Winning NCAA Tournament Angles

By Jim Kruger

3-15-08

Growing up in Kansas City and being a diehard Jayhawk basketball fan, I went to the University of Kansas Basketball Camp run by then head coach, Ted Owens.  Outside of the visits of Boston Celtic great and former KU All-American, Jo Jo White, one of the best highlights of every camp was watching film of the 1957 NCAA legendary Championship Game between Kansas and the University of North Carolina.  KU had Wilt Chamberlain but the Tar Heels had coach Frank McGuire who devised a defense to neutralize one of the greatest scorers all of basketball has ever seen.  McGuire coupled his collapsing defense with extended delays and holding the ball in the pre-shot clock days. 

McGuire had revenge against Kansas as he had lost the national championship game to the Jayhawks in 1952 when he was coaching St. Johns.  Thus, McGuire was not above using mind games to gain any advantage his team could.  Reminiscent of baseball’s Bill Veeck sending a midget to bat in a game, McGuire had his smallest starter, guard Tommy Kearns, not even six-foot tall, jump center at the beginning of the game against the 7-1 Big Dipper.  Ironically, Kearns and Chamberlain became very good friends later in life with investment banker Kearns handling many of Wilt’s investments. 

North Carolina beat Kansas in triple overtime, 54-53, in one of the greatest championship games of all time.  Wilt would never win a national championship and left Kansas after his next season to join the Harlem Globetrotters. 

This year we very well could see some games that achieve legendary status.  For people who wager money on individual March Madness games and who live and die by the point spread or the lined total in a game, the winner of the contest doesn’t always make a difference.  Legendary status to the sports bettor can be earned by a meaningless basket in the closing seconds of a game by a third-stringer or a bad call by a referee that changes the complexion of the game.

I have looked at the past ten years of every game played in the NCAA Tournament from 1998 to last year in trying to discover some trends, edges, or advantages that can help us return a profit in this year’s tournament.  Just because certain results, trends, or tendencies appear in the past, it is no guarantee that they will continue this year.  If that was the case, there would be a lot more people making very good money betting sports.

However, we are looking at a very good sample size of data which gives our study validity.  Using small sample sizes or results over a very short period of time are shortcomings many handicappers exhibit in their work in breaking down games. 

As always, I like to start with a baseline of results to work from.  First, let’s just look at the results against the point spread and versus the lined total each round over the past ten years combined has recorded. 

In the opening round, it is almost an exact 50% result against the spread (ATS) with a record of 163-158 with four pushes.  However, it appears there is a very profitable betting angle wagering on the lined total to go Over or Under (OU).  With the OU results, we only have nine years of data as there were not lined totals offered back in the first year of our data, 1998.  Also, as a point of reference, Las Vegas did not offer odds on UNLV games in the Rebels 1998 and 2000 games in the NCAA Tournament.  That did change shortly thereafter and all UNLV games do have point spreads and lined totals. 

In the opening round over the past nine years, blindly betting the Under would have given you a sweet profit on a record of 191-132 Under, 59.1% winners! 
In Round 2, betting on the lower seed now turns a profit winning 54.4% of the time, 86-72-2 ATS.  We still are profitable betting the Under, however we have dropped to a winning rate of 53.5% on a 85-74-1 mark. 

Moving on to the Sweet 16 gives us two profitable trends.  Again, betting on the lower seed has us winning 43 times out of 75 games, 57.3%.  The gravy train betting the Under continues with  61.5% winners, 48-30-2. 

The lower seeds are very profitable in the Elite 8 round, 26-12-2, 68.4%.  Interestingly enough, our Under meal ticket goes against us for the first time, with the Overs cashing 59.1% of the time, 23-16-1.

The Elite 8 round has a 13-7 mark, 65%, in favor of the higher seed.  The Under is back to being profitable with  a 7-12-1 OU mark, 63.2%.  There were two games with equal seeds playing each other with 1-1 ATS and 1-1 OU records.

