Notre Dame (21-14) vs. Penn State (25-11)
DATE & TIME: Tuesday, March 31st, 9:00 p.m. (et).
FACTS & STATS: Site: Madison Square Garden (19,786) -- New York, New York. Television: ESPN2. NIT Record: Notre Dame 26-10, Penn State 20-9. Series Record: Penn State leads, 2-1.
GAME NOTES: Playing at Madison Square Garden for the third time this season, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish clash with the Penn State Nittany Lions in the semifinals of the 72nd Annual NIT. In the postseason in one form or another for the 10th straight year, the Fighting Irish previously made stops in the World's Most Famous Arena against St. John's as part of their Big East Conference slate early in January and then returned to the venue for the league tournament in March, first beating Rutgers and then losing to West Virginia. As far as the NIT is concerned, second-seeded Notre Dame is now 26-10 in the event thanks to wins over UAB (70-64), New Mexico (70-68) and Kentucky (77-67) in the first three rounds. Notre Dame has finished second in this tournament a total of four times (1973, 1984, 1992 and 2000) but has yet to bring home the crown. Meanwhile, the second-seeded Nittany Lions have now equaled the school's single-season record for victories with 25, thanks to a convincing 71-62 triumph over Florida last week, on the road at the O'Connell Center where the Gators were shooting for a record of their own for wins in the single season. PSU, which has a second-place finish in the NIT from 11 years ago, is now 20-9 in the event with first and second-round wins against George Mason and Rhode Island, respectively. Of the three previous meetings between these two programs, two have been won by the Nittany Lions. Nine years ago Notre Dame crushed Penn State during the NIT in a 73-52 decision, and 46 years after the Lions logged a 71-63 victory during the third round of the NCAA Tournament in Iowa City. Prior to that, the very first encounter took place at University Park in 1925, with the home team capturing a 33-22 win. The winner of this meeting will be pitted against the survivor of the Baylor/San Diego State matchup in the title game on Thursday night.
One of four players to score in double figures for the Fighting Irish last week at the Joyce Center, Luke Harangody registered 30 points and 11 rebounds, along with four assists, as he led the team to the win over the visiting Kentucky Wildcats. The decision turned out to be the final game on the sidelines for Kentucky head coach Billy Gillispie who on Friday was informed that he would not be retained by the program. For Notre Dame head coach Mike Brey, Kyle McAlarney and Ryan Ayers stepped up with 15 and 14 points, respectively, while Tory Jackson tallied 10 points and five assists to help offset the fact that fellow starter Zach Hillesland was held scoreless over the course of 24 minutes. Harangody, one of only a handful of college players who can claim to have averaged a double-double this season, leads the team with his 23.5 ppg and 11.8 rpg and is also first with 31 blocked shots. McAlarney has produced another 15.1 ppg, shooting better behind the three- point line (.426) than he has from the field (.409) over the course of 35 games this season. McAlarney is also second on the team in assists with 120, trailing only Jackson (10.6 ppg) who has kept the squad moving on offense with his 173 dishes, not to mention four and a half rebounds per game as well. Ayers checks in with 11.3 ppg and is also a deep threat for the squad with his impressive 43.9 percent accuracy out on the perimeter as he and McAlarney have combined to make 216 three-point baskets and pushed the group to 39.9 percent beyond the arc altogether.
After sitting out the previous game with a dislocated left shoulder, Jamelle Cornley returned to action for the Nittany Lions, bandaged and ready to bruise Florida on the road in the nine-point decision last Tuesday night. Cornley knocked down 11-of-14 shots from the floor, posting a double-double with team highs of 23 points and 12 rebounds in the triumph. Stanley Pringle converted 5-of-9 shots behind the three-point line to come up with his 15 points, adding five boards and four assists, followed by David Jackson with 14 points. Although he missed all but one of his eight three-point tries, Talor Battle fought his way to 13 points and five assists as the team banded together to limit Florida's Nick Calathes to 3-of-12 shooting from the floor and 0-of-6 beyond the arc. Cornley's presence in the paint was huge for the Nittany Lions and has been all season with his 14.2 ppg and team-best 6.3 rpg. However, the 52 percent shooter could prove to be a detriment to the squad should he be on the floor in crunch time and sent to the free-throw line where he is a mere 53.3 percent accurate after his 35 appearances. Battle (16.8 ppg), the all- conference performer for Penn State, has shown confidence at the stripe with his 71.5 percent shooting and always has something positive happening when he's on the floor, whether it be his 5.3 rpg or his team-best 177 assists or 44 steals this season. While Cornley works the paint and Battle everywhere else, Pringle (12.9 ppg) does his best work out on the perimeter where he's made good on an astounding 47 percent of his chances thus far.
Harangody will be a tough matchup for the Nittany Lions, but as long as PSU can show the same determination and drive as it did versus Florida in a hostile environment, there's no doubt the squad can stay competitive and perhaps even pull off the win.
Predicted Outcome: Penn State 68, Notre Dame 65
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Final Four Betting Info
Final Four Betting Info
We are down to the nitty-gritty having to wait until Saturday afternoon to see who might be playing for the national championship. Though two of the teams that made the Final Four were expected, two others were mild surprises. Here is a breakdown of various elements to consider about all four participants that will be making their way to Detroit. Odds courtesy of Bookmaker.com.
North Carolina -180 to win title
Take a quick trip back to Jan. 11 when North Carolina stood at 0-2 in the ACC and make your determination how far this talented team has come. Tyler Hansbrough and Ty Lawson are the two most important players on the Tar Heels roster; however the contributions of Danny Green and Wayne Ellington should not be understated. Their has been and will be more talk about the North Carolina players like Hansbrough, Green and Ellington to a lesser degree wanting to comeback to win a national championship. Once they found out they were unlikely to be taken in the first round of last year’s draft, they made the decision to return to Chapel Hill with sights on winning title, not before that.
There are a number of reasons why North Carolina is better than even money to give Roy Williams his second title in four years. Though Villanova has a wonderfully diverse backcourt, nobody has a player like Lawson. Ellington and Green are better players when he’s on the court. The Tar Heels have three players that shoot over 40 percent beyond the arc and they have a vast assortment of frontcourt players that can score and rebound. North Carolina is not a possession by possession defensive team like Michigan State; nevertheless, they can make four stops in a row and score on the other end each time to make short runs that open up games. This group of players was expected to be here and now their mission is to finish the deal, they are 8-1 ATS in last nine NCAA contests.
Connecticut +275 to win title
Though the path to the Final Four has been come thru the West Region before for Connecticut, their next game will be played in front of what should be at least 30,000 Michigan State fans. With the Huskies, you know Hasheem Thabeet, Jeff Adrien and A.J. Price are going to be solid performers. What secured Connecticut’s ability to get to Motown was the continued emergence of Stanley Robison and the growing before our eyes play of freshman Kemba Walker.
Thabeet is the biggest game-changing big man in the Final Four since Houston's Hakeem Olajuwon and Georgetown's Patrick Ewing played in the 1984 event. While his presence has a dramatic impact on how opponents go into the lane, his ability to stay out of foul trouble is of equal importance. UConn is a smart team and doesn’t give away points at the free throw line, committing very few fouls in spite of excellent on-ball defense. Higher seeds like Connecticut with a differential of at least two spots in the Final Four are 8-3 SU and ATS.
Michigan State +655 to win title
This is the most unlikely team to be in Detroit, even though they are just 75 miles away. If Tom Izzo’s name wasn’t in the conversation about best coaches in college basketball, that stops today. His Michigan State team was better prepared and outplayed a better Louisville team. Though not many will mention this, Izzo DID out-coached Rick Pitino.
Statistically, the Spartans aren’t going to overwhelm any of the four teams at Ford Field, not being an impressive team offensively or defensively. What they do is stay in front of their man on defense, offer enough help on dribble penetration and get a hand in your face. It’s often talked about most teams don’t like to play defense for 35 seconds, the same often holds true for teams running offenses. With how Michigan State guards, players become trigger-happy after 25-30 seconds, especially after a few empty trips.
Point guard Kalin Lucas makes the offense go, but when Goran Suton and Durrell Summers are dropping shots, this team adds a completely different dimension. Michigan State will have a football-like advantage as far as crowd noise and must keep there composure from being to “geeked” to play. Though teams off upsets cover just 40 percent of the time in the Final Four, nobody has had a few of the edges the Spartans will.
Villanova +700 to win title
Jay Wright is the only coach among the four, who has not won a national championship. With a couple more upsets, he and Villanova could change all that. After a walk-thru first half against American, the Wildcats were as impressive as any team in the tournament in almost literally taking apart UCLA and Duke. After Pittsburgh had wallowed thru three games, they returned to being Pittsburgh and for the final 30 minutes of that Elite Eight contest, all both teams did was make one big play after another.
What’s memorable about Villanova is the strength and diversification they have at guard. Be it Scottie Reynolds, Reggie Redding or the Corey’s, Stokes and Fisher, each brings something and invariably two or more plays well. Every coach would love to have a Dante Cunningham, who worked hard each year to be what he is today and fellow seniors Dwayne Anderson and Shane Clark are making plays on both sides of the court.
Just like in 1985 when Villanova last made the Final Four, this squad is not given a chance and has the advantage of zero expectations, other than fulfilling their own. Though underdogs off two straight tournament upsets are 2-7 ATS in this round, these ‘Cats are a dangerous defensive dog.
We are down to the nitty-gritty having to wait until Saturday afternoon to see who might be playing for the national championship. Though two of the teams that made the Final Four were expected, two others were mild surprises. Here is a breakdown of various elements to consider about all four participants that will be making their way to Detroit. Odds courtesy of Bookmaker.com.
North Carolina -180 to win title
Take a quick trip back to Jan. 11 when North Carolina stood at 0-2 in the ACC and make your determination how far this talented team has come. Tyler Hansbrough and Ty Lawson are the two most important players on the Tar Heels roster; however the contributions of Danny Green and Wayne Ellington should not be understated. Their has been and will be more talk about the North Carolina players like Hansbrough, Green and Ellington to a lesser degree wanting to comeback to win a national championship. Once they found out they were unlikely to be taken in the first round of last year’s draft, they made the decision to return to Chapel Hill with sights on winning title, not before that.
There are a number of reasons why North Carolina is better than even money to give Roy Williams his second title in four years. Though Villanova has a wonderfully diverse backcourt, nobody has a player like Lawson. Ellington and Green are better players when he’s on the court. The Tar Heels have three players that shoot over 40 percent beyond the arc and they have a vast assortment of frontcourt players that can score and rebound. North Carolina is not a possession by possession defensive team like Michigan State; nevertheless, they can make four stops in a row and score on the other end each time to make short runs that open up games. This group of players was expected to be here and now their mission is to finish the deal, they are 8-1 ATS in last nine NCAA contests.
Connecticut +275 to win title
Though the path to the Final Four has been come thru the West Region before for Connecticut, their next game will be played in front of what should be at least 30,000 Michigan State fans. With the Huskies, you know Hasheem Thabeet, Jeff Adrien and A.J. Price are going to be solid performers. What secured Connecticut’s ability to get to Motown was the continued emergence of Stanley Robison and the growing before our eyes play of freshman Kemba Walker.
Thabeet is the biggest game-changing big man in the Final Four since Houston's Hakeem Olajuwon and Georgetown's Patrick Ewing played in the 1984 event. While his presence has a dramatic impact on how opponents go into the lane, his ability to stay out of foul trouble is of equal importance. UConn is a smart team and doesn’t give away points at the free throw line, committing very few fouls in spite of excellent on-ball defense. Higher seeds like Connecticut with a differential of at least two spots in the Final Four are 8-3 SU and ATS.
Michigan State +655 to win title
This is the most unlikely team to be in Detroit, even though they are just 75 miles away. If Tom Izzo’s name wasn’t in the conversation about best coaches in college basketball, that stops today. His Michigan State team was better prepared and outplayed a better Louisville team. Though not many will mention this, Izzo DID out-coached Rick Pitino.
