If you were among the many that purchased VSiN’s Bowl Betting Guide back in December, or are a regular subscriber to Point Spread Weekly, you know that I love to break down historical data and look for edges that can be used in upcoming action. I think it is a particularly fitting exercise for certain groups or types of games, as the stakes for these games stay the same year after year. Thus the motivation to win, and what it takes to win, typically stays consistent as well. Of course, with it being NCAA tournament time, I am again driven to do the same in-depth analysis.
It is this time of year that college basketball wagering interest is at its peak, and in my opinion it is essential to look at some of the trends or patterns that have been formed in recent NCAA tournament action. Among the things I analyze in the coming article include; favorite/underdog results, how things vary by round, how the various seeding affects ATS performance, how each conference fares, and even how line & total placement can be important.
I try to often caution that trends & systems can turn at any time, but in many cases they can also prove to be the foundation for successful wagering, especially if they form off of bettor’s misconceptions, or are the result of physical mismatches that can arise and only the odds-making experts understand them. With all of 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.
Hopefully some of these angles can help YOU to big profits on this year’s tournament. Note that the data used to derive these trends was pulled from tournament games dating back to 2001. Not coincidentally, that was the same year that the tournament was expanded beyond 64 teams.
Navigating the Tournament Round by Round
As you’ll see from some of the analysis below, the tournament can change from round to round, and certain systematic patterns have formed in the ways you can profit from this transition.
Play-in Games
• In play-in games expected to be competitive, or those with point spreads 4.5 or less, totals have trended 19-11-1 UNDER (63.3%), including 2-0 last year
• Formerly, all play-in games used to match #16 seeds, recently, play-in games featuring seeds 12 or better have trended 10-4 UNDER (71.4%)
• Back to that point spread benchmark, favorites of 4.5 or less are just 16-17 SU & 11-21-1 ATS (34.4%)
• SWAC teams are 2-8 SU & 4-6 ATS (40%), while MAAC teams are 2-2 SU & 0-4 ATS (0%) historically in play-in games
• Bettors have moved the lines correctly in seven straight games, 7-0 SU & ATS (100%) in the play-in round dating back to 2016. First Round Games
• Teams coming off a conference tournament championship are 38-23 OVER (62.2%) in their L61 first round games against teams that did not make their conference championship game
• Teams that didn’t make their conference tournament championship game are on a first round slide of just 18-36-2 ATS (33.3%) versus conference champions, good go-against teams
• Power conference schools that lost SU & ATS in their conference championship game are 42-12 SU & 31- 21-2 ATS (59.6%) in the first round over the last 11 seasons
• Beware of first round favorites of -1 to -3, as they are just 38-41 SU & 28-47-4 ATS (36%) since ‘09
• Only four first round favorites of 14.5 points or more out of 139 have lost outright while going 68-67-4 ATS (50.3%). Of course, Virginia was the most recent to do so, losing 74-54 to UMBC.
• Top 4 seeds are just 31-39-1 ATS (44.3%) as double digit first round favorites since 2013.
• Top 4 seeds as single digit first round favorites are 30-18 UNDER (62.5%) the total since ’06 & 29-18-1 ATS (61.7%) in those games
• #5 seeds are 23-19 SU & 13-26-3 ATS (33.3%) in their L42 first round games versus #12’s
• #6 seeds are 19-21 SU & 14-25-1 ATS (35.9%) in their L40 first round games versus #11’s (also 26-13-1 UNDER – 33.3%)
• #8 seeds are 24-16 SU & 22-17-1 ATS (56.4%) in their L40 games versus #9’s (underdogs are 20-17 SU & 23-13-1 ATS (63.9%) in those)
• #11 seeds have been profitable wagers in the first two rounds of the tournament lately, going 33-17 ATS (66%) over the L8 seasons
• Power Conference Schools are 18-12 SU & 9-19-2 ATS (32.1%) as #5 seeds in the first round since ‘08
• Bettors have not been sharp when it comes to moving point spreads in first round games over the last two years, as they are 25-32-1 ATS (43.9%) when siding with one team or the other, causing the opening line to move towards that team
Second Round Games
• Second round Top 4 seeds that won but didn’t cover the spread in the first round are 23-12 SU & 19- 5-1 ATS (55.9%) since 2013. They are also 23-10-2 UNDER (69.7%) the total while allowing just 64.7 PPG. In other words, these teams tend to bounce back from near losses with strong defensive efforts.
