A normal perception is the cream rises to the top, with the majority of the top seeds doing what was expected, win games. Since 1998, 37 of 44 number one seeds having played there way into the Sweet 16 and 24 of 44 number two seeds having done the same. This speaks to talented teams performing at a high level against generally inferior teams. Does this transfer to the next round of highly pressurized contests?

In dissecting the Thursday and Friday third round encounters, general trends are found, each day having a distinct flavor. When the tournament resumes on Thursday, outright upsets are distinctly more prevalent. Higher seeds only win 67.5 percent of the time, with 27-13 record. Among the more notable ones to remember was Duke losing in 2006 to LSU 62-54 as five point favorites. The Tigers had Tyrus Thomas and Glenn Davis, who went to Final Four before starting NBA careers. Prior to that in 2000, the Blue Devils are top seed again and lost to Indiana as huge 13.5-point favorites 74-73. Not unexpectedly, the higher seeded favorites have not been a good wager at 16-23-1, 41 percent against the spread.

The second day of the third round calms down more. Maybe the coaches and players have been shocked into seeing startling results the prior day and refocus. Here we find the higher seeds win outright 80 percent of the time with 32-8 mark. For those backing favorites, it has hardly been a cause for celebration, with the presumed better team only covering HALF those victories with 16-21-3 ATS record.

Reviewing the top three seeds in the round, out numbers show a 46-8 record; however for wagering purposes, these teams are hardly worth any consideration with 25-26-3 ATS mark.

Moving ahead to the Elite Eight, underdog players have historically been able to overcome losses they might have suffered earlier or substantially build on winnings already acquired.

It would figure once the field has been trimmed to just eight excellent well-coached squads, the winning percentage for the higher seeds would fall precipitously. This has been the case as these teams are 21-19 overall. This action is similar to someone ringing the doorbell and leaving one five-pound box of twenty dollar bills on the “Welcome” mat. The lower seed is a cash printing machine at 26-12-2 ATS, for a fat 68.4 percent.

Not every higher seed is a favorite, as we have seen this decade. In 2005 number-two Kentucky was a one point underdog to fifth-seeded Michigan State. In 2004, fan favorite and top-seeded St. Joseph’s, with Jameer Nelson, received three points from oddsmakers against a rugged Oklahoma State bunch and in 2001, #2 Arizona was favored by 1.5-points against #1 Illinois. In each instance, the lower seeded favorite came away with the win and cover. The opening lines suggest West Virginia and Louisville are these types of wagers, thus review the lines to see what happens closer to game time.

Favorites in the Elite Eight faired mildly better than seeded counterpart, with obviously plenty of overlap. The linemakers choice was 23-17 advancing to next round. This still proved to be a valuable bet, as underdogs cashed 23 of 38 wagers with two pushes, for 60.5 percent. Dime players have made a tidy $6,500 backing dogs in this round of action.

With the competitiveness of the NCAA Tournament, the teams that were expected to make it this far are often upset before making appointed date. Precisely 30 percent of time, the two top seeds have met in Regional Finals in the past 10 years.

In thinking back to when the bids are announced and the brackets are formatted, often the difference between a one or two seed can be something small as winning or losing in post-season conference tournament. As these persistent teams were grinding up the opposition, they proved throughout the course of the season, they are deserving of what they earned.

As the old Avis commercials used to say “We’re No.2, so we try harder”. This is mostly the case with teams in the second position in respective regions. The number two team feels it has something to prove and hits the hardwood with a more general purpose. Clearly, both want to make the Final Four, yet No.1 does come up short. Just a year ago, UCLA was off a championship game appearance and was attempting to back for another chance to fix unfinished business. The Bruins were the second seed, taking on two-point favorite and number one Kansas.

 

Coach Ben Howland’s team put on a defensive clinic and bottled up the Jayhawks, on the way to 68-55 win and a second consecutive trip to the Final Four. When 1 vs. 2 meet, the lower seed has come way cutting down the nets seven of the last dozen times and is 7-4-1 ATS, 63.6 percent. This season in the East regional, Tennessee could be in this position against North Carolina, as could Texas in the South versus top-seeded Memphis.

With the top two meeting 30 percent of the time, this means the vast majority of Elite Eight contests match up lower seeds. In this case, we took a peek at when a No. 3 or lower seed took on another team below there seeding. This is another representation of two universities surpassing preconceived notions to advance to this juncture. 2005 had two teams that were playing there best basketball of the season as fourth seeded Louisville faced a gritty No.7 West Virginia. The Mountaineers actually built up a 20-point lead against Cardinals in that regional final; however Rick Pitino’s teams’ press took affect and they tied the game at the end of regulation. Louisville ended up winning in overtime 83-75, just barely failing to cover the 8.5-point spread.

This is not the only game played that fits this criterion; in fact there have been eight in the last 10 seasons. The higher seed is .500, with less than desirable 2-6 against the spread record.

As shown, most everything points towards backing underdogs this upcoming weekend have them build your bankroll with these highly anticipated encounters.