Statistically, the Spartans aren’t going to overwhelm any of the four teams at Ford Field, not being an impressive team offensively or defensively. What they do is stay in front of their man on defense, offer enough help on dribble penetration and get a hand in your face. It’s often talked about most teams don’t like to play defense for 35 seconds, the same often holds true for teams running offenses. With how Michigan State guards, players become trigger-happy after 25-30 seconds, especially after a few empty trips.
Point guard Kalin Lucas makes the offense go, but when Goran Suton and Durrell Summers are dropping shots, this team adds a completely different dimension. Michigan State will have a football-like advantage as far as crowd noise and must keep there composure from being to “geeked” to play. Though teams off upsets cover just 40 percent of the time in the Final Four, nobody has had a few of the edges the Spartans will.
Villanova +700 to win title
Jay Wright is the only coach among the four, who has not won a national championship. With a couple more upsets, he and Villanova could change all that. After a walk-thru first half against American, the Wildcats were as impressive as any team in the tournament in almost literally taking apart UCLA and Duke. After Pittsburgh had wallowed thru three games, they returned to being Pittsburgh and for the final 30 minutes of that Elite Eight contest, all both teams did was make one big play after another.
What’s memorable about Villanova is the strength and diversification they have at guard. Be it Scottie Reynolds, Reggie Redding or the Corey’s, Stokes and Fisher, each brings something and invariably two or more plays well. Every coach would love to have a Dante Cunningham, who worked hard each year to be what he is today and fellow seniors Dwayne Anderson and Shane Clark are making plays on both sides of the court.
Just like in 1985 when Villanova last made the Final Four, this squad is not given a chance and has the advantage of zero expectations, other than fulfilling their own. Though underdogs off two straight tournament upsets are 2-7 ATS in this round, these ‘Cats are a dangerous defensive dog.
Finally!...the Final Four
Finally!...the Final Four
Faster than a 401K on its way down to 201K status, this year’s NCAA tournament is down to the Final Four as a quartet of skillful survivors have now arrived in Detroit. And before the clock strikes 12 Midnight Monday April 6th, we’ll crown a new national champion in the world of college basketball.
To put the wraps on the 2009 NCAA Tournament, I have listed below some interesting trends and angles to consider before our Fab Four runs its final lap in the Motor City. All results listed below are ATS (Against The Spread) since 1991 unless otherwise noted…
NCAA Final Four Round Notes:
Teams off a SU underdog win are 10-15 ATS (Michigan State and Villanova)
Teams off back-to-back SU underdogs wins are 2-7 ATS (Villanova)
Teams who covered by more than 10 points in the Elite 8 round are 13-21 ATS (Michigan St)
Teams who 3-0 ATS last 3 games are 9-21 ATS (all 4 teams)
Teams who have covered all 4 games in this tourney are 4-14 ATS (Connecticut and North Carolina)
Favorites of 7 or more points are 1-8 ATS (North Carolina)
No. 1 seeds versus non-No. 1 seeds are 12-6 ATS (Connecticut and North Carolina)
Teams that won 33 or more games last season are 7-0 SU and 6-1 ATS (North Carolina)
NCAA Championship Round Notes:
Favorites are 12-6 ATS
Teams off back-to-back ATS wins are 9-14 ATS, including 3-10 as dogs and 1-5 off an ATS win of 14 or more points
Teams off 3 ATS wins are 6-9 SU and ATS
Teams off an ATS loss are 3-2 ATS, including 3-0 as a dog or favorite of 5 or less points
ACC teams are 7-3 ATS
Big East teams are 3-1 SU and ATS
Big 10 teams are 2-5 SU and ATS
Teams that have scored the most points in the tourney are 13-5 SU and 11-7 ATS
There you have it, trends and notes of NCAA Final Four and out games played the last 18 years.
I hope you’ve enjoyed the tournament as much as I have. I’ll return during the NBA playoffs with an overview of some Good, Bad, and downright Ugly stats and trends which hold promise for better performance through the post-season than your IRA. Until then, enjoy the rest of the ‘Dance’…
Faster than a 401K on its way down to 201K status, this year’s NCAA tournament is down to the Final Four as a quartet of skillful survivors have now arrived in Detroit. And before the clock strikes 12 Midnight Monday April 6th, we’ll crown a new national champion in the world of college basketball.
To put the wraps on the 2009 NCAA Tournament, I have listed below some interesting trends and angles to consider before our Fab Four runs its final lap in the Motor City. All results listed below are ATS (Against The Spread) since 1991 unless otherwise noted…
NCAA Final Four Round Notes:
Teams off a SU underdog win are 10-15 ATS (Michigan State and Villanova)
Teams off back-to-back SU underdogs wins are 2-7 ATS (Villanova)
Teams who covered by more than 10 points in the Elite 8 round are 13-21 ATS (Michigan St)
Teams who 3-0 ATS last 3 games are 9-21 ATS (all 4 teams)
Teams who have covered all 4 games in this tourney are 4-14 ATS (Connecticut and North Carolina)
Favorites of 7 or more points are 1-8 ATS (North Carolina)
No. 1 seeds versus non-No. 1 seeds are 12-6 ATS (Connecticut and North Carolina)
Teams that won 33 or more games last season are 7-0 SU and 6-1 ATS (North Carolina)
NCAA Championship Round Notes:
Favorites are 12-6 ATS
Teams off back-to-back ATS wins are 9-14 ATS, including 3-10 as dogs and 1-5 off an ATS win of 14 or more points
Teams off 3 ATS wins are 6-9 SU and ATS
Teams off an ATS loss are 3-2 ATS, including 3-0 as a dog or favorite of 5 or less points
ACC teams are 7-3 ATS
Big East teams are 3-1 SU and ATS
Big 10 teams are 2-5 SU and ATS
Teams that have scored the most points in the tourney are 13-5 SU and 11-7 ATS
There you have it, trends and notes of NCAA Final Four and out games played the last 18 years.
I hope you’ve enjoyed the tournament as much as I have. I’ll return during the NBA playoffs with an overview of some Good, Bad, and downright Ugly stats and trends which hold promise for better performance through the post-season than your IRA. Until then, enjoy the rest of the ‘Dance’…
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
NCAA Tourney First Weekend Tendencies
NCAA Tourney First Weekend Tendencies
One of the greatest NCAA Tournaments occurred in 1966 when Coach Don Haskins at Texas Western (now UTEP) made history for being the first team to have an all-black starting line-up. The Miners defeated Coach Adolph Rupp and an all-white Kentucky squad for the championship. A book was written, Hollywood made a movie entitled “Glory Road,” and this inspiring story is well known.
What is not as well known is the story of the 1963 NCAA Championship team of Loyola University Chicago. The Ramblers’ coach, George Ireland, had broken the “gentleman’s agreement” during the season of not playing more than three black players at any given time by starting four black players throughout the season. Loyola became the first team in NCAA Division I history to field an all-black line-up on the court in a 1962 game against Wyoming, though only four started.
The twist on the story is Mississippi State was scheduled to play Loyola in the Regional Semi-Finals of the Tourney. However, the governor of Mississippi banned the team from leaving the state due to an unwritten Mississippi rule that forbade MSU, then known as the Maroons, from playing against integrated teams. In order to play against Loyola, MSU Coach Babe McCarthy sent the freshman team (then not eligible to play varsity basketball) to the airport for the scheduled team flight as a decoy. With the state police tricked, the varsity squad then was able to sneak out of town, but ended up losing to Loyola, 61-51.
Let’s see if we can find a few wagering tricks up our sleeve in what many consider the greatest week in all of sports. I have looked at the past eleven years of every game played in the NCAA Tournament trying to discover some trends and advantages that can help us return a profit. Just because certain tendencies appear in the past, it is no guarantee that they will continue this year.
Instead of looking at the tournament as a whole, all five rounds, I broke it down by round. I looked at the results by line and total ranges, conferences, and seeds.
In examining the results of the different line ranges in Round 1, the first edge that stands out is the Under is 21-9, 70.0%, in games where teams are laying 15 to 19.5 points. Twelve to 14.5 faves are 18-13 Under, 58.1%. Teams that are three-possession favorites, 6.5 to 9 point chalk, have covered the point spread 65.4% of the time, 34-18. Two-possession faves, -3.5 to –6, don’t do as well notching a 29-37 ATS mark, 43.9%. Teams that are pick’em to laying three points not only cover the number well, 59.7%, 37-25, but also go Over the lined total a healthy 61.4% of the time, 35-22.
The Under in Round 1 was the way to go, 60.1%, 80-53, if the total was lined at 140 or higher. Just the opposite was true for games with totals in the 130’s, a 64-45 Over record, 58.7%. Betting on the higher seed in games with this totals range produced 56.5% winners, 61-47. There have been 11 Round 1 contests with a posted total below 120 that resulted in a 9-2 Under mark.
Fans of #1 seeds always seem to believe they will cover the spread vs. #16. The average line in those games has dropped 5.4 points to 24.2 in the last five years compared to the 1998-2003 number. Number 1’s have covered 54.5% vs. #16. If you bet on the #15 seed against #2, you cashed 60.5% of your tickets. If you also bet the Under in that match-up, you have even done better winning 70%, 28-12.
The Under was also a 65% winner in the 3 vs. 14 series, 26-14, with the higher seed beating the number 59% of the time, 26-18. The #4 squads posted a 24-18 ATS record in opening action against the #13 units. The totals switched directions in the 5-12 contests going 22-16, 58.0%.
One seed range where we have seen a flip-flop of the results is between the #7 and #10 seeds. In the first six years, 1998-2003, the #10 seed covered the point spread 14 of 23 times while winning 14 of the 24 games straight-up.
The Under was 14-6. In the past five years, the #7 has held a very good advantage winning outright and covering the number in 15 of the 20 matches. The OU became middle of the road at 11-9.
One thing that always seems to draw a lot of interest and discussion from sports bettors is when a lower seed is favored over a higher seed. Over the past eleven tournaments, this has happened 31 times with the lowest seed in Round 1 to lay chalk being the #12 over the #5. Perhaps surprising to people who believe the “linesmaker is telling us who the better team is”, there has been virtually no advantage to betting the lower-seeded team who is favored. It possibly is the public who believes who the better team is by market movement of the line.
The Big 6 conference that prevails most frequently against the number in Round 1 as the higher seed was the Big 10, 32-18, 64.0%. Those games also went Under the total 58.7% of the time. Next in line was the Big East with a 30-23 mark, 56.6%. The power conference that was the biggest money burner was the SEC with only a 44.0% coverage rate. The Atlantic 10 overall has not made its followers money in Round 1 going 10-18 ATS.
There are some good trends for Round 2. Double-digit favorites covered in 61.3% of their games, 19-12. The Over was profitable 61.5% of the time, 32-20, with teams laying 6.5 to 9.5 points. Playing against higher seeds lined at pick’em to a three-point favorite was a losing proposition covering just 36.1% of the matches, 13-23.
Just a couple of significant situations with Round 2 totals. Games lined higher than 145 had an OU record of 26-17. The higher seeded team in a game with a total below 130 had a dismal ATS tally of 8-18, 30.8%.
The Big 12 was the darling of the second round at 28-11 ATS. As the higher seed, the ACC was a bad wager cashing only 35.5% of its tickets, 11-20. When the SEC was the better seed, it was a loser at 10-16 but was 12-4 ATS when they were the lower slotted of the two combatants. The Big East and the Atlantic 10 both scored good lower seed ATS records, 14-6 and 6-2 respectively.
If you are a backer of the Ivy League you better have deep pockets as they are 1-10 ATS since 1998 in Rounds 1 and 2.