The Finals had three occasions with both teams being #1 seeds.  Eliminating those results, we are 5-2 ATS betting on the higher seed and 4-3 OU. 

Here is a chart with each round based on the higher seed being the team of record:

The Higher Seed By Round

Now it is time to drill down and see what else we can uncover.  Other ways we want to look at the results are:

     *  How do teams from smaller conferences do against their larger counter parts?
     *  What are the results of teams in certain price ranges? 
     *  Are there any tendencies of Totals depending upon the lined number?
    
A very good way to get a quick look at how certain conferences perform is to group the conferences by perceived general strength.  We have four conference ratings:  A, B, C, and D.  The conferences for each group rating are as follows:

A:  ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Big East, SEC, and PAC 10
B:  Atlantic 10, Conference USA, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, and the WAC

C:  Big Sky, Big West, Colonial, Horizon, Metro Atlantic, Ohio Valley, Sun Belt, West  
      Coast Conference

D:  America East, Atlantic Sun, Big South, Ivy League, Mid-Continent (now Summit), Mid-                                    
                    Eastern, Northeastern, Patriot, Southern, Southland, SWAC. 

An argument can be made regarding the ratings of the conferences.  Perhaps the most compelling would be the West Coast Conference being in the “C” group.  Sure, Gonzaga is in the WCC and emerging power St. Mary’s is also.  However, our ratings go back ten years.  We have to average the entire conference over this extended period of time.

First, let’s look how conferences do against equally rated conferences.  The value of taking the lower rated seed when “A” conferences meet each other is evident with the 57.5% ATS rate, 119-88.  Playing the Under has a small advantage at 109-98, 52.7%. 

There are no discernible advantages when the lower rated conferences meet each other and there really is not a very large result set.

When our highest rated conference group plays a “B” or “C” conference, again, results that show no edge ATS or OU.  However, when the “A” group goes against the lowest rated squads, they do cover 55.7% of the time, 54-97.  But, the most profitable wager found in comparing conference groups is playing the Under when an “A”, one of the “Big Six”, goes against a regularly non-lined “D” group.  You normally don’t find a 70%+ winning blind wager but that is what you have in this mismatch of talent. 

While we don’t have a large result set when the higher seed is the “B” conference group, there are a couple of edges there.  The “B” group only covers the spread in 12 of 30 games, a paltry 40% winning ATS rate.  The Under is 19-11. a nice 63.3% winning rate when you play it that way. 

In examining results by what the line is, there are some opportunities that arise.  We are ignoring what round it is, only concerned about the point spread and the results.  There is nothing exciting about the ATS results when a team is favored by 20+ points, but the OU is 28-21 in favor of the Under, 57.1%. 

Similar results are obtained when a team is favored by 15 to 19.5 points, regardless of the round.
An 18-17 ATS record produces nothing but a 13-22 OU mark gives us an edge worth considering. 

Some good stuff shows up when we take a peek at -9.5 to -14.5 point spreads in the Big Dance.  Taking the points gives you a nice winning mark of 58-40, 60.2%.  Even more profitable is playing the Under with a 62-37 ticket cashing record.  Obviously, the better team is able to shut the weaker underdog down more times than not and not only get the cover but also throttle the other team defensively enough to get the Under.   

Moving the favorite into three possession territory and you don’t have anything outstanding, however the favorite did cover 54.5% of the time. 

Going into a two possession line range and we have some results that are worth noting.  The underdog getting 3.5 to 6 points has a record of 77-63, 55.0%.  The Under is more profitable with an 82-61 tally, 57.3%. 

Underdogs in a one-possession line, pick’em to +3, win at a 54.3% clip.  Definitely not strong enough to look too seriously at but still it is an edge. 

