Only three of the 72 No. 7 seeds since 1985 have won their first three games -- David Robinson's Navy in '86, Temple in '93 and Tulsa in 2000.

If you're rooting for a seventh-seeded team, don't get your hopes up. Not a single No. 7 seed has made it to the Final Four.

No. 8 seeds

Eighth-seeded teams are the only seeds to have a worse record against their lower seeded opponent in round one. They are just 33-39 against No. 9 seeds in the first round. Team inexperience accounts for much of the poor record. Eighth-seeded teams that didn't go to the tournament the previous year are just 10-22 (.312); those with at least a year's experience under their belt are 23-17 (.575).

No. 8 seeds have the unenviable task of playing top-seeded teams in round two, and their performance is predictably poor (8-25, .242). As bad as that appears, though, it's almost five times better than when No. 9 seeds play top seeds (2-37, .051).

No. 8 seeds that survive against top seeds in the second round perform well in the Sweet 16. At 5-3, No. 8 seeds have a better winning rate than all other seeds in round three except No. 1s No. 2s.

Eighth-seeded teams aren't too shabby in Elite Eight games, either. They are 3-2, posting as many wins in regional finals as No. 5 and No. 6 seeds.

Three No. 8 seeds have made it to the Final Four -- Villanova in '85 and both Wisconsin and North Carolina in 2000.

Villanova became the lowest seed team to win the national championship when they played a near-perfect game to knock off Patrick Ewing's heavily favored Georgetown Hoyas in 1985.

No. 9 seeds

Ninth-seeded teams are the only seeds to have a better record against their higher seeded opponent in the first round. They are 39-33 against No. 8 seeds. The No. 9 seeds that do lose tend to be involved in closer games during the regular season. Ninth-seeded teams with an average margin of victory less than or equal to seven points are 14-19 (.424) in first-round games; those who win by more than seven points are 25-14 (.641).

Throw team inexperience into the mix and you've got even greater odds of a No. 9 seed loss in round one. Teams with less than three years of consecutive tourney appearances and an average margin of victory less than or equal to seven points are just 7-15 (.318); all other No. 9 seeds are 32-18 (.640).

Quick, which team would you rather be: a No. 15 seed playing a No. 2 seed in round one or a No. 9 seed playing a top seed in round two? No. 9s actually have the lower winning percentage in this situation, taking an abysmal two of the 39 games they've played against top seeds in round two. That's a 5.1 percent winning percentage, slightly lower than the rate at which No. 15 seeds upset No. 2 seeds in round one (4-68, 5.6 percent).

Only one of the two No. 9 seeds that advanced to the Sweet 16 went on to the Elite Eight. Boston College won its third-round game in 1994; UTEP lost in 1992.

No ninth-seeded team has advanced past the Elite Eight since the tournament expanded to 64 teams in 1985.

No. 10 seeds

When a No. 10 seed beats a No. 7 seed in the first round, it isn't exactly an upset. Still, as close as the seeds are, No. 10 seeds play like underdogs, winning only 40 percent of the time (23-49).

If you're looking to pick a No. 10 seed over a No. 7 seed, consider two factors: scoring offense and margin of victory. Tenth-seeded teams scoring an average of 75 or more points per game are 17-22; those scoring less are 12-21. No. 10 seeds winning by an average margin of eight or more points are 13-15; those under eight points per game are 16-28. You should also pay attention to the scoring margin of the No. 7 seed. Tenth-seeded teams playing No. 7 seeds who win on average by seven or less points are 18-18; they are 11-25 against the other No. 7 seeds.

No. 10 seeds do surprisingly well in the second round -- better than No. 7, No. 8 or No. 9 seeds. Despite having to play No. 2 seeds in round two, No. 10 seeds don't seem all that intimidated. They are 11-15 against them.

No. 10 seeds have won more Sweet 16 games than every seed lower than No. 4 except sixth-seeded teams. They are a respectable 6-8, playing mainly No. 3 and No. 6 seeds. What's their formula for success? Experience. No. 10 seeds with at least one starting senior and who went to the previous year's tourney are 4-2; other No. 10 seeds are 2-6.