In Round 2, we naturally have a wide assortment of seed pairings with some worth noting. Interestingly enough, there is a difference when a #1 seed plays a #8 or 9 team. The #1 teams struggle against the 8 seeds going just 8-14 ATS, but do a little better than .500 against the #9’s, 12-10 ATS. Regardless of which team they play, the Over is a nice wager with a 25-14 mark.
No advantage when a 2 faces a 7 but when the second best team in a region pairs off against a #10 in the second round, they lose more than they win straight up, 7-11. Plus, they are 0-8 ATS if laying seven points or less. They must really be feeling pressure facing that low of seed.
Three seeds handle the #11’s okay, 8-4 ATS, with a 3-8 OU mark. A tough battle is in store for the #4 seeds facing a #5 team, only 9-13 SU and 8-14 ATS. Fours also have trouble beating the number versus 12 seeds, 4-7 ATS. A profitable spot to watch for is when you have a double-digit seed in Round 2 facing a 6 or worse seed. The higher seed has won 9 out of 10 outright and has posted an 8-1-1 ATS mark.
One of the greatest NCAA Tournaments occurred in 1966 when Coach Don Haskins at Texas Western (now UTEP) made history for being the first team to have an all-black starting line-up. The Miners defeated Coach Adolph Rupp and an all-white Kentucky squad for the championship. A book was written, Hollywood made a movie entitled “Glory Road,” and this inspiring story is well known.
What is not as well known is the story of the 1963 NCAA Championship team of Loyola University Chicago. The Ramblers’ coach, George Ireland, had broken the “gentleman’s agreement” during the season of not playing more than three black players at any given time by starting four black players throughout the season. Loyola became the first team in NCAA Division I history to field an all-black line-up on the court in a 1962 game against Wyoming, though only four started.
The twist on the story is Mississippi State was scheduled to play Loyola in the Regional Semi-Finals of the Tourney. However, the governor of Mississippi banned the team from leaving the state due to an unwritten Mississippi rule that forbade MSU, then known as the Maroons, from playing against integrated teams. In order to play against Loyola, MSU Coach Babe McCarthy sent the freshman team (then not eligible to play varsity basketball) to the airport for the scheduled team flight as a decoy. With the state police tricked, the varsity squad then was able to sneak out of town, but ended up losing to Loyola, 61-51.
Let’s see if we can find a few wagering tricks up our sleeve in what many consider the greatest week in all of sports. I have looked at the past eleven years of every game played in the NCAA Tournament trying to discover some trends and advantages that can help us return a profit. Just because certain tendencies appear in the past, it is no guarantee that they will continue this year.
Instead of looking at the tournament as a whole, all five rounds, I broke it down by round. I looked at the results by line and total ranges, conferences, and seeds.
In examining the results of the different line ranges in Round 1, the first edge that stands out is the Under is 21-9, 70.0%, in games where teams are laying 15 to 19.5 points. Twelve to 14.5 faves are 18-13 Under, 58.1%. Teams that are three-possession favorites, 6.5 to 9 point chalk, have covered the point spread 65.4% of the time, 34-18. Two-possession faves, -3.5 to –6, don’t do as well notching a 29-37 ATS mark, 43.9%. Teams that are pick’em to laying three points not only cover the number well, 59.7%, 37-25, but also go Over the lined total a healthy 61.4% of the time, 35-22.
The Under in Round 1 was the way to go, 60.1%, 80-53, if the total was lined at 140 or higher. Just the opposite was true for games with totals in the 130’s, a 64-45 Over record, 58.7%. Betting on the higher seed in games with this totals range produced 56.5% winners, 61-47. There have been 11 Round 1 contests with a posted total below 120 that resulted in a 9-2 Under mark.
Fans of #1 seeds always seem to believe they will cover the spread vs. #16. The average line in those games has dropped 5.4 points to 24.2 in the last five years compared to the 1998-2003 number. Number 1’s have covered 54.5% vs. #16. If you bet on the #15 seed against #2, you cashed 60.5% of your tickets. If you also bet the Under in that match-up, you have even done better winning 70%, 28-12.
The Under was also a 65% winner in the 3 vs. 14 series, 26-14, with the higher seed beating the number 59% of the time, 26-18. The #4 squads posted a 24-18 ATS record in opening action against the #13 units. The totals switched directions in the 5-12 contests going 22-16, 58.0%.
One seed range where we have seen a flip-flop of the results is between the #7 and #10 seeds. In the first six years, 1998-2003, the #10 seed covered the point spread 14 of 23 times while winning 14 of the 24 games straight-up.
The Under was 14-6. In the past five years, the #7 has held a very good advantage winning outright and covering the number in 15 of the 20 matches. The OU became middle of the road at 11-9.
One thing that always seems to draw a lot of interest and discussion from sports bettors is when a lower seed is favored over a higher seed. Over the past eleven tournaments, this has happened 31 times with the lowest seed in Round 1 to lay chalk being the #12 over the #5. Perhaps surprising to people who believe the “linesmaker is telling us who the better team is”, there has been virtually no advantage to betting the lower-seeded team who is favored. It possibly is the public who believes who the better team is by market movement of the line.
The Big 6 conference that prevails most frequently against the number in Round 1 as the higher seed was the Big 10, 32-18, 64.0%. Those games also went Under the total 58.7% of the time. Next in line was the Big East with a 30-23 mark, 56.6%. The power conference that was the biggest money burner was the SEC with only a 44.0% coverage rate. The Atlantic 10 overall has not made its followers money in Round 1 going 10-18 ATS.
There are some good trends for Round 2. Double-digit favorites covered in 61.3% of their games, 19-12. The Over was profitable 61.5% of the time, 32-20, with teams laying 6.5 to 9.5 points. Playing against higher seeds lined at pick’em to a three-point favorite was a losing proposition covering just 36.1% of the matches, 13-23.
Just a couple of significant situations with Round 2 totals. Games lined higher than 145 had an OU record of 26-17. The higher seeded team in a game with a total below 130 had a dismal ATS tally of 8-18, 30.8%.
The Big 12 was the darling of the second round at 28-11 ATS. As the higher seed, the ACC was a bad wager cashing only 35.5% of its tickets, 11-20. When the SEC was the better seed, it was a loser at 10-16 but was 12-4 ATS when they were the lower slotted of the two combatants. The Big East and the Atlantic 10 both scored good lower seed ATS records, 14-6 and 6-2 respectively.
If you are a backer of the Ivy League you better have deep pockets as they are 1-10 ATS since 1998 in Rounds 1 and 2.
In Round 2, we naturally have a wide assortment of seed pairings with some worth noting. Interestingly enough, there is a difference when a #1 seed plays a #8 or 9 team. The #1 teams struggle against the 8 seeds going just 8-14 ATS, but do a little better than .500 against the #9’s, 12-10 ATS. Regardless of which team they play, the Over is a nice wager with a 25-14 mark.
No advantage when a 2 faces a 7 but when the second best team in a region pairs off against a #10 in the second round, they lose more than they win straight up, 7-11. Plus, they are 0-8 ATS if laying seven points or less. They must really be feeling pressure facing that low of seed.
Three seeds handle the #11’s okay, 8-4 ATS, with a 3-8 OU mark. A tough battle is in store for the #4 seeds facing a #5 team, only 9-13 SU and 8-14 ATS. Fours also have trouble beating the number versus 12 seeds, 4-7 ATS. A profitable spot to watch for is when you have a double-digit seed in Round 2 facing a 6 or worse seed. The higher seed has won 9 out of 10 outright and has posted an 8-1-1 ATS mark.
Seeking Value Plays in NCAA Tournament
Seeking Value Plays in NCAA Tournament
With the March Madness now upon us, it is time to prepare your self for the first round of hoops wagering action. With half the tournament played out in the first two days, you are presented with your best opportunity to profit significantly. Many people have different ways they use to select winners; here is another method I’ve used that has allowed me to win 16 times in the last 19 years in the first round.
What I have done for years is find the records of all D-1 schools exactly one month before the bids are announced. This year that would be the games played through February 15. This is the center piece of future action. Once the bids are announced, that’s when it is time to go into action.
Compare the records of the teams that made the tourney from a month ago versus what they are now that they are goin’ dancin’. Take their previous position in their league standings and once again compare them to what they were when the regular season ended. Lastly, we want to know where they finished in their conference tourney. Let me show you what this should look like:
Purdue 19-5 25-9 6-3 3rd 2nd 1st
No. Iowa 18-8 23-10 5-2 1st 1st 1st
In the example, both teams played pretty well in the last month of the season. Because of how the Big Ten played out at the end of the year, Purdue moved up one spot in the conference standings during the regular season and played very well in winning conference tournament. Northern Iowa was a persistent performer, finishing first in all categories as Missouri Valley Conference champions.
Moving on, what we are seeking is potential value with underdogs that can cover spreads and win outright. If two teams have played well to close the season like North Carolina (5-2) and Radford (6-1), this would not qualify as a play. The same would be true if they were ordinary to close the season. Texas (5-4) and Minnesota (3-4) would fit this criterion. What were searching for are contrasts, one team on uptick and the other apparently fading.
Here is an example of the type of situation we are looking for:
Utah 18-7 24-9 6-2 1st 1st 1st
Arizona 18-8 19-13 1-5 5th 6th Lost Quarters
Utah was unchanging in playing in a descent league, staying the course and finishing first in all three categories, including playing well to close the year. Arizona despite having three potential NBA players was extremely unimpressive to finish the year. Many in the media like Arizona because of their talent, which is a legitimate argument; however if a team is not playing well against one that is, you have to at the very least take that into consideration.
Another winning situation involving this method would be a mid-major conference team and a school from a large conference.
Marquette 21-4 24-9 3-5 2nd 5th Lost Quarters
Utah State 24-2 30-4 6-2 1st 1st 1st
The Golden Eagles lost one of their main components in Dominic James, when he broke a bone in his foot. Though Marquette has gamely played on, they are not the same team without their point guard and not enough scoring or defensive pressure has been forthcoming off the bench. Utah State is out of the WAC and works diligently to take good shots, accounting for 49.8 percent mark from the field and 39.8 percent from behind the arc. The Aggies have held opposing teams to 62.1 points per game on the season and could have a chance to pull the upset.
In my nineteen years of using this system, I have had only three losing opening rounds, one being last year. What caused last year’s failure was the lack of upsets, which was later bore out as all the top seeds went to the Final Four since the field was changed to 64.
My belief is that will change this year, when examining history, Memphis is the only team with a minimum of three losses. The last time this many tournament teams had as many losses in the higher seeds was exactly 70 years ago, 1939.
Without further ado, here are the teams that could be spread winners in the first round based on this system. – Utah, Utah State, Western Kentucky, Temple, Morgan State and USC. (Note- Alabama State technically qualifies, but leery about play-in game).
With the March Madness now upon us, it is time to prepare your self for the first round of hoops wagering action. With half the tournament played out in the first two days, you are presented with your best opportunity to profit significantly. Many people have different ways they use to select winners; here is another method I’ve used that has allowed me to win 16 times in the last 19 years in the first round.
What I have done for years is find the records of all D-1 schools exactly one month before the bids are announced. This year that would be the games played through February 15. This is the center piece of future action. Once the bids are announced, that’s when it is time to go into action.
Compare the records of the teams that made the tourney from a month ago versus what they are now that they are goin’ dancin’. Take their previous position in their league standings and once again compare them to what they were when the regular season ended. Lastly, we want to know where they finished in their conference tourney. Let me show you what this should look like:
Purdue 19-5 25-9 6-3 3rd 2nd 1st
No. Iowa 18-8 23-10 5-2 1st 1st 1st
In the example, both teams played pretty well in the last month of the season. Because of how the Big Ten played out at the end of the year, Purdue moved up one spot in the conference standings during the regular season and played very well in winning conference tournament. Northern Iowa was a persistent performer, finishing first in all categories as Missouri Valley Conference champions.
