Some Miscellaneous Info on the Big Dance

grandpa

grandpa

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,333
3
0
Las Vegas, NV
ALL INFO IS SINCE '85 to present

the #1 theory in betting tourney-time is that superior coaching and the fact that BIG FAV'S know they need to conserve energy and rest starters for the long road to the title

BOSTON COLLEGE
in round 1: 7-1 SU and 4-4 ATS
in round 2: 2-5 SU and 3-4 ATS
in round 3: 1-1 SU and 2-0 ATS

vs. ACC: 2-2 SU and 3-1 ATS
vs. big 10: 2-0 SU and 2-0 ATS
vs. big 12: 0-1 SU and 0-1 ATS
vs. pac 10: 1-1 SU and 0-2 ATS

UCONN
in round 1: 13-0 SU and 4-8-1 ATS
in round 2: 10-3 SU and 10-3 ATS
in round 3: 6-4 SU and 3-6-1 ATS

vs. ACC: 6-5 SU and 5-5-1 ATS
vs. BIG 10: 3-1 SU and 2-2 ATS
vs. pac 10: 3-1 SU and 2-2 ATS

DUKE
in round 1: 19-1 SU and 8-12 ATS
in round 2: 16-3 SU and 9-9-1 ATS
in round 3: 11-5 SU and 8-7-1 ATS

vs ACC: 1-0 SU and 1-0 ATS
vs. big 10: 9-3 SU and 9-3 ATS
vs. big 12: 5-2 SU and 2-5 ATS
vs. big east: 8-5 SU and 6-5-2 ATS
vs. pac 10: 5-1 SU and 4-2 ATS
vs. SEC: 3-3 SU and 1-5 ATS

FLORIDA
in round 1: 8-4 SU and 4-7-1 ATS
in round 2: 4-4 SU and 3-4-1 ATS
in round 3: 2-2 SU and 2-1-1 ATS

vs. ACC: 3-1 SU and 4-0 ATS

GEORGETOWN
in round 1: 12-1 SU and 8-4-1 ATS
in round 2: 6-6 SU and 3-9 ATS
in round 3: 4-2 SU and 3-2-1 ATS

vs. ACC: 2-4 SU and 1-5 ATS
vs. big 10: 2-1 SU and 1-2 ATS
vs. SEC: 3-1 SU and 3-1 ATS

GEORGE WASHINGTON
in round 1: 2-4 SU and 3-3 ATS

vs. big 10: 0-3 SU and 2-1 ATS

GONZAGA
in round 1: 6-2 SU and 5-3 ATS
in round 2: 3-3 SU and 4-2 ATS
in round 3: 1-2 SU and 0-2-1 ATS

vs. big east: 1-1 SU and 2-0 ATS
vs. conf USA: 2-0 SU and 2-0 ATS
vs. pac 10: 1-1 SU and 2-0 ATS

when seeded 1-8: 2-3 SU and 1-4 ATS
when seeded 9-16: 8-5 SU and 9-3-1 ATS

ILLINOIS
in round 1: 13-4 SU and 9-8 ATS
in round 2: 6-7 SU and 6-7 ATS
in round 3: 3-3 SU and 4-2 ATS

vs. ACC: 0-4 SU and 0-4 ATS
vs. big 12: 1-1 SU and 2-0 ATS
vs. big east: 1-3 SU and 0-4 ATS
vs. conf USA: 3-0 SU and 3-0 ATS
vs. pac 10: 2-1 SU and 1-2 ATS
vs. SEC: 1-3 SU and 1-3 ATS

MICHIGAN STATE
in round 1: 11-4 SU and 6-8-1 ATS
in round 2: 8-3 SU and 5-6 ATS
in round 3: 5-3 SU and 5-3 ATS

vs. ACC: 2-6 SU and 4-4 ATS
vs. big east: 3-0 SU and 3-0 ATS
vs. pac 10: 1-1 SU and 0-2 ATS
vs. SEC: 5-0 SU and 4-1 ATS

when seeded 9-16: 0-2 SU and 0-2 ATS

N.C. STATE
in round 1: 7-3 SU and 55 ATS
in round 2: 4-3 SU and 4-3 ATS
in round 3: 2-2 SU and 2-2 ATS

vs. big east: 1-3 SU and 1-3 ATS
vs. big 10: 3-1 SU and 2-2 ATS

PITTSBURG
in round 1: 6-4 SU and 6-4 ATS
in round 2: 3-3 SU and 3-3 ATS
in round 3: 0-3 SU and 0-3 ATS

