All you need to know about the tourney

[The Big Tease]

All of this is cut and pasted from another source. Since it seems to be no big deal to take others information (because people have stolen info from this site, I feel it is every man for himself)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The best bet is (not surprisingly) the +2-5.5 point dogs. In fact, these small dogs were a remarkable 14-16 SU since 1999. Nearly 50 percent! Consider they were getting back prices ranging from +130 to +175 and you can see this was a tremendous bargain. Only drawback is a possible nightmare year as occurred in 1999 -- when the +2-5.5 dogs went a scary 1-7 SU. Dogs in this category were 6-5 SU in 2000 and 7-4 SU in 2001. They only went 1-3 last year. Still, these appear to be solid value-based investments.

THREE YEAR COMBINED RESULTS: (128 games)

Underdogs were 62-57-9 vs. Opening Line, or 52.7 percent winners

Underdogs were 66-61-1 vs. Closing Line, or 52.6 percent winners

 

[The Big Tease]

Stepping Our Way Through the Big Dance
With the madness of March upon us and everyone?s college basketball wagering interest at its peak, we thought it would be a great opportunity to look at some of the trends and patterns that have been formed in recent NCAA tournament action. Among the things we will be analyzing include; favorite/underdog results, how the various seeding affects ATS performance, how each conference fares, and even how line & total placement can be important. Of course, know that the indicated results are generalities from the past five years of NCAA tournament action and in reality, how the teams match up is always the most critical factor. With that said, we?ve always subscribed to the theory that when it comes to sports handicapping information, the more you know, the better you are.

OVERALL TOURNAMENT TRENDS (since 1998)
It's no secret that seeding is critical and that the regular season means everything when it comes to earning a higher seed in the tournament. The results show that 217 of the 317 games in the NCAA?s since '98 have been won by the higher seed, 68.4%. Granted, this stat means more to the office pool participant than it does to the ATS wagerer, whose more interested in the fact that the higher seed has compiled just a 144-164-7 ATS record in that span. Certainly makes the case for more money line wagering, doesn?t it? It also serves note that the hype surrounding the "Cinderella" teams (Kent St, Gonzaga, etc) that advance through the tournament only tells half of the story. You'll see later that the seeds with the highest ATS marks in the last five years are actually all 8th or below! Before going any further though, quickly? can anyone recall the biggest straight up upset in recent tournament memory? Of course it was Hampton beating Iowa State in 2001, 58-57 as an 18 point underdog! Unfortunately, the line fell out of the range of money line offerings for those wagerers in Virginia who were likely the only folks to believe that could have happened
Recent NCAA tournament ATS trends:
? Favorites are just 143-165-7 since '98 in the NCAA's.
? Double digit favorites are 49-53-2 ATS.
? Favorites of 3 points or less are just 30-40 SU & 27-42-1 ATS in that span.
? Two games have been pick em' spreads since ?98, and each was won by the lower seeded team. Illinois St beat Tennessee 82-81 in '98, and Gonzaga beat Minnesota 77-66 in 2000.

Totals
What about totals? The linemakers seem to have an excellent handle on total placement, as of the 250 NCAA tourney games that had totals, 124 went OVER and 126 went UNDER. Furthermore, the closest element that could be derived as a trend when looking at totals is that 29 of 50 games (58%) with a total of 130 points or less went OVER. From an overall standpoint, everything else regarding totals seems to be as probable as the flip of the coin. Thankfully, you'll see from some of the round by round analysis, that there some total patterns that have formed.

Seed Records
The following are the ATS records by seed. Keep in mind that a handful of times, a #1 seed played another #1 seed, or a #2 played a #2, etc. You'll see that the #8 seed has had the best ATS record since "98. Notice the #7 seed?s poor 10-20 ATS record, which also happens to be there straight up record as well.

 

[The Big Tease]

Seed ? ATS Record
#1: 40-40-3 (50%)
#2: 23-37-1 (38%)
#3: 29-26 (53%)
#4: 22-23-1 (49%)
#5: 20-21-2 (49%)
#6: 25-19-2 (57%)
#7: 10-20 (33%)
#8: 25-14 (64%)
#9: 13-17 (43%)
#10: 25-15-1 (63%)
#11: 15-14-2 (52%)
#12: 19-12 (61%)
#13: 12-13-2 (48%)
#14: 7-15 (32%)
#15: 13-8 (62%)
#16: 9-13 (41%)

Conference Records
Finally, the following are the ATS records of the major conferences in the NCAA tournament since '98. For the record, the small conferences with the most interesting records to note are the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference which is 5-1 ATS, and the Ivy League & Big South, which are each 0-5 SU & ATS.

