Let the games begin !!!

[DR STRANGELOVE]

Attention all cardiologists and pacemaker patrons, please stand by. The biggest event in the world of college basketball is set to tip-off March 20, as 64 participants take to the floor in the most celebrated 'Dance' of the year.

To help choose your partner, our round by round coverage of how teams have fared in the tourney since it became a 64-team event appears below.

Included in this chart are each team's overall straight-up (SU) and against the spread (ATS) records as they enter the road to the Louisiana Superdome.

Get your remote control and nitroglycerin ready. It's time for the 2003 NCAA BASKETBALL TOURNAMENT.

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 above .600 are 11-17 ATS...ACC champs are 7-16 ATS and also 5-12 ATS as favorites of 9 or more points. Favorites in this round are 196-178-5 ATS, including 101-80 when playing off a SU and ATS loss vs. an opponent off a loss.

NCAA 2nd Round Notes:

#8 Seeds are 12-2 ATS since 1996. #13 or worse seeds are 5-15-1 ATS since 1991, including 2-8 ATS vs. #1 Seeds... Teams playing in their same state are 43-19 ATS from the 2nd round and beyond. Overtime winners are 8-21-1 ATS during the 2nd and Sweet 16 rounds.

NCAA Sweet 16 Round Notes:

Favorites of 9 points or more are 21-11 ATS. #5 Seeds are 4-21 SU... Favorites off SU ?dog wins are 4-12-1 ATS... Favorites off back-to-back ATS losses are 1-6 ATS. #4 Seeds are 1-6 ATS the last three years.

NCAA Elite 8 Round Notes:

#2 Seeds are 4-12-1 ATS since ?95. #4 Seeds are 6-0 ATS since ?92...Teams that score 67 points or less are 4-23 both SU and ATS...Teams that score 85 points or more are 16-4 SU and 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 wins 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 the championship game off largest SU win is 7-4 ATS... Favorites of 6 points or less are 6-0 ATS. ACC teams are 6-1 ATS since ?90.

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 is 21-7 (75%).

 

[DR STRANGELOVE]

Round by round performance trends from recent years



With the madness of March upon us and everyone?s college basketball wagering interest at its peak, I thought it would be a great opportunity to look at some of the trends or patterns that have been formed in recent NCAA tournament action. Among the things we will analyze 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, I?ve always subscribed to the theory that when it comes to sports handicapping information, the more you know, the better you are!



So enjoy the analysis, and maybe it can help you uncover some winning handicapping strategies for this year?s big dance! In the meantime, if you?re interested in supplementing this information with the most comprehensive game by game analysis available, browse to the end to see how you can get your hands on the FoxSheets ? the ultimate handicapping tool!





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.

Seed ATS Record Seed ATS Record Seed ATS Record Seed ATS record

#1: 40-40-3 (50%) #5: 20-21-2 (49%) #9: 13-17 (43%) #13: 12-13-2 (48%)

#2: 23-37-1 (38%) #6: 25-19-2 (57%) #10: 25-15-1 (63%) #14: 7-15 (32%)

#3: 29-26 (53%) #7: 10-20 (33%) #11: 15-14-2 (52%) #15: 13-8 (62%)

#4: 22-23-1 (49%) #8: 25-14 (64%) #12: 19-12 (61%) #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 and Big South, which are each 0-5 SU & ATS.

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%)





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 and some other 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.

 

[DR STRANGELOVE]

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)



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? My suspicion would be that 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.


Enjoy the tournament

 

[DR STRANGELOVE]

top for stats puposes

 

[Randercity]

Lot's of good stuff here!! THANKS for the effort DOC!

 

[DR STRANGELOVE]

Randercity...nice to see you posting again, you are one hell of a capper!!!

I just changed my alias from TIME TO MAKE $$$ to the current one...

Cheers to you my friend