• Second round double-digit favorites are 40-2 SU & 27-15 ATS (64.3%) since ’01. Eleven of the L13 such games went UNDER (84.6%) the total with the favorites allowing just 58.4 PPG
• Second round #2 seeds have felt the upset pressure, going just 16-10 SU & 8-17-1 ATS (32%) in their L26 games. Those favored by 5 points or less are just 11-17 SU & 9-18-1 ATS (33.3%) since ’02
• It’s been a struggle lately in the second round for top 3 seeds overall, going just 17-32-1 ATS (34.6%) in their L50, including 9-23-1 ATS (28.1%) when playing as a favorite of 7-points or less.
• Second round #10 seeds are on a 4-6 SU but 8-1-1 ATS (88.9%) run since ‘11
• In second round games between two double-digit seeds, the better seed is 10-2 SU & ATS since 2001, playing each time as the favorite. There were no such games in 2018. Alternatively, when facing seeds in the 5-7 range, they are just 2-15 SU & 4-11-2 ATS (26.7%) in that same timeframe
• Pac 12 teams are on a run of 15-4 ATS in second round NCAA tournament games, although no teams from that conference made it past the first round a year ago. Sweet 16 Games
• Sweet 16 favorites of 8-points or more are on a 21-7-3 UNDER (75%) the total run allowing 62.3 PPG
• Sweet 16 #1 and #2 seeds have taken care of business lately and combined are on a 22-3 SU & 18-5-1 ATS (78.3%) run over the L5 seasons
• Sweet 16 round is usually the end of the line for double-digit seeds, however, they have been very competitive as underdogs, going 11-2-1 ATS (84.6%) in that role since 2011.
• Sweet 16 double-digit seeds from power conferences are just 3-11 SU & 5-8-1 ATS (38.5%) since ’05
• Pac 12 teams are just 9-21-1 ATS in the Sweet 16 round since ‘01
• SEC teams have been a solid wager in the Sweet 16 round, 18-7-2 ATS (72%) since ’03, however, both Kentucky & Texas A&M lost in this round SU & ATS a year ago. Elite 8 Games
• Elite 8 favorites are just 34-30 SU & 23-39-2 ATS (37.1%) since ’03, making this a strong underdog round of late
• The true benchmark point for underdog success is 3.5-points. Those teams playing as underdogs of 3.5-points or less in the Elite 8 round are 24-16 SU & 26-13-1 ATS (66.7%) over last 20 years.
• Cinderella teams, or those not from power conferences are great bets when they reach the Elite 8 round, 10-8 SU & 12-5-1 ATS (70.6%) since ’03, including 9-1-1 ATS as underdogs of 3-points or more. Loyola-IL beat Kansas State last year 78-62 as a 1-point dog.
• The Elite 8 round is clearly a “survival round” for #1 seeds, as they are just 28-22 SU & 19-27-4 ATS (41.3%) in this round since ’01, however, both #1’s won & covered a year ago.
• Elite 8 #1-#3 seeds have struggled mightily against teams seeded #4 or worse, going 12-12 SU & 4-18-2 ATS (18.2%) since ‘01
• The Elite 8 round has easily been the best round to play OVER’s on totals, 81-53-2 (60.4%) since ’01. In games with lower totals of 143 or less, it has been 56 OVER’s 24 UNDER’s, for 70%. The Loyola-IL-Kansas State game of a year ago went OVER by 14 points.
Final Four Games
• Final Four #1 seeds are 13-5 SU & 10-7-1 ATS since ’01 when not matched against another #1 seed.
• Final Four favorites of 5-points or more are on a solid surge of 13-3 SU & 11-5-1 ATS (68.8%) over the L20 years.
• The last five non-power conference teams to reach the Final Four and face a power conference team have gone 3-2 SU & ATS
• ACC teams have been most successful in the Final Four Round, going 9-4 SU & ATS since ’01, including 7-1 SU & 6-2 ATS when favored
• On totals, the last seven final four games that had posted numbers of 130 or less went UNDER, producing just 112.2 combined PPG on average. Otherwise, totals are 19-12-2 OVER (61.2%) in the Finals Four since ’99.