 

[The Big Tease]

Conference ? ATS Record
ACC: 31-31-2 (50%)
Atlantic 10: 14-12-1 (54%)
Big 12: 33-25 (57%)
Big East: 30-29-2 (51%)
Big Ten: 49-33-2 (60%)
Conference USA: 10-16 (38%)
Pac 10: 28-32-1 (47%)
SEC: 27-37-2 (42%)

 

[The Big Tease]

FIRST ROUND
In looking at the last five years of first round action, the favorite/underdog trends are all hovering around 50%, as the favorite holds an overall mark of 48.4%. The higher seeds own a 53% ATS mark, with similar performances numbers both on Thursday and Friday of the opening round. However, the most significant trends seem to surround the seeded matchups. For instance, the #5 vs #12 matchup has long been regarded as the potential upset, but in truth, the #10 seeds have been the best underdog, holding a significant edge over the #7?s in their head to head games, winning 12 of 20, both SU & ATS. Also, the only one of the first round matchups to have gone OVER the Total more than UNDER is the #5 vs. #12, which has seen 13 of the 16 games go OVER. Take a look at the stats for all of the matchups:

Seed Matchup Results
#1 vs. #16: The #1 seed is 20-0 SU & 12-8 ATS. 10 of 16 totaled games went UNDER.
#2 vs. #15: #2 seeds are 19-1 SU but just 7-13 ATS. 11 of 16 totaled games went UNDER.
#3 vs. #14: This matchup has been owned by the #3 seed, 18-2 SU & 13-7 ATS. OVER/UNDER is 8/8.
#4 vs. #13: The #4 seed is 15-5 SU & 11-8-1 ATS vs the #13. The OVER/UNDER ratio is 8/8.
#5 vs. #12: 5th seeds are 12-8 SU & but 7-12 ATS vs the #12?s. The OVER is 13-3 in the series.
#6 vs. #11: #6 seeds have done fairly well, going 13-7 SU & 10-10 ATS. 10 of the 16 games went UNDER.
#7 vs. #10: As mentioned earlier, the #10 seed is 12-8 SU & ATS in this matchup. The UNDER is 10-4-2.
#8 vs. #9: This has been a close series, with the #8 holding an 11-9 SU & ATS edge. O/U ratio is 7/9.


SECOND ROUND
A number of significant patterns have formed over the past five years in the second round of the tournament. Most notably are the performances of the underdog and lower seeds, and the results against the total. In fact, judging by the trend regarding the last day of the tournament?s opening weekend, we may rename it "Upset Sunday". See if any of these trends can help you in your second round wagering:

General Trends
? The rate of straight up wins by the lower seeds is 4% better in the second round than overall (36%-32%).
? Two thirds of the lower seed wins come on Sunday of the second round. In fact, the lower seeds own a straight up record of 19-21, nearly 50%. They are also 23-17 ATS, 58%.
? The second round, in general, has been a higher scoring round. 35 of 63 totaled games have gone OVER the total. In fact, the highest scoring tournament game of the last five years was a second round game, that being UCLA?s 105-101 upset of Cincinnati a year ago.

Line Placement
? Favorites of more than 6 points are just 16-22 ATS.
? Favorites of 4-6 points are 11-6 ATS.
? Favorites of less than 4 points are an atrocious 6-16 ATS.

Seeding Patterns
? The #1, #2, & #3 seeds have a combined record of 23-33 ATS (41%) in the second round.
? The #2 seed?s performance is particularly troubling when facing the #10 seed: 4-7 SU & 3-8 ATS.
? The #2 seed does perform well against a #7 seed though, 6-2 SU & ATS.
? The #10 & #8 seeds own the best ATS record in this round, each going 9-3 ATS.