vs. big 10: 2-0 SU and 2-0 ATS
vs. big 12: 0-2 SU and 0-2 ATS

when seeded 9-16: 0-3 SU and 1-2 ATS

TENNESSEE
in round 1: 2-3 SU and 0-4-1 ATS
in round 2: 1-1 SU and 1-1 ATS
in round 3: 0-1 SU and 0-1 ATS

vs. ACC: 0-1 SU and 0-1 ATS
vs. big east: 1-0 SU and 1-0 ATS

when seeded 1-8: 3-4 SU and 1-5-1 ATS
when seeded 9-16: 0-1 SU and 0-1 ATS

TEXAS
in round 1: 11-4 SU and 10-5 ATS
in round 2: 5-6 SU and 5-6 ATS
in round 3: 2-3 SU and 2-2-1 ATS

vs. ACC 2-2 SU and 3-1 ATS
vs. big 10: 5-3 SU and 5-3 ATS
vs. pac 10: 1-1 SU and 2-0 ATS

when seeded 9-16: 8-5 SU and 9-4 ATS

UCLA
in round 1: 11-5 SU and 10-6 ATS
in round 2: 8-3 SU and 9-2 ATS
in round 3: 3-5 SU and 1-7 ATS

vs. ACC 1-3 SU and 2-2 ATS
vs. big 10: 1-3 SU and 2-2 ATS
vs. big 12: 5-3 SU and 3-5 ATS
vs. big east: 2-0 SU and 1-1 ATS
vs. SEC: 3-1 SU and 3-1 ATS

VILLANOVA
in round 1: 7-3 SU and 7-3 ATS
in round 2: 3-4 SU and 4-3 ATS
in round 3: 2-1 SU and 3-0 ATS

vs. ACC: 2-3 SU and 4-1 ATS
vs. big 10: 2-0 SU and 2-0 ATS
vs. SEC: 2-2 SU and 3-1 ATS

when seeded 1-8: 13-6 SU and 14-5 ATS

WASHINGTON
in round 1: 2-4 SU and 2-4 ATS
in round 2: 2-0 SU and 2-0 ATS
in orund 3: 0-2 SU and 1-1 ATS

vs. conf USA: 0-2 SU and 0-2 ATS

when seeded 1-8: 2-4 SU and 1-5 ATS
when seeded 9-16: 2-2 SU and 4-0 ATS

W. VIRGINIA
in round 1: 3-3 SU and 3-2-1 ATS
in round 2: 2-1 SU and 3-0 ATS
in round 3: 1-1 SU and 2-0 ATS

vs. ACC: 1-1 SU and 2-0 ATS
vs. conf USA: 1-1 SU and 2-0 ATS

when seeded 1-8: 4-3 SU and 6-0-1 ATS
MARYLAND
in round 1: 7-7 SU ans 12-2 ATS
in round 2: 7-5 SU and 8-4 ATS
in round 3: 3-5 SU and 2-6 ATS

vs. big east: 1-5 SU and 2-4 ATS
vs. big 10: 3-2 SU and 3-2 ATS

when seeded 1-8: 19-18 SU and 25-12 ATS

MICHIGAN
in round 1: 4-8 SU and 10-2 ATS
in round 2: 4-6 SU and 5-5 ATS
in round 3: 3-2 SU and 4-1 ATS

vs. ACC: 3-4 SU and 3-4 ATS
vs. big 10: 2-0 SU and 2-0 ATS
vs. big east: 0-2 SU and 1-1 ATS
vs. pac 10: 0-2 SU and 1-1 ATS
vs. SEC: 1-2 SU and 2-1 ATS

when seeded 1-8: 14-20 SU and 25-9 ATS

N. CAROLINA
in round 1: 10-8-1 SU and 18-1 ATS
in round 2: 11-7 SU and 14-4 ATS
in round 3: 6-8 SU and 10-4 ATS

vs. big 10: 6-4 SU and 7-3 ATS
vs. big 12: 5-2 SU and 5-2 ATS
vs. big east: 3-4 SU and 4-3 ATS
vs. conf USA: 1-1 SU and 2-0 ATS
vs. pac 10: 1-4 SU and 3-2 ATS
vs. SEC: 4-3 SU and 5-2 ATS

when seeded 1-8: 37-32-1 SU and 53-17 ATS

OHIO STATE
in round 1: 6-3 SU and 8-1 ATS
in round 2: 3-5 SU and 3-5 ATS
in round 3: 2-1 SU and 2-1 ATS

vs. ACC: 1-1 SU and 2-0 ATS
vs. big 10: 0-1 SU and 0-1 ATS
vs. big east: 4-3 SU and 3-4 ATS
vs. SEC: 2-0 SU and 2-0 ATS

when seeded 1-8: 10-11 SU and 13-8 ATS

OKLAHOMA
in round 1: 5-12 SU and 12-5 ATS
in round 2: 6-5 Su and 7-4 ATS
in round 3: 5-2 Su and 4-3 ATS

vs. ACC: 0-2 SU and 0-2 ATS
vs. big 10: 2-3 SU and 0-5 ATS
vs. big 12: 0-2 SU and 1-1 ATS
vs. big east: 2-1 Su and 2-1 ATS
vs. pac 10: 4-1 SU and 4-1 ATS

when seeded 1-8: 16-21 SU and 25-12 ATS
when seeded 9-16: 2-3 SU and 1-4 ATS

WISCONSIN
in round 1: 5-4 SU and 6-3 ATS
in round 2: 2-4 SU and 3-3 ATS
in round 3: 3-0 SU and 2-1 ATS

vs. ACC: 2-1 SU and 1-2 ATS
vs. SEC: 2-0 SU and 1-1 ATS

when seeded 1-8: 11-8 SU and 11-8 ATS
========================================
NCAA TOURNEY TRENDS

1 vs 16
#16 is 5-2-1 ATS last 2 years, 3-0-1 last year

2 vs 15
#15 is 5-3 ATS last 2 years, 4-0 last year

3 vs 14
tied 4-4 ATS last 2 years, last year bucknell upset kansas

4 vs 13
#13 is 6-2 ATS last 2 years, 3-1 ATS both years B2B, 2 years ago, vermont upset syracuse

5 vs 12
#5 is both 5-3 SU and ATS last 2 years

6 vs 11
#6 is 6-2 ATS and 7-1 SU last 2 years, UAB upset LSU 2 years ago

7 vs 10
#7 is both 6-2 SU and ATS last 2 years, NcSt and NEV were the upsetters

8 vs 9
tied 4-4 SU but # 9 is 5-3 ATS last 2 years
 
grandpa

grandpa

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 2, 2004
1,333
3
0
Las Vegas, NV
AND IF YOU ARE TRYING TO FILL OUT AN OFFICE POOL BRACKET........................................

2 vs. 15 | 80-4, 0.952
Once every five years or so, a 15-seed manages to knock off a 2-seed. The last victim was Iowa State ? five tourneys ago. The time might be right for another upset, but don't pencil it into your bracket.

Upset watch: All the 15-seed Cinderellas came into the tourney winning nine of their last 10 games and at least three in a row. They all have regular-season records no higher than .800, indicating that they've played their share of tough teams. And they all got balanced scoring from the back- and frontcourt, averaging between 37 percent and 58 percent of their scoring from guards. No. 15 seeds satisfying these three attributes are 4-8 against their No. 2 seed opponents. The rest of the No. 15 seeds are 0-72.

Recent upsets: Hampton over Iowa State, 2001. Coppin State over South Carolina in 1997. Santa Clara over Arizona, 1993. Richmond over Syracuse, 1991.

3 vs. 14 | 70-14, 0.833
Two out of every three tourneys are bad news for 3-seeds. Kansas can vouch for that. No. 3 seeds are three-and-a-half times more prone to first-round upsets than 2-seeds. Heck, they're less likely to win one game in the tourney than the top seeds are to win two. With all due respect to Bucknell, however, it still doesn't make any sense to pick 3-seeds to lose. Too many have won championships to eliminate them early.

Upset watch: No. 14 seeds most likely to spring upsets are high-scoring squads, averaging more than 77 points a game. They're 11-22 (.333) while their lower scoring counterparts are just 3-48 (.058). The telltale sign of a 3-seed victim is a tight margin of victory. No. 3 seeds that beat opponents by an average of less than 12 points are five times more prone to upsets (12 losses in 45 tries for a 26.7 percent upset rate) than 3-seeds that win by a comfortable margin (only 2 losses in 39 tries for a 5.1% upset rate).

Recent upsets: Bucknell over Kansas, 2005. Weber State over North Carolina, 1999. Richmond over South Carolina, 1998.

4 vs. 13 | 67-17, 0.798
No. 4 seeds perform almost as solidly as No. 3 seeds -- and far better than 5-seeds. With nearly 80 percent of 4s advancing to round two and less than one per tourney getting upset, it's too risky to pick a 13-seed in round one.

Upset watch: The biggest indicator of a 13-seed Cinderella is frontcourt scoring. No. 13 seeds that get between 53 and 63 percent of their points from forwards and centers -- like Vermont last year -- are 10-13 (.434). That's almost four times better than more guard-oriented squads (7-54, .115). Ironically, 4-seeds are more apt to be victimized when they can't neutralize 13-seed frontcourts with solid backcourt scoring punch; 4s that get less than half their scoring from guards are upset 28 percent of the time (14 of 50 games); those with better backcourt scoring have only been upset three times in 34 matchups.

Recent upsets: Vermont over Syracuse, 2005. Tulsa over Dayton, 2003. UNC Wilmington over USC, 2002.

5 vs. 12 | 57-27, 0.679
The 5 vs. 12 matchup marks the point in round one when it no longer pays to give higher seeds a free pass in your bracket. Over the last five years, 5-seeds are just 11-9 against their lower-seeded opponent. And when you consider that 12-seeds are over .500 in round two, it isn't wise to dismiss them without first considering the factors that contribute to their opening round success.

Upset watch: The two factors that matter most in identifying 12-seed spoilers are team experience and frontcourt scoring. Twelfth-seeded teams that have been to the tourney the previous year are 13-11 (.542) against 5-seeds; all others are 14-46 (.200). More significantly, 12-seeds that get 55 to 75 percent of their scoring from forwards and centers are 18-12 (.667); the rest are 8-44 (.154) -- more than four times worse.

Recent upsets: UW-Milwaukee over Alabama, 2005. Manhattan over Florida, 2004. Pacific over Providence, 2004.

6 vs. 11 | 59-25, 0.702
The odds are better that a 6-seed will advance to round two than a 5-seed, but that doesn't mean you automatically should ink them into your bracket. Sure, 6-seeds are 14-6 in the last five tourneys, and they're notorious 3-seed killers in round two. Still, tourney pool success usually comes from accurately identifying the 11- and 12-seed surprises.

Upset watch: Offensive punch and victory margin are the two keys to success for 11-seeds. Teams that score more than 75 points a game and beat their opponents by at least six points on average are 16-15 (.516). All other 11-seeds are three times worse at 9-44 (.170). Sixth-seeded upset victims tend to be high scoring and riding false momentum; 6-seeds that average more than 75 points a game and have won at least seven of their last 10 games are just 12-14 (.462) in round one; the rest are 47-11 (.810).

Recent upsets: Alabama-Birmingham over LSU, 2005. Central Michigan over Creighton, 2003. Southern Illinois over Texas Tech, 2002. Wyoming over Gonzaga, 2002.

7 vs. 10 | 51-33, 0.607
As close as these seeds are, it's surprising that 7-seeds have been so dominant in the matchup. While No. 7 seeds win more than 60 percent of the time, 10-seeds still win one or two games per tourney. The trick is to figure out the right ones to advance, as picking wrong one can make this a very damaging matchup. Anyone who picked Creighton over West Virginia last year can attest to that.

Upset watch: Surprisingly, inexperience tends to level the playing field in the 7 vs. 10 matchup. Tenth-seeded teams that have gone to the Dance less than three years in a row with coaches who've made fewer than five tourney trips are 21-20 (.512); all other 10-seeds are 12-31 (.279). The most victimized 7-seeds lack offensive punch and backcourt scoring. Squads that score fewer than 76 points a game and get less than half their points from guards are just 7-16 (.304); the rest of the seven seeds are 44-17 (.721).

Recent upsets: North Carolina State over Charlotte, 2005. Nevada over Michigan State, 2004. Auburn over St. Joseph's, 2003. Arizona State over Memphis, 2003.

8 vs. 9 | 38-46, 0.452
The 8 vs. 9 matchup is the closest thing to a "pick-'em" contest in the opening round. In fact, it's the only matchup in which the lower-seeded team prevails more often. At first blush, it would seem that favoring nine seeds is the way to go, but their abysmal 3-43 record against top seeds in round two is a pretty significant deterrent. Of course, nobody's going to predict either of these seeds to knock off a top seed ? so the value of correctly predicting this matchup is usually restricted to four points in the first round.

Toss-up tips: The key performance indicator for this matchup is team experience and victory margin. 8-seeds that have been to the tourney the previous year are 26-21 (.553); those that haven't are 12-25 (.324).


GL All
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Bet on MyBookie
Top