Championship Games
• Championship game favorites of 3-points or more are on a 12-2 SU & 11-3 ATS (78.6%) run, while those favored by 2.5 or less are just 3-4 SU & ATS since ‘98
• Only once in the L18 years did the championship winning team not cover the spread (Duke against Butler in 2010)
• In the L12 championship games matching non-equal seeds, the better seed is on a 10-3 SU & 9-4 ATS (69.2%) run
• Big East schools own a perfect 6-0 SU & ATS record in championship games since ’01 while Big Ten teams are winless at 0-7 SU & ATS. Of course these trends collided in last year’s title game win by Villanova over Michigan.
• Bettors have gone just 5-10 ATS in their L15 championship games when moving opening lines towards one team or the other.
Overall Tournament Trends by Conference
With so many results to analyze, obviously various conferences will develop different performance patterns in different situations, or against other specific conferences. Take a look at these trends uncovered in tournament games by conference
General Trends
• In the L9 NCAA tournaments, Big 12 teams are just 67-58 SU & 49-73-3 ATS (40.2%)
• Big 12 teams are on a 13-23-1 ATS (36.1%) slide in the NCAA’s against non-power conference teams
• Big Sky teams are just 1-18 SU & 5-14 ATS (26.3%) in the tournament since 2001, including 2-13 ATS (13.3%) as an underdog of less than 20 points
• Big West teams are just 3-15 SU & 5-12-1 ATS (27.8%) in their L18 NCAA tournament games
• CAA teams have been the country’s best in terms of NCAA tournament spread performance, 26-8-3 ATS (76.5%) since ‘01
• Conference USA teams are just 35-36 SU & 28-43 ATS (39.4%) in the NCAA tournament since 2001 as well as just 3-11 SU & 4-10 ATS (28.6%) in their L14 NCAA tourney games against power conference schools
• Horizon League teams have lost eight straight NCAA tourney games while going 2-6 ATS (25%)
• Ivy League teams have turned around years of struggles by going 5-9 SU & 9-5 ATS (64.3%) in their L14 NCAA tourney games
• MEAC teams are on a 3-11 SU & ATS (21.4%) slide in the NCAA’s
• Missouri Valley Conference teams are on a 17-9 SU & 17-8-1 ATS (68%) run in the NCAA tournament since 2013, and are on a 15-5-1 ATS (75%) run against power conference schools
• Mountain West teams’ struggles in the NCAA’s haven’t been that well-documented, but collectively they are just 21-45 SU & 22-41-3 ATS (34.9%) since 2001
• Northeast Conference teams are 3-4 SU & ATS in play-in games but have lost 14 straight First Round NCAA tournament games while going 5-8-1 ATS (38.5%)
• Ohio Valley Conference teams have been quite competitive in the NCAA tournament, 12-6 ATS (66.7%) in their L18. They are only 4-21 outright since ’98 though
• Southern Conference teams have been very competitive in the NCAA’s when playing as an underdog of less than 15 points, 13-4 ATS (76.5%) in L17
• WAC teams have won just two games in the NCAA’s in ’04, going 2-19 SU & 6-15 ATS (28.6%) since. They are also on a 13-game losing streak in the tournament versus power conference schools, going 3-0 ATS (23.1%)
• West Coast Conference teams are just 1-9 SU & 2-8 ATS in their L10 NCAA games against top 3 seeds
• In NCAA tournament games with totals of 140 or more, West Coast Conference teams are on an ugly 13-21 SU & 9-24-1 ATS (27.3%) slide
Trends by Matchup
• ACC teams are 14-4 SU but 0-18 ATS (0%) combined versus Atlantic Sun, Colonial Athletic, & Ohio Valley teams since ‘01
• Seventeen of the L23 NCAA tournament matchups between ACC & SEC teams went UNDER the total
• Underdogs are 10-2 ATS (83.3%) in L12 NCAA tourney games between Atlantic 10 & Big East
• Big 12 teams are on a 5-12 SU & 4-13 ATS (23.5%) slide in the NCAA’s versus Big East teams
• Big 12 teams have struggled vs. Missouri Valley teams in NCAA tourney play, going just 3-7 SU & 1-9 ATS (10%) since ‘01