Moving on, what we are seeking is potential value with underdogs that can cover spreads and win outright. If two teams have played well to close the season like North Carolina (5-2) and Radford (6-1), this would not qualify as a play. The same would be true if they were ordinary to close the season. Texas (5-4) and Minnesota (3-4) would fit this criterion. What were searching for are contrasts, one team on uptick and the other apparently fading.
Here is an example of the type of situation we are looking for:
Utah 18-7 24-9 6-2 1st 1st 1st
Arizona 18-8 19-13 1-5 5th 6th Lost Quarters
Utah was unchanging in playing in a descent league, staying the course and finishing first in all three categories, including playing well to close the year. Arizona despite having three potential NBA players was extremely unimpressive to finish the year. Many in the media like Arizona because of their talent, which is a legitimate argument; however if a team is not playing well against one that is, you have to at the very least take that into consideration.
Another winning situation involving this method would be a mid-major conference team and a school from a large conference.
Marquette 21-4 24-9 3-5 2nd 5th Lost Quarters
Utah State 24-2 30-4 6-2 1st 1st 1st
The Golden Eagles lost one of their main components in Dominic James, when he broke a bone in his foot. Though Marquette has gamely played on, they are not the same team without their point guard and not enough scoring or defensive pressure has been forthcoming off the bench. Utah State is out of the WAC and works diligently to take good shots, accounting for 49.8 percent mark from the field and 39.8 percent from behind the arc. The Aggies have held opposing teams to 62.1 points per game on the season and could have a chance to pull the upset.
In my nineteen years of using this system, I have had only three losing opening rounds, one being last year. What caused last year’s failure was the lack of upsets, which was later bore out as all the top seeds went to the Final Four since the field was changed to 64.
My belief is that will change this year, when examining history, Memphis is the only team with a minimum of three losses. The last time this many tournament teams had as many losses in the higher seeds was exactly 70 years ago, 1939.
Without further ado, here are the teams that could be spread winners in the first round based on this system. – Utah, Utah State, Western Kentucky, Temple, Morgan State and USC. (Note- Alabama State technically qualifies, but leery about play-in game).
Betting on NCAA Tournament Champion
Betting on NCAA Tournament Champion
The field of 65 is set; you like many people have filled out numerous brackets in a variety of pools and now it is time to start breaking down the various first round matchups, looking for edges and spotting those potential early round exits by favorites. Having the benefit of using the point spread helps in many cases and mustering up the courage on money line dogs is another way to make hard currency when betting college basketball. But what about home run wager, picking the winner of the entire NCAA Tournament, which can offer a decent payout depending on the winner.
Even with the large field, most years, around 10 teams have legitimate chance of winning six games in a row. Long shots are great; however they don’t bring home the cash, betting futures. In the last 11 years, only teams seeded 1, 2 or 3 have emerged as champions. Lute Olson’s 1997 Arizona Wildcats were the last team that was not among the top tier of teams as a four-seed. In the 1980’s, we had Danny Manning and the Miracles in 1988 as a sixth-seed and Jim Valvano’s incredible stretch in 1983 with North Carolina State.
Each year, the litany of ways to select a champion is trotted out. Among the various aspects that are all noteworthy are veteran players, point guard play and defensive shooting percentages. Each in their own right holds value and opens the window to opportunity.
Last year I wrote about Jimmy Dykes, an analyst for ESPN, having a process to help pick the national champion of college basketball. Dykes played for the Arkansas Razorbacks basketball team and graduated in 1985. Dykes is teamed with Brad Nessler and has worked in the NBA as a scout and been an assistant coach for several teams on the college level. He went back researched what characteristics make up a national champ and I worked his method last season for the first time and two of the three teams were Kansas and Memphis, who played for the national championship last season.
Here is his list and what has occurred.
• 8 of 8 past champions had a 10 or more games winning streak
• 19 of 21 past champions had NBA player 6’8 or taller
• 20 of 21 past champions had NBA guard
• 8 of 11 past champions won conference tournament
It is important to understand what each of these points mean. First, if a team has a long winning streak of 10 or more, to whatever degree, they must be a good team. This season, 23 teams that made the field of 65, have won this many games in a row. Some teams could schedule their way into this many wins consecutively; however in reviewing this list, you see this consists primarily of college basketballs hierarchy.
Number of consecutive wins:
23 – Memphis
19- Utah State
16 – Wake Forest, Clemson, Pittsburgh
13- North Carolina, Oklahoma, Connecticut, American
12- Marquette, Minnesota, Butler
11- Michigan State, Northern Iowa, Tenn.-Martin, Xavier, North Dakota State, Binghamton
10- Duke, Louisville, LSU, BYU, Texas A&M
Absent from this list are such notable teams like Gonzaga (two nine-game streaks), Washington and Missouri, all teams that would be in the discussion as many as the teams on this list for strong consideration as top quality clubs.
The next two points have to do with one of the key ingredients and really why the higher seeds have dominated this tournament, talent. Dykes had the revisionist ability to look back and see if different players had the skill and ability to play at the next level. For our purposes, we can only surmise what looks to be accurate, without having full knowledge.
Having a taller player with NBA ability allows teams to score points in the paint and likely grab more offensive and defensive rebounds. Having a guard with professional basketball ability, means any or all of three things can happen. The guard can create dribble penetration to either score or set-up teammates to score. He has the ability to take over games at this level, by individual play and can win a game or two literally by himself, when the team is struggling.
In reviewing above list, Memphis has frontcourt players Shawn Taggert and Robert Dozier, who are both tall long athletes, who will be on somebody’s NBA roster when they leave. Guards Antonio Anderson and Tyreke Evans have shown to be special players and will be paid as professionals before long.
Utah State has an exceptional player in Gary Wilkenson, who was the Western Athletic Conference play of the year; however he is 26 years old and has limited options at the next level.
Wake Forest might have as much next level talent as any team in the country, but it is awfully young. Sophomore Jeff Teague is top scoring threat and is good facilitator of the ball. Freshman Al-Farouq Amino has unreal ability and just needs more seasoning and to work on outside game. Second year player James Johnson is inside-outside threat and 7’0 junior Chas McFarland has improved each year in school and could catch on with NBA team when he graduates.
Clemson has high motor guy in Raymond Sykes, who has the size and strength for NBA, however has shooting limitations. K.C. Rivers and Trevor Booker don’t have the right amount quickness that converts to the NBA.
Pittsburgh has DuJuan Blair and Sam Young, who should both be drafted for the NBA, but no guards on the Panthers squad are ready to make a move. Though Tyler Hansbrough supposedly doesn’t meet the criteria to play in the NBA, he has the look of a high energy seventh or eighth man, who will do whatever it takes to improve. The rest of the North Carolina contingent is questionable with Wayne Ellington and Danny Green and if Ty Lawson wasn’t 5’11. he would be big time prospect.
Connecticut has a boatload of talented players. A.J. Price should stick with some team and Jeff Adrien already has NBA-body. Stanley Robinson would make a nice project for a team with patience to let him grow and Hasheem Thabeet is already on his way, once he decides to go. Oklahoma of course has Blake Griffin and guard Willie Warren, both top level talents that would make any team an instant contender.
Michigan State has Kalin Lucas and Durrell Summers, who have potential as sophomores, but Raymar Morgan is more unknown as a 6’8 forward. Marquette’s Jerel McNeal has improved each season, but nothing even close in the frontcourt. BYU has guard Lee Cummard, who may lack the quickness, but is very good shooter. LSU has the right combination in principle anyways, with Marcus Thornton at guard and Tazmin Mitchell at forward. I’ll cut Mitchell a little slack since his body type is bigger than listed 6’7 height.
Louisville’s Earl Clark and Terrance Williams will very likely be better pros than they were in college, with coach Rick Pitino demanding more team effort. Duke has Gerald Henderson who should stick, however Kyle Singler doesn’t count as 6’8 player, since he is more of two guard or swingman when he is drafted.
The rest of the teams have primarily very good college players, but most are undersized or lack a particular quality that would prevent them from being able to earn a NBA paycheck.
Moving on, 72.7 percent of the teams that have a national championship the last 11 years won their conference tournament. Last year, the teams with the five longest winning streaks in the country during the regular season all won their post-season tournaments. This season only nine of the 21 teams with long winning streaks won their conferences tournaments and just three from the bigger conferences, if you include Conference-USA.
A few years ago, a belief was floating around; losing in postseason tourneys was a good thing, allowing teams to rest more. Yet as we see, the power of momentum carries far greater importance, especially when it coming to cutting down the nets and be given the trophy by Jim Nantz and Clark Kellogg.
The ground rules are in place, the field is set, what teams meet all the criteria to be solid wagers to be crowned champions? There are only two teams that stand above the rest. They are Louisville and Memphis. Each has the long winning streak, each has the proper talent both inside and outside and each won conference tournament.
Hope this helps you make a greater evaluation as to what teams could be the NCAA national basketball champions. Good Luck.
The field of 65 is set; you like many people have filled out numerous brackets in a variety of pools and now it is time to start breaking down the various first round matchups, looking for edges and spotting those potential early round exits by favorites. Having the benefit of using the point spread helps in many cases and mustering up the courage on money line dogs is another way to make hard currency when betting college basketball. But what about home run wager, picking the winner of the entire NCAA Tournament, which can offer a decent payout depending on the winner.
Even with the large field, most years, around 10 teams have legitimate chance of winning six games in a row. Long shots are great; however they don’t bring home the cash, betting futures. In the last 11 years, only teams seeded 1, 2 or 3 have emerged as champions. Lute Olson’s 1997 Arizona Wildcats were the last team that was not among the top tier of teams as a four-seed. In the 1980’s, we had Danny Manning and the Miracles in 1988 as a sixth-seed and Jim Valvano’s incredible stretch in 1983 with North Carolina State.
Each year, the litany of ways to select a champion is trotted out. Among the various aspects that are all noteworthy are veteran players, point guard play and defensive shooting percentages. Each in their own right holds value and opens the window to opportunity.
Last year I wrote about Jimmy Dykes, an analyst for ESPN, having a process to help pick the national champion of college basketball. Dykes played for the Arkansas Razorbacks basketball team and graduated in 1985. Dykes is teamed with Brad Nessler and has worked in the NBA as a scout and been an assistant coach for several teams on the college level. He went back researched what characteristics make up a national champ and I worked his method last season for the first time and two of the three teams were Kansas and Memphis, who played for the national championship last season.
Here is his list and what has occurred.
• 8 of 8 past champions had a 10 or more games winning streak
• 19 of 21 past champions had NBA player 6’8 or taller
• 20 of 21 past champions had NBA guard
• 8 of 11 past champions won conference tournament
It is important to understand what each of these points mean. First, if a team has a long winning streak of 10 or more, to whatever degree, they must be a good team. This season, 23 teams that made the field of 65, have won this many games in a row. Some teams could schedule their way into this many wins consecutively; however in reviewing this list, you see this consists primarily of college basketballs hierarchy.
Number of consecutive wins:
23 – Memphis
19- Utah State
16 – Wake Forest, Clemson, Pittsburgh
13- North Carolina, Oklahoma, Connecticut, American
12- Marquette, Minnesota, Butler
11- Michigan State, Northern Iowa, Tenn.-Martin, Xavier, North Dakota State, Binghamton
10- Duke, Louisville, LSU, BYU, Texas A&M
Absent from this list are such notable teams like Gonzaga (two nine-game streaks), Washington and Missouri, all teams that would be in the discussion as many as the teams on this list for strong consideration as top quality clubs.
The next two points have to do with one of the key ingredients and really why the higher seeds have dominated this tournament, talent. Dykes had the revisionist ability to look back and see if different players had the skill and ability to play at the next level. For our purposes, we can only surmise what looks to be accurate, without having full knowledge.
Having a taller player with NBA ability allows teams to score points in the paint and likely grab more offensive and defensive rebounds. Having a guard with professional basketball ability, means any or all of three things can happen. The guard can create dribble penetration to either score or set-up teammates to score. He has the ability to take over games at this level, by individual play and can win a game or two literally by himself, when the team is struggling.