No. 10 seeds meet with an abrupt end in the Elite Eight. Although more No. 10 seeds play in the regional finals than No. 5, No. 7, No. 8 and No. 9 seeds, all six of them have lost.

No. 11 seeds

No. 11 seeds play like the underdogs they are against No. 6 seeds in round one. They are 23-49, winning only 30 percent of their games.

How can you tell a No. 11 Cinderella from a weak sister? Look at scoring offense and margin of victory. No. 11 seeds that average 75 points or more in the regular season are 17-22 (.436) in the first round; those scoring less than 75 points per game are 6-27 (.182). No. 11 seeds that win by an average of seven points or more are 18-19 (.486); those under seven points per game are 5-30 (.143).

No. 11 seeds are a respectable 10-13 in second-round games, despite usually going up against No. 3 seeds. What separates the winners from the losers? Conference affiliation is the biggest factor. No. 11 seeds in the top six conferences (ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC) are 6-1; those from smaller conferences are 4-12.

Only three of the ten No. 11 seeds that advanced to the Sweet 16 won in the regional semifinals -- LSU in '86, Loyola-Marymount in '90 and Temple in 2001. What do these teams have in common? They are the only three teams of the advancing 10 that had three or more consecutive appearances in the tourney.

LSU is the only No. 11 seed to win a regional championship and advance to the national semifinals, making them the lowest seeded team to play in the Final Four since the tourney field expanded to 64 teams. Alas, LSU lost to Louisville, the eventual 1986 champion.

No. 12 seeds

No. 12 seeds are just as likely to spring upsets in the first round as No. 11 seeds. Both are 23-49 against their round one opponents.

Twelfth-seeded Cinderellas tend to have two factors going for them: tournament experience and strong frontcourt scoring. No. 12 seeds with two or more consecutive tournament appearances are 12-10 (.545) against No. 5 seeds in the first round; No. 12 seeds that didn't go to the dance the previous year are just 11-39 (.220). No. 12 seeds that get more than 60 percent of their scoring from forwards and centers are 14-10 (.583); No. 12 seeds with backcourt-dominated scoring are just 9-39 (.188).

Beware of No. 12 seeds in round two. They post a better record (12-11) than every seed lower than No. 5 except No. 6 seeds. Most of their wins come at the hands of favored No. 4 seeds (8-10). They also dispense with No. 13 seeds more easily than the proximity of their seeds might suggest (4-1). Battle-tested No. 12 seeds are the teams to keep your eye on. No. 12 seeds that win by an average of eight points or less are 8-4 in round two; those with better average victory margins are 4-7.

Don't beware of No. 12 seeds in round three. In fact, forget about them; they nearly flame out in the Sweet 16 round. They are 1-11 in regional semifinals, the only victory coming last year when Missouri defeated No. 8 UCLA in the West.

Those No. 12 Missouri Tigers are the lowest seeded team to play in the Elite Eight. They lost last year to their conference nemesis, Oklahoma.

No. 13 seeds

There's a big difference between No. 12 and No. 13 seeds. No. 12 seeds still win one out of every three first-round games. No. 13 seeds only win one out of five. They are nearly as big a long shot to win a first-round game as No. 14 seeds.

What are the telltale signs of a No. 13 Cinderella? Coaching experience and scoring balance are the keys. No. 13 seeds with coaches who have been to the tournament before are 11-29 (.275); those with rookie coaches are just 4-28 (.125). No. 13 seeds that get between 37-47 percent of their scoring from the frontcourt are 9-11 (.450); the rest of the No. 13s are 6-46 (.115).

Only three of the 15 No. 13 seeds that won in the first round advanced past round two. They are Richmond in '88, Valparaiso in '98 and Oklahoma in '99. What do have they in common? A coach that's been to the tournament at least three times. No. 13 seeds without this much coaching experience are 0-9 beyond round one.

No 13th seed has advanced past the Sweet 16. Richmond and Oklahoma fell at the hands of top seeds. Valparaiso had the best chance to advance in 1998 when it played eighth-seeded Rhode Island, losing 74-68.

No. 14 seeds

No. 14 seeds aren't nearly the pushovers that No. 15 seeds are (4-68). In fact, they are more like No. 13 seeds (15-57), posting a 13-59 record in first-round games.