SWEET 16 ROUND
Over the last five years, the Sweet 16 round might be best described as the round where the underdogs give it the ole' college try but come up short as there is a 13 game difference between the SU & ATS records of the higher seeds here. Check out these interesting trends from recent Sweet 16 action:

? Higher seeds own a 27-13 SU record but are just 14-24-2 ATS in the Sweet 16 round.
? Similarly, favorites are 29-11 SU. The highest SU winning percentage of any round (73%).
? Overall, totals in this round are 14 OVER, 17 UNDER. However, in games with totals below 140, the results are 9 OVERS-4 UNDERS. In totals above 140, the result: 5 OVERS, 13 UNDERS.
? Seeds #8- #13 who have reached the Sweet 16 are 7-13 SU but 11-8-1 ATS.
? Interestingly, the #8 seed has won straight up in all three appearances in the Sweet 16.
? The #4 seed has done dreadfully in this round, going just 1-9 SU & 3-7 ATS. The only 4th seed to advance to the Elite 8 round was Ohio State, who beat Auburn in '99, 72-64.


ELITE 8 ROUND
The Elite 8 round has probably produced the biggest percentage of blowout games in the past five years as an unusually high 40% of the games, 8 of 20, have been decided by double digits. In fact, over the last two years, not one of the eight games was decided by less than six points. Furthermore, the round has also produced some higher scoring games, with 11 of the 16 totaled games going OVER. Here are a few other interesting points regarding the Elite 8 round:

? 13 of the 20 games in the round have involved #1 seeds. They are 9-4 SU & 5-6-2 ATS.
? #5 and #8 seeds have combined for a 4-1 SU & 5-0 ATS record in Elite 8 action. The only team to not advance to the final four from this group was Rhode Island, a # 5 seed in ?98 who fell 2 points shy of Stanford.
? Elite 8 upsets have generally come in games with small spreads, as underdogs of less than seven points have compiled an impressive 6-6 SU & 8-4 ATS mark over the last five years.
? The only one of the eight favorite of 7 or more points to lose straight up was Arizona in '98, who lost to Utah by 25 points. That game marks the second "easiest" ATS wager over the past five years as the 35-1/2 point differential from the game spread fell just shy of the 38-1/2 point difference in UCLA's 105-70 second round upset over Maryland in 2000.
? The ACC & Big Ten have made the most of their Elite 8 opportunities. The ACC is 6-1 SU & 4-2-1 ATS, while the Big Ten is 6-2 SU & 5-2-1 ATS since '98.


FINAL FOUR GAME TRENDS
With each year having just two final four round games and a single championship game, I figured it would be best to look at the entire final four weekend as a whole. In addition, I've taken the database back a few years, to 1987, the self-described "Modern Era" of College Basketball, when long shots started counting for three points, and metal rims replaced peach baskets, etc.! Be sure to refer back to some of these patterns that have formed when the big weekend arrives.

Overall Favorite/Underdog Results
Since 1987, there have been 48 total final four games played, and the ATS results have been about as predictable as the flip of a coin. While the favorites have won 31 of the 48 games straight up, the underdogs own a 25-23 ATS edge. In the championship game though, the favorites hold a slight edge, having won nine of 16 ATS and 13 of those 16 straight up. Currently, the favorite in the final is on quite a stretch, with an 11-2 SU and 9-4 ATS record in the last 11. Connecticut was the last underdog to win SU & ATS in the final, beating heavily favored Duke 77-74, while catching 9-1/2 points.

Line Placement
It?s clear that just simply going with a favorite or underdog in a final four game will not lead you to any kind of consistent success. Looking closer at the amount of points being given or had does reveal some secrets though. Take a look at some of these records based on the line placement:

? Favorites of 6-1/2 points or more are a mere 9-7 SU & 3-13 ATS.
? Favorites of 4-6 points are 11-3 SU & ATS.
? Favorites of less than 4 points are 11-8 SU & 9-10 ATS.