In reviewing above list, Memphis has frontcourt players Shawn Taggert and Robert Dozier, who are both tall long athletes, who will be on somebody’s NBA roster when they leave. Guards Antonio Anderson and Tyreke Evans have shown to be special players and will be paid as professionals before long.
Utah State has an exceptional player in Gary Wilkenson, who was the Western Athletic Conference play of the year; however he is 26 years old and has limited options at the next level.
Wake Forest might have as much next level talent as any team in the country, but it is awfully young. Sophomore Jeff Teague is top scoring threat and is good facilitator of the ball. Freshman Al-Farouq Amino has unreal ability and just needs more seasoning and to work on outside game. Second year player James Johnson is inside-outside threat and 7’0 junior Chas McFarland has improved each year in school and could catch on with NBA team when he graduates.
Clemson has high motor guy in Raymond Sykes, who has the size and strength for NBA, however has shooting limitations. K.C. Rivers and Trevor Booker don’t have the right amount quickness that converts to the NBA.
Pittsburgh has DuJuan Blair and Sam Young, who should both be drafted for the NBA, but no guards on the Panthers squad are ready to make a move. Though Tyler Hansbrough supposedly doesn’t meet the criteria to play in the NBA, he has the look of a high energy seventh or eighth man, who will do whatever it takes to improve. The rest of the North Carolina contingent is questionable with Wayne Ellington and Danny Green and if Ty Lawson wasn’t 5’11. he would be big time prospect.
Connecticut has a boatload of talented players. A.J. Price should stick with some team and Jeff Adrien already has NBA-body. Stanley Robinson would make a nice project for a team with patience to let him grow and Hasheem Thabeet is already on his way, once he decides to go. Oklahoma of course has Blake Griffin and guard Willie Warren, both top level talents that would make any team an instant contender.
Michigan State has Kalin Lucas and Durrell Summers, who have potential as sophomores, but Raymar Morgan is more unknown as a 6’8 forward. Marquette’s Jerel McNeal has improved each season, but nothing even close in the frontcourt. BYU has guard Lee Cummard, who may lack the quickness, but is very good shooter. LSU has the right combination in principle anyways, with Marcus Thornton at guard and Tazmin Mitchell at forward. I’ll cut Mitchell a little slack since his body type is bigger than listed 6’7 height.
Louisville’s Earl Clark and Terrance Williams will very likely be better pros than they were in college, with coach Rick Pitino demanding more team effort. Duke has Gerald Henderson who should stick, however Kyle Singler doesn’t count as 6’8 player, since he is more of two guard or swingman when he is drafted.
The rest of the teams have primarily very good college players, but most are undersized or lack a particular quality that would prevent them from being able to earn a NBA paycheck.
Moving on, 72.7 percent of the teams that have a national championship the last 11 years won their conference tournament. Last year, the teams with the five longest winning streaks in the country during the regular season all won their post-season tournaments. This season only nine of the 21 teams with long winning streaks won their conferences tournaments and just three from the bigger conferences, if you include Conference-USA.
A few years ago, a belief was floating around; losing in postseason tourneys was a good thing, allowing teams to rest more. Yet as we see, the power of momentum carries far greater importance, especially when it coming to cutting down the nets and be given the trophy by Jim Nantz and Clark Kellogg.
The ground rules are in place, the field is set, what teams meet all the criteria to be solid wagers to be crowned champions? There are only two teams that stand above the rest. They are Louisville and Memphis. Each has the long winning streak, each has the proper talent both inside and outside and each won conference tournament.
Hope this helps you make a greater evaluation as to what teams could be the NCAA national basketball champions. Good Luck.
SportsInsights.com Betting Against the Public & College Hoops
SportsInsights.com Betting Against the Public & College Hoops
March is here and that means it is time for March Madness! Last year, we highlighted some of the sports marketplace statistics that we study -- and came up with a simple-to-use system that has been profitable during March Madness. Note that the system we highlight below may also be used during Conference Playoffs (as the system is based on all games during March and April). There is increased public attention as we near the NCAA Tournament -- so that Betting Against the Public works particularly well at this time of the college basketball season.
Introduction
Over the years, SportsInsights has highlighted the fact that "Betting Against the Public" has even more value when there is increased public attention. The NCAA Tournament -- with all of the office pools (!!) -- is a prime example of this bias. We also summarized a simple system that can be used to capture some of this bias (see below). In this updated article, we include some biases that match up well with SportsInsights' overall philosophy of finding value in the sports marketplace.
Recent Performance of NCAA Tourney Seeds
With so many people involved in NCAA office pools, we studied recent performance of various seeds "against the spread" (ATS) during the first round of the tournament. Interestingly, the performance over the past five years agrees with the "value" that SportsInsights often finds on large underdogs.
Since 2003, #1 and #2 seeds have gone a sub-par 20-25 (44%) against the spread in the first round of the Tournament. They have won an overwhelming number of those games, but the large point spreads are difficult to overcome. Note that this performance meshes well with the simple March Madness system we highlight below (large dogs that the public does NOT like).
Another tidbit of information is that # 6 and #7 seeds, in the first round, have gone a combined 37-19 (66%) ATS over the past several years. In 2008, the #6 and #7 seeds went 6-2. There seems to be some value in this range of seeds. Perhaps it has to do with the way the Tournament Committee establishes seedings (records and/or performance that give these teams their seeds, have under-valued the #6 and #7 seeds).
TRY SPORTSINSIGHTS.COM FOR FREE
Betting Against the Public and Public Games
Betting Against the Public has proven to work across all of the major sports. Its consistency is remarkable; we have seen that Betting Against the Public and SportsInsights' Square Plays have consistently won in the 53%-57% range, on average. We have also seen that this approach of Betting Against the Public works particularly well in "big games" or "games of national focus." The rationale is that with more of the public watching a game, more public biases occur in the sports betting marketplace (such as betting on "favorites" and "overs"). This leads to an increase in the edge for "sharp bettors."
Number of Bets
SportsInsights collects and displays numerous sports marketplace indicators, with Betting Percentages being its most popular. Betting Percentages are very useful at helping to uncover value in the sports marketplace. We also feel, however, that other indicators - such as the Number of Bets are important as well.
Using a simple system that typically takes College Hoops underdogs, we overlaid a filter that uses only the top 1/3 of games in terms of number of bets. The winning percentage increased by more than 2%! This makes sense, because games with public interest will lead to overpriced favorites. The moral of the story: if you are Betting Against the Public, focus on the games where there is a lot of Public interest.
March Madness: Putting things Together
The great thing about March Madness is that many of these factors come together to help make SportsInsights' betting systems and tools even more effective for our Members. We have the whole country watching the tournament due to all of the office pools. The increased attention leads to an increased number of bets -- and an increase in public biases. The team at SportsInsights decided to see how our basic sports marketplace indicators performed during this time of "national focus" on "March Madness."
Using our College Basketball database that goes back over the past five seasons -- and over 12,000 games -- we looked at a simple system.
During March and April, betting on a team that has a:
Betting Percentage less than 30% and is an Underdog of 11 points or more Has yielded a winning percentage of 56% over the past several seasons.
Smart Money
An even stronger use of "betting percentages" is to combine it with "line movement." SportsInsights.com's members will recognize this as our Smart Money Betting System. We won't go over Smart Money methods since SportsInsights has several good articles (including this one on College Hoops) on that topic. Suffice it to say that using line moves in combination with betting percentages are a very powerful method of finding out where the Smart Money is going.
Summary
College basketball offers sports investors many investment opportunities -- and at the same time, many challenges. We have reviewed some tools that sports investors can use for college hoops. This includes SportsInsights.com's bread-and-butter sports tools such as Betting Percentages and Line Moves. In addition, we highlighted the Number of Bets -- which is often overlooked as an indicator. Now, let the Madness begin -- and let the "sports investing profits" roll in! Good luck!
Disclaimer
We do not guarantee that the trends and biases we’ve found will continue to exist. It is impossible to predict the future. Any serious academic research in the field of “market efficiencies” recognizes that inefficiencies may disappear over time. Once inefficiencies are discovered, it is only a matter of time before the market corrects itself. We do not guarantee our data is error-free. However, we’ve tried our best to make sure every score and percentage is correct.
March is here and that means it is time for March Madness! Last year, we highlighted some of the sports marketplace statistics that we study -- and came up with a simple-to-use system that has been profitable during March Madness. Note that the system we highlight below may also be used during Conference Playoffs (as the system is based on all games during March and April). There is increased public attention as we near the NCAA Tournament -- so that Betting Against the Public works particularly well at this time of the college basketball season.
Introduction
Over the years, SportsInsights has highlighted the fact that "Betting Against the Public" has even more value when there is increased public attention. The NCAA Tournament -- with all of the office pools (!!) -- is a prime example of this bias. We also summarized a simple system that can be used to capture some of this bias (see below). In this updated article, we include some biases that match up well with SportsInsights' overall philosophy of finding value in the sports marketplace.
Recent Performance of NCAA Tourney Seeds
With so many people involved in NCAA office pools, we studied recent performance of various seeds "against the spread" (ATS) during the first round of the tournament. Interestingly, the performance over the past five years agrees with the "value" that SportsInsights often finds on large underdogs.
Since 2003, #1 and #2 seeds have gone a sub-par 20-25 (44%) against the spread in the first round of the Tournament. They have won an overwhelming number of those games, but the large point spreads are difficult to overcome. Note that this performance meshes well with the simple March Madness system we highlight below (large dogs that the public does NOT like).
Another tidbit of information is that # 6 and #7 seeds, in the first round, have gone a combined 37-19 (66%) ATS over the past several years. In 2008, the #6 and #7 seeds went 6-2. There seems to be some value in this range of seeds. Perhaps it has to do with the way the Tournament Committee establishes seedings (records and/or performance that give these teams their seeds, have under-valued the #6 and #7 seeds).
TRY SPORTSINSIGHTS.COM FOR FREE
Betting Against the Public and Public Games
Betting Against the Public has proven to work across all of the major sports. Its consistency is remarkable; we have seen that Betting Against the Public and SportsInsights' Square Plays have consistently won in the 53%-57% range, on average. We have also seen that this approach of Betting Against the Public works particularly well in "big games" or "games of national focus." The rationale is that with more of the public watching a game, more public biases occur in the sports betting marketplace (such as betting on "favorites" and "overs"). This leads to an increase in the edge for "sharp bettors."
Number of Bets
SportsInsights collects and displays numerous sports marketplace indicators, with Betting Percentages being its most popular. Betting Percentages are very useful at helping to uncover value in the sports marketplace. We also feel, however, that other indicators - such as the Number of Bets are important as well.
Using a simple system that typically takes College Hoops underdogs, we overlaid a filter that uses only the top 1/3 of games in terms of number of bets. The winning percentage increased by more than 2%! This makes sense, because games with public interest will lead to overpriced favorites. The moral of the story: if you are Betting Against the Public, focus on the games where there is a lot of Public interest.
March Madness: Putting things Together
The great thing about March Madness is that many of these factors come together to help make SportsInsights' betting systems and tools even more effective for our Members. We have the whole country watching the tournament due to all of the office pools. The increased attention leads to an increased number of bets -- and an increase in public biases. The team at SportsInsights decided to see how our basic sports marketplace indicators performed during this time of "national focus" on "March Madness."
Using our College Basketball database that goes back over the past five seasons -- and over 12,000 games -- we looked at a simple system.
During March and April, betting on a team that has a:
Betting Percentage less than 30% and is an Underdog of 11 points or more Has yielded a winning percentage of 56% over the past several seasons.
Smart Money
An even stronger use of "betting percentages" is to combine it with "line movement." SportsInsights.com's members will recognize this as our Smart Money Betting System. We won't go over Smart Money methods since SportsInsights has several good articles (including this one on College Hoops) on that topic. Suffice it to say that using line moves in combination with betting percentages are a very powerful method of finding out where the Smart Money is going.