How can you tell a No. 14 Cinderella from a stiff? Coaching experience is a big factor. No. 14 seeds with a coach that's been to the tourney at least once are almost twice as likely to win (8-25, .242) as those with rookie coaches (5-34, .128).

The key attribute of No. 14 Cinderella is scoring punch. No. 14 seeds that average 76 points or more in the regular season are 12-24 (.333); those that average less than 76 points are 1-35 (.028). The only No. 14 seed averaging less than 76 points per game to win in round one is Richmond in 1998.

Only two of the 13 No. 14 seeds that won in round one advanced past the second round. Cleveland State did it in 1986 and Tennessee-Chattanooga followed suit in 1997. Both teams boasted a margin of victory more than 12 points per game; only seven of the other 70 No. 14 seeds beat their opponents so handily.

Although No. 14 seeds are the lowest seed to play in the Sweet 16 since the field was expanded to 64 teams, they've yet to advance to the Elite Eight. Both Cleveland State and Tennessee-Chattanooga lost their chances to accomplish the feat.

No. 15 seeds

15th-seeded first-round winners are the true Cinderellas of the tournament. That's because so few of them win against their No. 2 seed opponents. They are a pitiful 4-68. On the bright side, No. 15 seeds are infinitely better than No. 16 seeds, which have never won a first-round game (0-72).

Who are the four No. 15 seed Cinderellas? Richmond was the first, upsetting Syracuse in 1991. Santa Clara knocked off Arizona in '93. Coppin State upended South Carolina in '97. And Hampton humbled Iowa State in 2001. Coppin State and Hampton are both from the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference.

The four No. 15 Cinderellas have a number of attributes in common. They all came into the tournament winning nine of their last 10 games. They all had regular-season records below .800, indicating that they played their share of tough teams. And they all get balanced scoring, averaging between 38-57 percent of their scoring from guards.

No. 15 seeds satisfying these three attributes (winning streak, record and scoring balance) are 4-12 against their No. 2 seed opponents. The rest of the No. 15 seeds are 0-56.

None of the four No. 15 seed Cinderellas won their second-round games. Coppin State came the closest, losing by the slimmest of margins, 82-81, to No. 10 Texas.

No. 16 seeds

No. 16 seeds have a perfect record in the NCAA tournament ... a perfect record of futility. They are 0-72 against their top-seeded opponents in the first round.

As bad as their record is, No. 16 seeds have come close to springing the tourney's ultimate upset. Five 16th-seeded teams have come within four points of beating a No. 1 seed since the tourney expanded to 64 teams.

In 1985, Michigan squeaked by a tough Fairleigh Dickinson squad, 59-55. In '96, Purdue edged Western Carolina, 73-71. In '89, Oklahoma beat East Tennessee State by a single point, 72-71. In '88, Georgetown trailed throughout before nipping Princeton, 50-49. And, in the closest No. 16-vs.-No. 1 matchup, Michigan State needed overtime to beat Popeye Jones's Murray State squad, 75-71, in 1990.

Sooner or later, a No. 16 seed is going to break the tourney's oldest curse and upset a top seed. If you're rooting for a top-seeded Big Ten team, watch out. No. 1 seeds from the Big Ten have been involved in three of the five closest games.

John

**Fred** · 03-19-2003, 04:03 PM

John, This is GREAT Info. I only got through half of it and got a headache.So if we throw all of this info into a computer what will the Top 5 Bets be????(First Round OVER in all #5 v.s. #12 games which is 81%)That should be one of the top 5????????

**ez winners** · 03-19-2003, 07:28 PM

Fred, your right. This is alot of info and it can really spin your head. I don't play anything blindly just because of the trends, but if a play that I like when considering all the other factors falls under one of these strong trends then it just makes that play alot stronger.

Good luck,
John

**ez winners** · 03-20-2003, 09:52 AM

BUMP

:D

**ez winners** · 03-21-2003, 10:23 AM

BUMP

:D

Announcement

NCAA Tournament Trends/Info.....

NCAA Tournament Trends/Info.....

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment