|
Because of the great response StatFox received to this article a couple of years back and the increased requests for an updated version, we have decided to republish the NCAA Tournament Trends article with updated results from the most recent years’ action. Quite simply, the madness of March brings everyone’s college basketball wagering interest to its peak. Apparently there is no such thing as information overload at this time of year, as StatFox visitors are consumed by the thirst for as much stats, trends, and situations as possible for the Big Dance. Among the things we plan to deliver in this tournament trend article are; favorite/underdog results, how the various seeding affects ATS performance, how each conference fares, and even how line & total placement can be important. Of course, these results are generalities from the past eight years of NCAA tournament action, and in reality, matchups and execution are always the most critical factors. With that said, StatFox has always subscribed to the theory that when it comes to sports handicapping information, the more you know, the better you are! Enjoy the analysis, hopefully 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 for all 63 tournament games, browse to the end to see how you can get your hands on the FoxSheets – the ultimate Sports Tipsheet!
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 349 of the 507 games in the NCAA’s since ’98 have been won by the higher seed, 69%. Granted, this stat means more to the office pool participant than it does to the ATS enthusiast, who is more interested in the fact that the higher seed has compiled just a 232-265-8 ATS record in that span, or just 46.7%. Certainly makes the case for more money line wagering, doesn’t it? It also serves note that the hype surrounding the “Cinderella” teams 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 seven years are actually all 8th or below! Recent NCAA tournament ATS trends:
- Favorites are just 231-264-8 ATS (46.7%) since ’98 in the NCAA’s.
- Double-digit favorites are 70-79-2 ATS, but were just 5-12 ATS last year.
- Favorites of 3 points or less are just 61-64 SU & 54-71-1 ATS (43.2%) in that span! Totals
What about totals? The oddsmakers seem to have an excellent handle on total placement, as of the 437 NCAA tourney games that had totals, 216 went OVER and 221 went UNDER. Furthermore, there have been hardly any discernible general trends that can be pointed to on a consistent basis as successful. From an overall standpoint, most everything 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 are 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. For those who’ve saved past article, you’ll see that the differences in the top and bottom seed performance marks have generally tightened up. In 2005, a unique trend emerged as the #15 & #16 seeds compiled an impressive 7-1 ATS mark despite not winning any of those games. Seed ATS Record
#1: 63-64-3 (50%)
#2: 41-58-1 (41%)
#3: 51-43 (54%)
#4: 30-42-1 (42%)
#5: 37-34-2 (52%)
#6: 40-33-2 (55%)
#7: 26-30 (46%)
#8: 32-26 (55%)
#9: 24-26 (48%)
#10: 33-26-1 (56%)
#11: 20-23-2 (47%)
#12: 27-22 (55%)
#13: 21-18-2 (54%)
#14: 14-21 (40%)
#15: 20-13 (61%)
#16: 16-18 (47%)
Conference Records
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 8-1 ATS, and the Ivy League, which is 0-8 SU & ATS. As far as the major conferences are concerned, the Big Ten, Big East, SEC and Conference USA continue to produce remarkably consistent results.
Conference ATS Record
ACC: 50-56-2 (47%)
Atlantic 10: 20-21-1 (49%)
Big 12: 56-47 (54%)
Big East: 58-45-3 (56%)
Big Ten: 69-49-2 (58%)
Conf-USA: 22-34 (39%)
Pac 10: 39-44-1 (46%)
SEC: 42-57-2 (42%)
First Round
In looking at the last eight years of first round action, the favorite/underdog results are close to the 50/50 mark at 49%. The lower seeds have put up some impressive numbers over the last three years, covering 55 of the 96 games, or 56%. The most significant trends that have formed in the first round seem to center around the seeded matchups. For instance, the #5 vs #12 matchup has long been regarded as the potential upset, but in truth, the #9 & #10 seeds have been the best underdog of late, splitting their head to head games overall since ‘97. Also, the UNDER holds sizable edges in five of the 8 seeded matchups. Take a look at the stats for all of the matchups: Seed Matchup Results
#1 vs. #16: The #1 seed is 32-0 SU & 17-15 ATS. 16 of 28 totaled games went UNDER.
#2 vs. #15: #2 seeds are 31-1 SU but just 12-20 ATS. 18 of 28 totaled games went UNDER.
#3 vs. #14: This matchup has been owned by the #3 seed, 29-3 SU & 18-14 ATS. OVER/UNDER is 11/17.
#4 vs. #13: The #4 seed is 25-7 SU & 15-16-1 ATS vs the #13. The OVER/UNDER ratio is 15/13.
#5 vs. #12: 5th seeds are 20-12 SU & but 14-17 ATS vs the #12’s. The OVER is 18-10 in the series.
#6 vs. #11: #6 seeds have done fairly well, going 23-9 SU & 17-15 ATS. 17 of the 27 games went UNDER.
#7 vs. #10: As mentioned earlier, the #10 seed is 16-16 SU & ATS in this matchup. The UNDER is 17-9-2.
#8 vs. #9: Another close series, even at 16-16 SU w/ a 17-15 ATS #9 edge. O/U ratio is 15/13.
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 5% better in the second round than overall. (37%-32%)
- Nearly 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 29-35, or 45% . They are also 35-29 ATS, 55%.
- The second round, in general, has been a higher scoring round. 60 of 110 (55%) totaled games have gone OVER the total. In fact, the highest scoring tournament games of the last seven years were second round games. Last year’s 111-105 West Virginia win over Wake Forest shattered the previous mark of 2001’s second round 105-101 UCLA upset of Cincinnati. Line placement:
- Favorites of more than 6 points are just 33-31 ATS since ’98, but 17-8 ATS the last three years.
- Favorites of 4-6 points are 11-12 ATS. However, over the last three years, that mark is 1-5 SU & 0-6 ATS.
- Favorites of less than 4 points are an atrocious 13-23 ATS! Seeding Patterns
- The #1, #2, & #3 seeds have a combined record of 42-49 ATS (46%) in the second round.
- The #2 seed’s performance is particularly troubling when facing the #10 seed: 5-10 SU & 4-11 ATS, including last year’s NC State upset of Connecticut!
- The #2 seed does perform well against a #7 seed though, 11-5 SU & ATS.
- The #10 & #8 seeds own the best ATS records in this round, with the #10 going 12-4 ATS, the #8 11-6 ATS. We’ll be back next week to take a look at the trends for the Sweet 16 and Elite 8 rounds. Good luck with your selections in the first two rounds.
|