Summary
College basketball offers sports investors many investment opportunities -- and at the same time, many challenges. We have reviewed some tools that sports investors can use for college hoops. This includes SportsInsights.com's bread-and-butter sports tools such as Betting Percentages and Line Moves. In addition, we highlighted the Number of Bets -- which is often overlooked as an indicator. Now, let the Madness begin -- and let the "sports investing profits" roll in! Good luck!
Disclaimer
We do not guarantee that the trends and biases we’ve found will continue to exist. It is impossible to predict the future. Any serious academic research in the field of “market efficiencies” recognizes that inefficiencies may disappear over time. Once inefficiencies are discovered, it is only a matter of time before the market corrects itself. We do not guarantee our data is error-free. However, we’ve tried our best to make sure every score and percentage is correct.
Monday, March 16, 2009
NCAA Tournament Preview and Sweet 16 Predictions
NCAA Tournament Preview and Sweet 16 Predictions
With the field of 65 teams set, the real fun begins, who are the locks to win and advance and where will the upsets come from. In many cases, filling out a bracket is challenging enough, however trying to beat the oddsmakers over the first four days of the NCAA Tournament might be the reason Rogaine was invented, as fans see double digit leads dissipate faster than our dollars being handed out for bailouts.
Here is a look at each region and who could be in the Sweet 16.
Midwest Region
Louisville (28-5) is the top seeded of the entire tournament, winning the Big East regular season and postseason tournament. The Cardinals have won 10 games in a row and have to draw a great deal of attention. Louisville plays tremendous pressing defense, has at least three NBA potential players and is 12-3 and 9-4 ATS away from home. They will easily dispatch of first round opponent Alabama State or Morehead State, who are in the play-in game and face the winner of Ohio State and Siena. The Buckeyes (22-10) are playing much better than they were in mid-February, as Evan Turner has turned into one of the best players in the Big Ten. The Saints (26-7) by no means are simple club to beat, scoring 77.7 points per game, with four starters averaging double digits. The respect they have earned shows up in advancing four spots to No.9 seed from last year when they upset Vanderbilt and are a three-point underdog at Sportsbook.com.
Arizona (19-13) getting into the tournament is a mystery, losing five of last six and having 2-9 (5-6 ATS) true road record. Nevertheless, they have three quality players in Chase Budinger, Jordan Hill and Nic Wise, who could give Mountain West champion Utah (24-9) fits. The Utes don’t overwhelm opponents, winning by 7.2 points per game, but they know how to win and were 19-13 against the spread and should take down the Wildcats as a one point underdog. If that happens, a young a talented Wake Forest (24-6) team should be waiting. The Demon Deacons next year should really be something, but they are not too shabby this season with guard Jeff Teague as leader. If Cleveland State (25-10) can play at their tempo, they should be able to give Wake Forest quite a game, on the receiving end of eight points.
Michigan St. (26-6) handily won the Big Ten regular season, but failed for the ninth straight year to make tourney final. The concern about the Spartans is what happens when Chris Allen and Durrell Summers don’t play well. Both are potential 20-point scorers any given night, unfortunately have had their share of four and five point games. Tom Izzo’s club should handle Robert Morris (24-10) as 17-point favorites, who finished 9-2 after losing at Pittsburgh by 20 points. The Boston College (21-11) and USC (21-12) matchup is almost impossible to predict with how the teams play from game to game, however the Trojans get the nod from oddsmakers as two-point favorites.
If Kansas (25-7) puts the loss of Baylor in Big 12 tournament behind them quickly, they should be fine. If they let it linger and play like coach Bill Self teams had played prior to last year, the Jayhawks could have real tussle with North Dakota State (26-6) as 10-point favorites. Five years ago coach Saul Phillips made the decision to redshirt the entire talented freshmen class, with the hopes of entering Division 1 basketball and earning NCAA bid in first year. It worked and you know they will be excited to face the defending champions.
Dayton(26-7) comes in limping to the tournament with 3-4 record, really missing point guard Chris Lowery, who is out for the season. Two other players have seen limited action reducing the effective edge the Flyers had with 12-man roster. West Virginia (23-11) seldom losses to teams it should beat and Dayton is one of them.
Midwest Region Sweet 16 Teams
Louisville – Utah – Michigan State – Kansas
West Region
Connecticut (27-4) coach Jim Calhoun could hardly be more pleased, since he has won two national championships coming out of the West Region. The top seeded Huskies have deep and talented frontcourt that can dominate and you have to like the fact they were 13-2 and 9-6 ATS away from Storrs and are a rock solid 21-point favorite. They drew Tenn-Chattanooga (18-16), who won the Southern Conference, by avoiding Davidson and playing a tired College of Charleston on there own home court. The 8 vs. 9 matchups are always intriguing and BYU against Texas A&M fits the mold. The Cougars (25-7) have outstanding players like guards Lee Cummard and Jimmer Fredette, leading a team that was 9-3 and 10-2 ATS on the road. Texas A&M (23-9) had the unimaginable loss to Texas Tech, blowing 19-point half time lead, but had won six in a row prior to that and is a two-point dog.
Purdue (25-9) finally met expectations, winning the Big Ten tourney, as Robbie Hummel and E’Twaun Moore turned it on. Because of how the Boilermakers can play defense, they should be able to control Missouri Valley champion Northern Iowa (23-10). The Panthers had a three-game losing streak in the middle of February, including a loss to Siena in Bracket Buster contest, but bounced back to win last five contests. They would love to get into a real grinder with Purdue, with the score in the low 60’s, catching eight points. Washington (25-8) was awarded the fourth seed and easily has the toughest foe among their peers. The Huskies are the most physical team in the Pac-10, but they will face a Mississippi State (23-12) who made improbable run to win SEC with four wins in four days and has won and covered the spread six straight times. The Bulldogs shoot the three-ball well and have shot-blocker extraordinaire Jarvis Varnardo, to swat away attempts in the lane. You always have to beware of teams playing that many games in that many days and Mississippi State also drew the earlier Thursday game, having to travel all the way to Portland, Or.
Coach John Calipari of Memphis (31-3) will tell the media that he could care less about what seed they are, however you can bet tomorrow’s lunch money he’s selling the lack of respect card to his players. This is a deep and veteran club with loads of NBA ability, who will shake Cal-State Northridge (17-13) and storm to Sweet 16. California (22-10) and Maryland (20-13) both do things well, nonetheless, the Bears have lost four of last six and have just one cover and seem soft by comparison trying to slow down guard Greivis Vasquez who can take over a game for the Terrapins. Cal is favored by a single point at the moment.
Missouri (28-6) will look to turn the heat up defensively on Cornell (21-9), who won the Ivy League as pretty good squad, but was 0-3 against the three tournament teams they faced and is a 13.5-point underdog. It is sad we won’t get to see Marquette (24-9) at full strength without Dominic James, and they better make sure they don’t get into slow down affair with Utah State (30-4), who is 13-4 and 10-5 ATS on the road. The wagering public hit the Aggies hard, taking them from seven-point underdog to 4.5 by morning.
West Region Sweet 16 Teams
Connecticut – Purdue – Memphis – Missouri
East Region
More than one expert likes the Pittsburgh Panthers (28-4) in the national championship game on April 6 and their coach Jamie Dixon, though not happy about Big East tournament effort, is pleased about the extra rest to have everybody healthy and ready to end recent tournament disappointments. For Pitt to advance beyond the Sweet 16, they must avoid what has curtailed them in their losses or struggles, which is two early fouls on DeJuan Blair in the first half. Blair’s brawn and skill opens up the playbook for forward Sam Young and others. After dispatching of East Tennessee State (23-10) as 20-point pick, Pittsburgh can look ahead to up and down conflict with either Oklahoma State (22-11) or Tennessee. The Cowboys have no size, but shoot the ball effectively and their only two defeats in last 10 tries have been to Missouri and in-state rival Oklahoma, who they later clipped in Big 12 tourney. The Volunteers (21-12) played like the more tired team in SEC title game and remain a mystery even today and are favored by two points.
Florida State (25-9) has a star in guard Toney Douglas who averaged 25 points per game in ACC tournament. The Seminoles have NBA size and should be too skilled for Wisconsin (19-12), as they are making first March Madness appearance in 11 years. You have to wonder if Xavier (25-7) peaked, as they are only 6-5 since February with more than one indifferent performance. Portland State (23-9) was the Big Sky champ and is not a super squad, but if taken too lightly, could surprise behind Jeremiah Dominguez, who was the Big Sky tournament MVP This is the Vikings second straight trip to tourney and could be dangerous dog on the receiving end of 11-points.
Duke (28-6) grabbed the second seed as presumed and is in much better shape this time around heading into NCAA event than a year ago. They are more mature, fresher and have more scoring options. Defensively, they are solid, but somewhat vulnerable to dribble penetration, which shouldn’t be a problem for the first couple of rounds. Binghamton (23-8) is making first ever showing in the tournament and graduate Tony Kornheiser can wear the jersey proudly for a few more days as 22-point pooch. Texas (22-11) just never clicked this season, lacking point guard play to start and later consistent outside shooting. The Longhorns should have enough as 3.5-point faves to hold off Minnesota (22-10), who was 5-8 ATS away from the Land of 10,000 lakes.
UCLA (25-8) better come East ready to play, otherwise they will be one and done against a Virginia Commonwealth (24-9) club that has star player in Eric Maynor. The Rams were the regular season and conference tournament champs and can play defense, holding foes to 39.7 percent shooting. VCU caught the attention of bettors immediately, going from 10-point underdog to seven. Villanova (26-7) has seven strong players that regularly make considerable contributions. Scottie Reynolds has to play well, as the Wildcats are 11-0 when he scores 18 or more points. American (24-7) was supposed to win the Patriot Conference and did behind senior guards Garrison Carr and Derrick Mercer, but don’t matchup well as 17-point underdogs.
East Region Sweet 16 teams
Pittsburgh – Florida State – Duke – Villanova
South Region
If Ty Lawson is back to 100 percent, no reason why North Carolina should not be headed to the Motor City for the Final Four. In the past, when Lawson wasn’t healthy or playing up to usual standards, the Tar Heels (28-4) went from great to very good team. When he is out of the lineup, the other North Carolina players besides Tyler Hansbrough are out of rhythm and miss more shots than they normally would. Radford (21-11) will be a good warmup, though they have averaged 89.1 points per game in last six as Big South champs. If ever there was a contrast in styles, it is LSU and Butler tilt. The Tigers (26-7) were the class of the SEC by a wide margin; however after beating Kentucky in Lexington, they seemed to have let up and haven’t shot over 40 percent in losing three of last four contests. Butler (26-5) is deliberate and plays more cerebral and though they can’t match LSU ability-wise, they play solid defense and could frustrate Tigers as two-point (Bull)dogs.
Illinois (24-9) might be in the classic 5 vs 12 matchup, since they have shown since January, they can miss a large volume of shots in a row and take ugly losses. Western Kentucky (24-8) has peaked at the right time, winning 11 of last 12 (9-3 ATS), as senior Orlando Mendez-Valdez and junior A.J. Slaughter have stepped into the backcourt and played at a high level. This was on many people radar immediately, as the Hilltoppers went from 6.5-point dog to four.
If you prefer strong fundamentals in picking winners, Gonzaga (26-5) would be a wise selection. The Bulldogs have won 18 of 19 (only loss to Memphis) and are second in the nation in field goal defense at 36.8 percent. Coach Mark Few today has the team that many believed he would and they should move past Akron (23-12), since MAC teams have shown very little in recent years in this tournament.