The only three times since '87 that a team favored by more than 6-1/2 points covered that game were in the 2000 semis when Michigan St beat Wisconsin, 53-41 as an 8 pt favorite, in the '97 semis, when Kentucky, laying 6-1/2 points, knocked off Minnesota 78-69, and finally, in last year's championship game when Maryland, a 7-1/2 point favorite, beat Indiana 64-52. Furthermore, based solely on the final score margin, none of these games were clear cut covers. Which leads to the next question, what game provided the cushiest ATS win? That would be the ?90 final when UNLV throttled Duke 103-73 as a 4 point favorite. Not even a super duper quadruple teaser would have won that night with Duke. However, the Blue Devils gained their revenge a year later by dethroning the Runnin? Rebels in a 79-77 semifinal upset.

Seed Records
Does a team's seed help determine anything about potential wagers? Unfortunately, no. Check out the records of the seeds since '87:
Seed # ATS Record (SU Mark)
#1?s: 23-20, 53.5% (26-17)
#2?s: 8-11, 42.1% (8-11)
#3?s: 8-5, 61.5% (6-7)
#4?s: 4-5, 44.4% (3-6)
#5?s: 2-3, 40.0% (2-3)
#6?s: 3-2, 60.0% (3-2)
#8?s: 0-2, 0.0% (0-2)

 

[The Big Tease]

From these results, no clear cut safest play emerges. However, going a bit deeper reveals that any number one seed that is an underdog has performed at a 7-3 ATS clip. Furthermore, despite the seed leading 61.5% ATS, only one 3rd seed, Michigan in '89, has won a championship.

Conference Records
Do any particular conferences enjoy more success at the final four than others? You'll see from the following that the Big East and Pac 10 seem to thrive at the final four, while the Big 12, SEC, and Big Ten struggle somewhat. Check out the conference records:

Conference ATS Record (SU Mark)
ACC: 12-13, 48% (13-12)
Atlantic 10: 1-0, 100% (0-1)
Big 12: 4-6, 40.0% (4-6)
Big East: 8-1, 88.9% (5-4)
Big Ten: 8-11, 42.1% (9-10)
Great Midwest: 0-1, 0.0% (0-1)
Pac 10: 6-3, 66.7% (5-4)
SEC: 6-10, 37.5% (9-7)
WAC: 3-3, 50.0% (3-3)

Totals
In general, the OVER/UNDER Totals posted for the final four games are higher than most you would see in the regular season. The reason? We suspect the oddsmakers trap exuberant bettors into thinking that since the best teams are playing, there should be more offensive fireworks. The avid fan should know by now though that defense wins championships (and semifinal games too)! To illustrate this point, of the 45 final four games being analyzed, there have been 29 UNDERS, 18 OVERS, and 1 PUSH. 32 of the games have had a total higher than 150 points. Of those, 21 were UNDERS. Not even UNLV's high flying teams of the early '90's were able to meet ridiculously inflated totals. In their championship run of 1990, the Runnin' Rebels went UNDER in both games, each with a total in the 180's! Some NBA teams can't even score that much anymore!So there you have it! A look at some round by round trends from recent tournament action. Hopefully it helps you towards some success this year. Regardless, whatever this year's madness holds in store, its sure to be exciting

BY STATFOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's look at a couple of things that fuel teams to strong tourney runs...
1. Several experienced veterans (three-year starting juniors, or seniors)
2. Good guard play
3. Lock-you-up defense in the halfcourt
4. Hunger to do well after previous tournament failures

Teams that have THREE OF THESE FOUR CRITERIA...
Midwest
Kentucky, Weber State, Marquette, Holy Cross (yikes, a first-rounder!); Southern Illinois, Indiana, and Pittsburgh

West
Arizona, Gonzaga, Illinois, Western Kentucky (another first-round battle!); Kansas

South
Texas, Xavier, UNC-Wilmington, Michigan State

East
Oklahoma, Butler, St. Joseph's, Wake Forest

As you can see, the West and Midwest have most of the teams that fit what I'm looking for. This doesn't mean I'm gonna go out and bet a dime on Wilmington over Maryland. I just start with looking for underdog covers in those types of matchups. Giving a team 8 points when they only allow about 60-ish to begin with is awfully difficult, especially when you throw in a star power like Brett Blizzard. And his other guard can play, too...
The two most entertaining first-round games could be Marquette-Holy Cross and WKU-Illinois. IF WKU can contain Cook and the inside game for the Illini and IF Holy Cross can contain Wade and Diener and not let them or Jackson run wild...