I did think that when the higher seed is an underdog to the lower seed that the results would show a significant spread-covering advantage for the disrespected higher seed.  I was disappointed when the ten-year scorecard was virtually a 50% wager.  But, I will remember that when the higher seed is a dog up to three points that the Under cashes 31 out of 49 times, 61.2%. 

As someone who enjoys playing totals and firmly believes it is one of the areas in sports betting that has some of the best potential for profits, I thought there might be some eye-opening trends based upon the lined total in an NCAA Tournament game. 

I was immediately rewarded with an exceptionally strong winning trend, albeit with a small sample size, with games with a lined total of 160 or higher.  Does a 10-1 ATS record for the higher seed make it worth you while to remember this trend?  The one loser happened in 1999 and was the only game with a #1 seed playing a #16 seed, Duke squaring off against Florida A&M.  Duke was a 46.5 point favorite, which also happens to be the most points given to a team over the past ten years of the NCAA Tournament.  Duke missed covering the line by six points.

I was surprised that games with totals in the 150’s finished virtually in an exact even OU.  However, the lower seed in such a game did cover the spread 61.0% of the time, 47 out of 77 games.

The Under was a winner with a 55.6% frequency to games lined in the 140’s while the Over cashed your ticket 55.9% of the time with a total in the 130’s.  As we moved down into the 120’s, the Under was 54-40, 57.4%, with the lower seed covering the point spread 55.9% of the time.  Below 120 saw the Under with a 13-6 record. 

If you are wondering if the round of the tournament made any difference regarding the outcome of playing the Over and Under, you will be happy to know that it definitely does! 

In the opening round with a lined total in the 140’s, just playing the Under blindly would have given you 64% winners, 55-31.  Betting the Over would happen on games with a total in the 130’s in the opening round is not quite as lucrative, but a 60-41 record will keep you coming back for more!  A winning rate of 63.6% comes up with the Under when the total is less than 120 in Round 1.  Sometimes it pays to do your research!

Although there are only 13 games that fall into this result set, another nice tidbit I uncovered was playing the Under in the Sweet 16 round when the total is in the 120’s gave you a winning record of 10-3. 

Are there any opening rounds that have some land mines in them, rounds that have a strong tendency towards one side or the other or to the Over or Under?  Yes, and your tireless reporter has uncovered those!  How about when the #2 seed plays the #15 seed?  Good ol’ #2 has only covered 15 out of 39 times with one push.  And, even better, the Under has a superb record of 24-12.  (remember, in 1998 there were no posted totals.)

The winning angle on the Under continues with the 3-14 opening round, a tidy 23-13 mark, 63.9%.  The Under continues to come in a winner, now at a 60% pace, for the opening round with the #6 and #7 seeds. 

The only other sides that showed any distinct advantage was betting on the #3 and #4 seeds in their first games, combing for a 55.7% winning ATS mark. 

How about the conferences living outside of the Big Six, especially the small conferences.  How have they fared?  There are a few that show a profit when you are backing them.  The Colonial Athletic Association jumps forward with a 13-5 ATS record being led by Virginia Commonwealth, George Mason, and UNC-Wilmington.  They have also produced a 12-6 OU mark.

Excluding play-in games, the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference has only won one NCAA Tournament game straight-up, that memorable one-point Hampton win over Iowa State in 2001.  However, they do have a nice 8-2 ATS record coupled with a 2-7 OU mark the past ten seasons.

I realize most people cannot name a team from the America East Conference, but if you knew they were 3-7-1  ATS the past ten seasons you might learn that Vermont and Albany are conference members. 

When a Mountain West team is the lower seed, it pays to bet against them to the tune of 13-6 ATS. 

Even though the Ivy League beats everybody in smarts, they don’t with their pocketbook as they are 1-9 ATS and 3-6 OU since 1998. 

Conference USA has not been a money-maker going 27-38 ATS be it the higher or lower seed in a game. 

Large conferences that have done well as the lower seed include the Big 12 at 30-20, Big East at 28-20, and the SEC at 26-14.