If likely player of the year Blake Griffin and his older brother Taylor want to leave Oklahoma (27-5) in a blaze of glory, now would be the time to raise level of play. The Sooners have been off, with 2-4 and 1-5 ATS mark in last six. You wouldn’t believe Morgan State (23-11) would present a tremendous challenge, however Oklahoma might not cover the 16.5-points if bored. Clemson (23-8) could go either way in their contest against Michigan. The Tigers have superior athletes, nevertheless, their press is beatable with patience and they allow too many layups and dunks out of it. The Wolverines (20-13) are capable of putting together explosive output, but lack the consistency to be counted on positively to do so even as receiving five points. Michigan is only 6-10 ATS when not playing at Ann Arbor.
Syracuse (26-9) showed what they are capable of and has a multitude of weapons, which is why they finished 7-1 SU and ATS. With a natural letdown expected, look for Stephen F. Austin (24-7) to be tougher than expected with 12.5-points. For Arizona State’s sake, they better forget about nightmare second half in blowing Pac-10 title, since the Sun Devils (24-9) face Temple (22-11) who is 10-2 and 9-3 ATS since Feb.8. Two future NBA players, James Harden and Dionte Christmas will be on display and Arizona State is favored by five.
South Region Sweet 16 teams
North Carolina – Gonzaga – Oklahoma - Temple
With the field of 65 teams set, the real fun begins, who are the locks to win and advance and where will the upsets come from. In many cases, filling out a bracket is challenging enough, however trying to beat the oddsmakers over the first four days of the NCAA Tournament might be the reason Rogaine was invented, as fans see double digit leads dissipate faster than our dollars being handed out for bailouts.
Here is a look at each region and who could be in the Sweet 16.
Midwest Region
Louisville (28-5) is the top seeded of the entire tournament, winning the Big East regular season and postseason tournament. The Cardinals have won 10 games in a row and have to draw a great deal of attention. Louisville plays tremendous pressing defense, has at least three NBA potential players and is 12-3 and 9-4 ATS away from home. They will easily dispatch of first round opponent Alabama State or Morehead State, who are in the play-in game and face the winner of Ohio State and Siena. The Buckeyes (22-10) are playing much better than they were in mid-February, as Evan Turner has turned into one of the best players in the Big Ten. The Saints (26-7) by no means are simple club to beat, scoring 77.7 points per game, with four starters averaging double digits. The respect they have earned shows up in advancing four spots to No.9 seed from last year when they upset Vanderbilt and are a three-point underdog at Sportsbook.com.
Arizona (19-13) getting into the tournament is a mystery, losing five of last six and having 2-9 (5-6 ATS) true road record. Nevertheless, they have three quality players in Chase Budinger, Jordan Hill and Nic Wise, who could give Mountain West champion Utah (24-9) fits. The Utes don’t overwhelm opponents, winning by 7.2 points per game, but they know how to win and were 19-13 against the spread and should take down the Wildcats as a one point underdog. If that happens, a young a talented Wake Forest (24-6) team should be waiting. The Demon Deacons next year should really be something, but they are not too shabby this season with guard Jeff Teague as leader. If Cleveland State (25-10) can play at their tempo, they should be able to give Wake Forest quite a game, on the receiving end of eight points.
Michigan St. (26-6) handily won the Big Ten regular season, but failed for the ninth straight year to make tourney final. The concern about the Spartans is what happens when Chris Allen and Durrell Summers don’t play well. Both are potential 20-point scorers any given night, unfortunately have had their share of four and five point games. Tom Izzo’s club should handle Robert Morris (24-10) as 17-point favorites, who finished 9-2 after losing at Pittsburgh by 20 points. The Boston College (21-11) and USC (21-12) matchup is almost impossible to predict with how the teams play from game to game, however the Trojans get the nod from oddsmakers as two-point favorites.
If Kansas (25-7) puts the loss of Baylor in Big 12 tournament behind them quickly, they should be fine. If they let it linger and play like coach Bill Self teams had played prior to last year, the Jayhawks could have real tussle with North Dakota State (26-6) as 10-point favorites. Five years ago coach Saul Phillips made the decision to redshirt the entire talented freshmen class, with the hopes of entering Division 1 basketball and earning NCAA bid in first year. It worked and you know they will be excited to face the defending champions.
Dayton(26-7) comes in limping to the tournament with 3-4 record, really missing point guard Chris Lowery, who is out for the season. Two other players have seen limited action reducing the effective edge the Flyers had with 12-man roster. West Virginia (23-11) seldom losses to teams it should beat and Dayton is one of them.
Midwest Region Sweet 16 Teams
Louisville – Utah – Michigan State – Kansas
West Region
Connecticut (27-4) coach Jim Calhoun could hardly be more pleased, since he has won two national championships coming out of the West Region. The top seeded Huskies have deep and talented frontcourt that can dominate and you have to like the fact they were 13-2 and 9-6 ATS away from Storrs and are a rock solid 21-point favorite. They drew Tenn-Chattanooga (18-16), who won the Southern Conference, by avoiding Davidson and playing a tired College of Charleston on there own home court. The 8 vs. 9 matchups are always intriguing and BYU against Texas A&M fits the mold. The Cougars (25-7) have outstanding players like guards Lee Cummard and Jimmer Fredette, leading a team that was 9-3 and 10-2 ATS on the road. Texas A&M (23-9) had the unimaginable loss to Texas Tech, blowing 19-point half time lead, but had won six in a row prior to that and is a two-point dog.
Purdue (25-9) finally met expectations, winning the Big Ten tourney, as Robbie Hummel and E’Twaun Moore turned it on. Because of how the Boilermakers can play defense, they should be able to control Missouri Valley champion Northern Iowa (23-10). The Panthers had a three-game losing streak in the middle of February, including a loss to Siena in Bracket Buster contest, but bounced back to win last five contests. They would love to get into a real grinder with Purdue, with the score in the low 60’s, catching eight points. Washington (25-8) was awarded the fourth seed and easily has the toughest foe among their peers. The Huskies are the most physical team in the Pac-10, but they will face a Mississippi State (23-12) who made improbable run to win SEC with four wins in four days and has won and covered the spread six straight times. The Bulldogs shoot the three-ball well and have shot-blocker extraordinaire Jarvis Varnardo, to swat away attempts in the lane. You always have to beware of teams playing that many games in that many days and Mississippi State also drew the earlier Thursday game, having to travel all the way to Portland, Or.
Coach John Calipari of Memphis (31-3) will tell the media that he could care less about what seed they are, however you can bet tomorrow’s lunch money he’s selling the lack of respect card to his players. This is a deep and veteran club with loads of NBA ability, who will shake Cal-State Northridge (17-13) and storm to Sweet 16. California (22-10) and Maryland (20-13) both do things well, nonetheless, the Bears have lost four of last six and have just one cover and seem soft by comparison trying to slow down guard Greivis Vasquez who can take over a game for the Terrapins. Cal is favored by a single point at the moment.
Missouri (28-6) will look to turn the heat up defensively on Cornell (21-9), who won the Ivy League as pretty good squad, but was 0-3 against the three tournament teams they faced and is a 13.5-point underdog. It is sad we won’t get to see Marquette (24-9) at full strength without Dominic James, and they better make sure they don’t get into slow down affair with Utah State (30-4), who is 13-4 and 10-5 ATS on the road. The wagering public hit the Aggies hard, taking them from seven-point underdog to 4.5 by morning.
West Region Sweet 16 Teams
Connecticut – Purdue – Memphis – Missouri
East Region
More than one expert likes the Pittsburgh Panthers (28-4) in the national championship game on April 6 and their coach Jamie Dixon, though not happy about Big East tournament effort, is pleased about the extra rest to have everybody healthy and ready to end recent tournament disappointments. For Pitt to advance beyond the Sweet 16, they must avoid what has curtailed them in their losses or struggles, which is two early fouls on DeJuan Blair in the first half. Blair’s brawn and skill opens up the playbook for forward Sam Young and others. After dispatching of East Tennessee State (23-10) as 20-point pick, Pittsburgh can look ahead to up and down conflict with either Oklahoma State (22-11) or Tennessee. The Cowboys have no size, but shoot the ball effectively and their only two defeats in last 10 tries have been to Missouri and in-state rival Oklahoma, who they later clipped in Big 12 tourney. The Volunteers (21-12) played like the more tired team in SEC title game and remain a mystery even today and are favored by two points.
Florida State (25-9) has a star in guard Toney Douglas who averaged 25 points per game in ACC tournament. The Seminoles have NBA size and should be too skilled for Wisconsin (19-12), as they are making first March Madness appearance in 11 years. You have to wonder if Xavier (25-7) peaked, as they are only 6-5 since February with more than one indifferent performance. Portland State (23-9) was the Big Sky champ and is not a super squad, but if taken too lightly, could surprise behind Jeremiah Dominguez, who was the Big Sky tournament MVP This is the Vikings second straight trip to tourney and could be dangerous dog on the receiving end of 11-points.
Duke (28-6) grabbed the second seed as presumed and is in much better shape this time around heading into NCAA event than a year ago. They are more mature, fresher and have more scoring options. Defensively, they are solid, but somewhat vulnerable to dribble penetration, which shouldn’t be a problem for the first couple of rounds. Binghamton (23-8) is making first ever showing in the tournament and graduate Tony Kornheiser can wear the jersey proudly for a few more days as 22-point pooch. Texas (22-11) just never clicked this season, lacking point guard play to start and later consistent outside shooting. The Longhorns should have enough as 3.5-point faves to hold off Minnesota (22-10), who was 5-8 ATS away from the Land of 10,000 lakes.
UCLA (25-8) better come East ready to play, otherwise they will be one and done against a Virginia Commonwealth (24-9) club that has star player in Eric Maynor. The Rams were the regular season and conference tournament champs and can play defense, holding foes to 39.7 percent shooting. VCU caught the attention of bettors immediately, going from 10-point underdog to seven. Villanova (26-7) has seven strong players that regularly make considerable contributions. Scottie Reynolds has to play well, as the Wildcats are 11-0 when he scores 18 or more points. American (24-7) was supposed to win the Patriot Conference and did behind senior guards Garrison Carr and Derrick Mercer, but don’t matchup well as 17-point underdogs.
East Region Sweet 16 teams
Pittsburgh – Florida State – Duke – Villanova
South Region
If Ty Lawson is back to 100 percent, no reason why North Carolina should not be headed to the Motor City for the Final Four. In the past, when Lawson wasn’t healthy or playing up to usual standards, the Tar Heels (28-4) went from great to very good team. When he is out of the lineup, the other North Carolina players besides Tyler Hansbrough are out of rhythm and miss more shots than they normally would. Radford (21-11) will be a good warmup, though they have averaged 89.1 points per game in last six as Big South champs. If ever there was a contrast in styles, it is LSU and Butler tilt. The Tigers (26-7) were the class of the SEC by a wide margin; however after beating Kentucky in Lexington, they seemed to have let up and haven’t shot over 40 percent in losing three of last four contests. Butler (26-5) is deliberate and plays more cerebral and though they can’t match LSU ability-wise, they play solid defense and could frustrate Tigers as two-point (Bull)dogs.
Illinois (24-9) might be in the classic 5 vs 12 matchup, since they have shown since January, they can miss a large volume of shots in a row and take ugly losses. Western Kentucky (24-8) has peaked at the right time, winning 11 of last 12 (9-3 ATS), as senior Orlando Mendez-Valdez and junior A.J. Slaughter have stepped into the backcourt and played at a high level. This was on many people radar immediately, as the Hilltoppers went from 6.5-point dog to four.
If you prefer strong fundamentals in picking winners, Gonzaga (26-5) would be a wise selection. The Bulldogs have won 18 of 19 (only loss to Memphis) and are second in the nation in field goal defense at 36.8 percent. Coach Mark Few today has the team that many believed he would and they should move past Akron (23-12), since MAC teams have shown very little in recent years in this tournament.