• Underdogs are on a 13-2 ATS run in NCAA tourney games between Big 12 & Pac 12 teams
• Big 12 teams are 12-4 UNDER (75%) the total when matched against SEC foes in NCAA tournament play since 2000
• Big East teams are on a 7-1 SU & ATS (87.5%) run against Mountain West teams in the tournament
• Underdogs are on a 10-2 ATS (83.3%) run in NCAA tourney games between Big East & Atlantic 10 teams
• Big East teams are just 2-7 SU & ATS (22.2%) in their L9 NCAA tourney matchups versus West Coast foes
• Favorites are on a 9-1 SU & ATS (83%) run in NCAA tournament games between Conference USA & Big Ten
• Big Ten teams are 9-5 SU & 10-4 ATS in their L14 NCAA tourney matchups versus Pac 12 foes
• Underdogs are on a 15-7-1 ATS (68.2%) run in the L23 NCAA tournament games between the SEC and Big Ten conferences
• Favorites have won the L6 NCAA tourney games SU & ATS between the ACC & Conference USA
• Missouri Valley are 6-4 SU & 7-1-2 ATS (70%) in their L10 NCAA tourney contests vs. the SEC
• Mountain West teams are just 1-9 SU & 2-7-1 ATS versus Pac 12 teams in the tournament since ’02, including 0-4 SU & ATS when favored
• SEC teams have gotten the better of Pac 12 teams recently in NCAA tournament games, 10-5 SU & 12-3 ATS in the L15
Trends by Line Placement
• ACC teams are just 21-40-1 ATS (34.4%) as favorites of 5-points or less in the NCAA’s since ‘98
• ACC teams are 25-3 SU but 9-19 ATS (32.1%) in their L28 as double-digit tourney favorites
• Atlantic 10 teams are 19-5 SU & 14-6-4 ATS (70%) in their L24 games as tournament favorites
• Big 12 teams have lost 28 of their L29 straight games as underdogs of 4.5-points or more and are 10-19 ATS (34.5%) in those games
• Big East teams have struggled in the role of small favorite, 34-37 SU & 28-43 ATS (39.4%) when laying 5-points or less in tourney since ‘04
• Big West teams have struggled in the role of large underdog, 1-15 SU & 3-13 ATS (18.8%) when catching 4-points or more in tourney since ‘05
• Underdogs are 25-8 ATS (75.8%) in the L33 CAA NCAA tournament games
• CAA teams are on a 23-5-2 ATS run as NCAA tourney dogs to power conference teams
• Favorites are 31-12 ATS (72.1%) in the L43 Conference USA NCAA tournament games vs. power conference opponents
• Conference USA teams are on a brutal slide of 3-21 SU & 4-20 ATS as single-digit underdogs in the NCAA tournament
• Mid-American Conference teams are on a run of 7-1 ATS in their L8 tries as double-digit dogs in the NCAA tourney
• Missouri Valley teams have covered 10 of L11 and are 16-5-1 ATS (76.2%) since ’07 as a NCAA tournament underdog or pick em’
• As tournament underdogs, Mountain West teams are just 8-33 SU & 11-27-3 ATS (28.9%) since ’01 although Nevada (+9) did beat Cincinnati in the second round in 2018
• Pac 12 teams have performed well as underdogs lately in NCAA tourney games, 23-12 ATS (65.7%) since ‘11
• As underdogs of 7-points or less, Southland Conference teams are 5-0-1 ATS in their L6 NCAA tournament games, but when a larger underdog than that, they are 0-14 SU & 4-9-1 ATS (30.8%)
• Sun Belt teams have gone 9-3 ATS (75%) as tournament underdogs of 9.5-points or more
• West Coast Conference teams haven’t been as good as suspected as NCAA tournament underdogs, 7-16 SU & 8-15 ATS since ‘07
Over/Under Trends
• America East teams are 13-6-1 UNDER (68.4%) the total in NCAA’s since ‘03
• Atlantic Sun teams are on 11-3 OVER (78.6%) the total run in NCAA’s
• Big 12 teams have gone 25-10 OVER (71.4%) the total since 2016, including 7-1 OVER (87.5%) in second round games
• Horizon League teams are on a 13-5 UNDER (72.2%) the total NCAA run
• Ivy League teams are 13-3 UNDER (81.3%) the total as tournament underdogs of 6-points or more
Sign up here to get your FREE edition of Point Spread Weekly from VSIN.
