With the NCAA Tournament just days away, we thought we would ask long time veterans of the handicapping industry what their thoughts were about the tournament and what process they use to go about selecting the games. Dennis Hill, a fixture in the handicapping industry, is known for his strong and accurate opinions.  Dennis resides in the Eastern part of the United States, is well connected in various circles, and has a twice weekly internet radio show via his website pregamepicks.com. Jim Kruger of VegasSportsAuthority.com lives in the Las Vegas area and has become known for his unique sense of humor and with being particularly astute when it comes to basketball. Jim has one of the many Vegas area handicapping radio shows and provides excellent insight for listeners.

StatFox: What were your thoughts about the NCAA Field?

Dennis Hill: With the power conferences now being quote “neutralized”, I don’t go for this RPI rating. They should just throw the computer right out the window. The reason I say this is at the beginning of the season a lot of the smaller schools are playing games against larger schools for the payday. To make this a fairer assessment, how do teams play within there conference? This way these teams can be perceived against their true opponents.

 Jim Kruger: I think it was one of the better jobs the committee has been done over the past few years. That does not mean that there were not mistakes made. I think there are three very glaring mistakes.

SF: What teams surprised you?

JK: Having Air Force in the field of 65 was ludicrous. George Mason does have a very good team and RPI; I think that was somewhat a stretch and Utah State. Over the years I impressed by what I thought was a very impartial and fair selection process. As you know, the committee changes every year. Of the three teams I’ve mentioned that are shaky selections, the athletic director from George Mason was on the selection committee, a high ranking official from Utah State was also on the committee, as was a high ranking official from the Mountain West conference. I’m not advocating a conspiracy; nonetheless it sure doesn’t look to good.

DH: Air Force has never won a conference tournament game. What makes me think Air Force is going to win a NCAA game? Their matched up against Illinois and its one and done for them. You have a school like Winthrop who knows how to play in these tournaments. The Bison of Bucknell are a team I wouldn’t want to play. They have plenty of experience in all positions. I don’t believe George Washington should have dropped down to an 8th seed because Pops (Mensah-Bonsu) their best player was injured; they only had two losses, give me a break. Their is no sense to the selection committee. When I see Craig Littlepage (Tournament Committee Chairman) act like he’s the cat that just ate the mouse, I’m not impressed with these pompous individuals. I don’t believe Seton Hall belongs in the tournament, I think there are other more deserving like Hofstra. If Hofstra played Seton Hall 10 times they would beat them seven times in my opinion. I was also surprised to see Alabama get in, since a team like Missouri State would beat them.

SF: Let’s get into the handicapping, do your methods of capping games change when it comes to the NCAA Tournament?

DH: It all predicates itself on what the line is. I do my own power numbers. (ratings) I receive a sheet from a gentlemen who has supplied me with numbers (lines) for the last twenty years. His numbers are as good as anyone’s I’ve ever seen, be it Las Vegas or offshore. I go to the Sagrin ratings and look at the strength of schedule, which is pretty much what the NCAA committee does. I look at the match-ups and see if there is a deviation from my number of four or more points. If there is, then this becomes a play. A good example is the Big 12 Championship where I had Kansas as a two point favorite over Texas and they won outright. The numbers are the story as far as handicapping is concerned. If these teams played during the year, I will scour the 65 teams and see how they played against one another.

JK: Yes it does change. You have new dynamics involved. I like to look at a well balanced team. I don’t like teams that rely on one big scorer. I like teams that have balance inside and outside. An example would be Texas A&M. They have Acie Law at guard who is a very good scorer and on the inside they have Joseph Jones who is a load and a half. A team like Syracuse, who is there first opponent plays an excellent 2-3 zone, which is very tough to get inside on.  However, if you have good outside shooters like A&M, you stand a good chance. Teams that are good on road are extremely important. I look at the coaches very, very strongly. San Diego State’s Steve Fisher, who I think is a pretty lame coach, is an example. Good coaches who have four days to prepare are going to have an advantage. Fortunately for Fisher, he is going up against another similar coach in Indiana’s Mike Davis. Finally I try and find teams that have a unique style that is different then the norm. Marquette on offense does a tremendous amount of motion; I’ve mentioned Syracuse defense and the Southern Illinois offense, which is unbelievably patient. Basically, teams that have a style you don’t see in your league, especially on the short one day turnaround.

SF: As recently as three years ago, number one seeds were favored in the high 20’s or low 30’s in the first round. Now Duke is the largest favorite at -26. Clearly the oddsmakers have made adjustments downward on favorites. How does that impact you job in selecting games?

JK: Right you are chumly. The oddsmakers have really tightened up the lines in my opinion. The question why have they tightened them up? Is it because the sharps are playing the underdogs in a very heavy fashion? I saw where Bob Scucci head of the Stardust Sportsbook was interviewed and he said the first 16 bets he took on the NCAA tournament were all on the underdog. I think you have a lot more parity then you did in the past. Plus, there is a lot more knowledge, the increase of awareness in the mid-majors is a fine example. Teams in the Missouri Valley Conference received a great deal more press. I don’t think the talent disparity is there like before. Your star players are only in school for a year or two. While at the mid-majors, they play for four years. Players like Patrick Ewing from Georgetown don’t stay in school that long anymore. This gives the mid-majors a chance to win games straight up.

DH: It all comes back to the numbers. People should know this out there.  A book was released not to long ago showing double digit favorites in Conference tournaments, the NIT and the NCAA Tournament don’t cover at an alarming rate. If I remember correctly the number was like 24% in which they actually covered. I was about to check for the past weekend, but I’m confident it was a pretty low number.

SF: I noticed where Duke and Connecticut are listed as 5-2 choice to win it all, like at SportsBook.net. What other solid values do you see in a futures wager?

DH: Throw Duke out the window. There is going to be a team that physically handles Duke. Boston College blew it. BC took some ill-advised shots to lose the game at the end. They roughed up Duke pretty good up front and there are better teams then Boston College in this tournament. Connecticut is Jekyll and Hyde. Some nights they play hard and some nights they don’t. If Jim Calhoun can motivate this team to play every game, they win because they are the best team in this tournament by leaps and bounds. I always tell people this. If it looks too easy it isn’t, take Ohio State and Iowa in the Big Ten. Ohio State at 2.5-point favorites looked too easy. I will not be taking any double digit favorites or double digit underdogs unless there is real value, were I think they (the underdog) can give the favorite a real run for their money. I try to stay within the spreads of 2-6 points on either the favorite or the underdog.

JK: One I already did play was Kansas. Another I liked was UCLA. I’m not a big fan of playing on a number one seed, when they are listed at 2-1 or 3-1. But if I can get a Kansas at 29-1 like I did, I’ll put my money on that.

SF: You’ve been studying your brackets; give me your Final Four as you see it?

DH: I’m taking Texas on one side and Kansas on the other. Only two teams can give Connecticut any trouble, Michigan State and North Carolina. I’m still going to stay with Connecticut. In the final bracket, I’ll side with Villanova.

JK: I like Kansas to be one of them. Texas would be another and of course Connecticut. In the Minneapolis bracket I like Villanova.

SF: Who is cutting down the nets on April 3?

JK: It’s coming down to Texas and Villanova assuming everyone is healthy, I’ll take Villanova and hope I’m wrong, with my Kansas bet coming in.

DH: In the finals I like Texas to beat Kansas in a rematch and Connecticut wins in a tough game. From there I like Connecticut to win it all.