This is just the start of what I'm looking for... Obviously, I've still got plenty of work to do. But some of these totals don't look even close to what they ought to be. I'm looking forward to some OVERS in these shooting-friendly places where teams FINALLY get out of conference. Oklahoma couldn't score against Mizzou late yesterday for two reasons (other than they were probably shaving, haha). One, Mizzou plays damn good defense; very underrated. TWO, Okie had played them once but MU has probably seen 30 tapes on them this year and plays in their conference. The familiarity with what is done in your league is all but gone when you put 8 teams from 8 different conferences in one pod. So look for more higher-scoring games away from Nashville (tight rims) and the domes... UNLESS....
You run into a coach who likes to protect a lead, a la Tubby yesterday against Missy State.
Those are the teams that will be difficult to beat if they get up 10 anytime after halftime. Coaches at these schools, in my opinion, value the basketball and think each possession is o vital importannce (moreso than their counterparts)...

Midwest
Kentucky
Utah
Wisky AND Weber State --- interesting...
Dayton
Marquette AND Holy Cross --- fun, fun, fun...

West
Gonzaga
UW-Milwaukee (look at how they took the air out of the ball against Butler, tremendous job by Pearl)
Illinois AND Western Kentucky --- all the makings of a thriller if they can contain Illy's bigs...

South
Purdue
Brigham Young - of course
UNC-Wilmington
Michigan State

East
Oklahoma (after yesterday, I'm sure some of us would like to take the air out of SAMPSON's BALLS!)
Cal
Mississippi State AND Butler - makes BU look like the better play, with Stansbury just wanting to advance...
Oklahoma State AND Penn - could be good but I'll go with Sutton's savvy and their D over Penn
St. Joe's AND Auburn - Ellis perennially underacheives. Let's see if they can stay close against a Hawk team with an ailing Delonte West

That's all for today, folks. Questions, comments? If not, I'll be back in the morning with more stuff to look at before Thursday afternoon... No alcohol for me until the games start. By then, I'll already know who I'm taking!!! hahaha
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://bracketville.tripod.com/

Hope Jack doesnt mind....but this has great info as far as past performances in this tourney for the past 17 years or so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[The Big Tease]

NCAA Tourney By The Round:

#1 Seeds are 72-0 SU vs #16 Seeds... #2 Seeds are 64-8 SU vs #15 Seeds... Only once since 1988 has a #12 Seed failed to beat a #5 Seed... Favorites that finished sub .500 in their conference are 3-9-1 ATS...



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... Favorites in this round are 196-178-5 ATS, including 101-80 when playing off a SU & ATS loss vs. an opponent off a loss?



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 during 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 Round 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



In closing, one AWESOME ANGLE play to consider in 1st round action:



PLAY ON any dog in an opening round game if they won their conference tournament championship game and failed to cover the pointspread.



ATS W-L RECORD: 21-7 (75%) ? PLAY ON: Utah State

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

 

[The Big Tease]

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.

 

[The Big Tease]

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.

 

[The Big Tease]

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.

 

[The Big Tease]

sorry i have to bump my own post.....i just feel like everyone should read all of these articles. i think it is VERY useful info. if not....just let her fall back to the bottom

 

[The Big Tease]

I posted this last year....not sure if any of you used this.....but I did. Of course this stuff has not been updated from last year, but maybe it will help....:shrug:

 

[wcb4]

thanks bt--will definitely use this info in my analysis

 

[yyz]

How did you do last year, with all this info? Seems like a lot to digest!

 

[rompil]

Uh would ya share your source?

Would like to see if data has been updated!

 

[The Big Tease]

I would if I could.......I posted this last year, and I honestly do not know. I do know however that it is not just some post from any old person.....these were taken from articles from separate sources......take them for what they are worth.....they worked pretty well for me last year

yyz......not really sure how well i did last year, but I do know that I was able to hit a few underdog moneyline plays

 

[TJBELL]

Great stuff! Thanks for sharing!!!!!

 

[Howie's Hot]

nice stuff tease...gonna print this for some "quality time" reading...

GL
How

 

[Scoop Mackenzie]

Good Stuff,


Too bad I am too lazy to read it! lol

did the site where you got this from update it for this year?


s c OO p

 

[The Big Tease]

unfortunatly no, i am trying to find the info i need to update it.....