If likely player of the year Blake Griffin and his older brother Taylor want to leave Oklahoma (27-5) in a blaze of glory, now would be the time to raise level of play. The Sooners have been off, with 2-4 and 1-5 ATS mark in last six. You wouldn’t believe Morgan State (23-11) would present a tremendous challenge, however Oklahoma might not cover the 16.5-points if bored. Clemson (23-8) could go either way in their contest against Michigan. The Tigers have superior athletes, nevertheless, their press is beatable with patience and they allow too many layups and dunks out of it. The Wolverines (20-13) are capable of putting together explosive output, but lack the consistency to be counted on positively to do so even as receiving five points. Michigan is only 6-10 ATS when not playing at Ann Arbor.
Syracuse (26-9) showed what they are capable of and has a multitude of weapons, which is why they finished 7-1 SU and ATS. With a natural letdown expected, look for Stephen F. Austin (24-7) to be tougher than expected with 12.5-points. For Arizona State’s sake, they better forget about nightmare second half in blowing Pac-10 title, since the Sun Devils (24-9) face Temple (22-11) who is 10-2 and 9-3 ATS since Feb.8. Two future NBA players, James Harden and Dionte Christmas will be on display and Arizona State is favored by five.
South Region Sweet 16 teams
North Carolina – Gonzaga – Oklahoma - Temple
Bracket Science: Surefire ways to measure a team's NCAA potential
Bracket Science: Surefire ways to measure a team's NCAA potential
Since 1985, the NCAA tournament has been structurally consistent -- with the same number of teams (okay...so the last few years have had a 65th bid), the same seed match-ups, and even the same days that rounds are played. That consistency is a big reason why historical data has such relevance in predicting future outcomes.
It would be a mistake, however, to think that the dynamics of the 1985 tourney are the same as those of last year's dance. The tourney has evolved over the last 24 years, becoming lower scoring, more guard-dominant, and ruled by younger teams, to name just a few volatile characteristics. Here are the top 15 trends altering the mechanics of March Madness.
Trend #1: Conference Composition.
With all the talk of parity in college basketball, you'd think that the numbers would show an increase in the tourney participation of Mid-Major and Small conference schools. In fact, the opposite is true.
Before we analyze the impact of Mid-Majors and Small conferences, we need to clarify where the line gets drawn between the two. My rule for defining a Mid-Major is this: if a conference has had multiple bids in at least one year over the last decade, they're a Mid-Major. Otherwise, they're a Small conference. The last decade has had 11 Mid-Majors: the Atlantic 10, Big West, Colonial, Conference USA, Horizon, Mid-American, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, Sun Belt, West Coast and Western Athletic. But that doesn't mean they've always been Mid-Majors...or that they're the only Mid-Majors since 1985. Who can forget conferences like the Metro and the Great Midwest?
By this definition, the number of Mid-Majors getting tickets to the dance has actually decreased over the 24 years of the 64-team tourney era. Meanwhile the number of Small conferences has increased -- as has the number of Big Six teams. Take a look at these numbers:
If you divide the modern tournament into three eight-year periods, mid-majors have lost an average of five bids to the tourney from the 1985-1992 era to the current 2001-2008 era. Those five lost bids have been scarfed up mainly by the Big Six (an increase of 3.5 bids), but also by Small conferences (a 1.5-bid bump). Part of the increase of Big Six conferences can be attributed to the reclassifying of Conference USA teams like Louisville and Marquette. But there's no denying the numbers: Mid-Majors are not gaining more representation in the tourney; they're losing it.
It would be one thing if these fewer mid-major schools were actually outperforming seed expectations. But they aren't doing that either. In the early era of the modern tourney, mid-majors were slight overperformers, with a performance against seed expectations, or PASE, of +.010. In this most recent eight-year stretch, they're slight underachievers (-.008 PASE). That's at least an improvement over their performance in the middle period of the 24-year modern tourney era, from 1993-2000, when they had a -.058 PASE. Meanwhile, Small conferences have steadily improved over the three eight-year periods. They've always been underachievers, but their -.007 PASE since 2001 is closer to expectations than their -.033 PASE between 1985 and 1992. It's also a tad better than mid-majors. Of course, the Big Six has always been the best performer among conference types. Their most recent PASE is just +.007?down from their strong +.055 showing from 1993-2000. Still, it constitutes overachievement.
The bottom line: mid-majors are getting to the dance less often than in the past...and they continue to underperform. Small conferences are making small improvements in both representation and performance. And the Big Six conferences are dominating the field more than ever before -- while continuing to defy seed expectations.
Trend #2: Coaching Experience
Since 1985, the typical tournament team has been led by a coach with 5.6 years of March Madness experience. That's the overall average. If you looked at the three eight-year periods of the 24-year modern tourney era, you'd find that 1985-1992 fielded the least experienced coaches (5.3 dances under their belts), 1993-2000 featured the most experienced coaches (5.9 dances), and the most recent period falls in between those extremes (5.7 dances).
Oddly enough, the first eight years of the 64-team era saw the fewest number of first-year coaches in the dances. Only 21 percent of the coaches between 1985 and 1992 were tourney rookies. Meanwhile, 1993-2000, the era when coaching experience was at its highest, also saw the highest percentage of coaching newbies (25 percent). These figures were more than offset by the fact that 1993-2000 featured a higher number of veteran coaches with at least ten tourney trips (21 percent to 18 percent for the other two eras.
If you just averaged out the number of trips for non-first year coaches, you'd find that repeat coaches in 1985-1992 averaged 6.5 tourney bids, 1993-2000 coaches averaged 7.5 bids and the most recent era of coaches has averaged 7.0 bids. What I find interesting is that there appears to be an inverse correlation between tourney upsets and coaching experience. In 1985-1992, the era where there were less experienced repeat coaches (6.5 bids) and fewer "deer-in-headlights" rookie coaches (21 percent), upsets were at their highest (10 per tourney). Conversely, in 1993-2000, the period where there were more experienced repeat coaches (7.5 bids) and more rookie coaches (25 percent), upsets were at their mildest (7 per tourney. The most recent eight-year period has been in right in the middle: with repeat coaches averaging 7.0 bids and newbie coaches occupying 22 percent of the bracket slots, upsets have been exactly in the midpoint between seven and ten (8.5). Eerie. Maybe there's something to this correlation -- and maybe it's a coincidence.
One thing is for sure though: coaching experience has never had a stronger connection to overachievement than it has in these last eight years. If you look at the PASE values of coaches making their first trip, between two and five trips, or more than five trips to the dance, rookie coaches have always been underachievers. Since 2001, they're just slight underperformers (-.005 PASE)...but that's the best they've been over the three eight-year periods. On the other hand, coaches with more than five tourney trips have never been bigger overachievers. Their +.042 PASE between 2001 and 2008 marks a big comeback over their underperforming -.017 PASE between 1993 and 2000. What about coaches with two to five years of tourney experience? Lately, they're -.028 underachievers...but during the 1993-2000 era, they were solid +.068 overperformers.
Here's another way of looking at whether coaching experience helps in the tourney. Consider the average number of tourney trips for coaches whose teams: 1) make the tourney, 2) advance to the Sweet Sixteen, 3) reach the Final Four, and 4) win the championship. In all three eight-year periods, teams advancing through the bracket are led by successively more experienced coaches. Here's how the numbers graph out:
Not only are teams that go deeper in the tourney led by more experienced coaches, but the size of the experience gap has grown in each of the eight-year periods. Just compare the line for 2001-2008 with the other two eight-year periods: recent Sweet Sixteen survivors are just a little more experienced than their counterparts (8.3 trips to 8.1 for 1993-2000), while Final Four contenders are even more experienced (10.5 to 9.3). And champions? Over the last eight years, coaches boasting an average 14 tourney trips have cut down the nets. The number was just 11.1 between 1993-2000.
The bottom line: coaching experience has always helped confer a performance advantage in the tourney. And, recently, that advantage has gotten bigger.
Since 1985, the NCAA tournament has been structurally consistent -- with the same number of teams (okay...so the last few years have had a 65th bid), the same seed match-ups, and even the same days that rounds are played. That consistency is a big reason why historical data has such relevance in predicting future outcomes.
It would be a mistake, however, to think that the dynamics of the 1985 tourney are the same as those of last year's dance. The tourney has evolved over the last 24 years, becoming lower scoring, more guard-dominant, and ruled by younger teams, to name just a few volatile characteristics. Here are the top 15 trends altering the mechanics of March Madness.
Trend #1: Conference Composition.
With all the talk of parity in college basketball, you'd think that the numbers would show an increase in the tourney participation of Mid-Major and Small conference schools. In fact, the opposite is true.
Before we analyze the impact of Mid-Majors and Small conferences, we need to clarify where the line gets drawn between the two. My rule for defining a Mid-Major is this: if a conference has had multiple bids in at least one year over the last decade, they're a Mid-Major. Otherwise, they're a Small conference. The last decade has had 11 Mid-Majors: the Atlantic 10, Big West, Colonial, Conference USA, Horizon, Mid-American, Missouri Valley, Mountain West, Sun Belt, West Coast and Western Athletic. But that doesn't mean they've always been Mid-Majors...or that they're the only Mid-Majors since 1985. Who can forget conferences like the Metro and the Great Midwest?
By this definition, the number of Mid-Majors getting tickets to the dance has actually decreased over the 24 years of the 64-team tourney era. Meanwhile the number of Small conferences has increased -- as has the number of Big Six teams. Take a look at these numbers:
If you divide the modern tournament into three eight-year periods, mid-majors have lost an average of five bids to the tourney from the 1985-1992 era to the current 2001-2008 era. Those five lost bids have been scarfed up mainly by the Big Six (an increase of 3.5 bids), but also by Small conferences (a 1.5-bid bump). Part of the increase of Big Six conferences can be attributed to the reclassifying of Conference USA teams like Louisville and Marquette. But there's no denying the numbers: Mid-Majors are not gaining more representation in the tourney; they're losing it.
It would be one thing if these fewer mid-major schools were actually outperforming seed expectations. But they aren't doing that either. In the early era of the modern tourney, mid-majors were slight overperformers, with a performance against seed expectations, or PASE, of +.010. In this most recent eight-year stretch, they're slight underachievers (-.008 PASE). That's at least an improvement over their performance in the middle period of the 24-year modern tourney era, from 1993-2000, when they had a -.058 PASE. Meanwhile, Small conferences have steadily improved over the three eight-year periods. They've always been underachievers, but their -.007 PASE since 2001 is closer to expectations than their -.033 PASE between 1985 and 1992. It's also a tad better than mid-majors. Of course, the Big Six has always been the best performer among conference types. Their most recent PASE is just +.007?down from their strong +.055 showing from 1993-2000. Still, it constitutes overachievement.
The bottom line: mid-majors are getting to the dance less often than in the past...and they continue to underperform. Small conferences are making small improvements in both representation and performance. And the Big Six conferences are dominating the field more than ever before -- while continuing to defy seed expectations.
Trend #2: Coaching Experience
Since 1985, the typical tournament team has been led by a coach with 5.6 years of March Madness experience. That's the overall average. If you looked at the three eight-year periods of the 24-year modern tourney era, you'd find that 1985-1992 fielded the least experienced coaches (5.3 dances under their belts), 1993-2000 featured the most experienced coaches (5.9 dances), and the most recent period falls in between those extremes (5.7 dances).
Oddly enough, the first eight years of the 64-team era saw the fewest number of first-year coaches in the dances. Only 21 percent of the coaches between 1985 and 1992 were tourney rookies. Meanwhile, 1993-2000, the era when coaching experience was at its highest, also saw the highest percentage of coaching newbies (25 percent). These figures were more than offset by the fact that 1993-2000 featured a higher number of veteran coaches with at least ten tourney trips (21 percent to 18 percent for the other two eras.
If you just averaged out the number of trips for non-first year coaches, you'd find that repeat coaches in 1985-1992 averaged 6.5 tourney bids, 1993-2000 coaches averaged 7.5 bids and the most recent era of coaches has averaged 7.0 bids. What I find interesting is that there appears to be an inverse correlation between tourney upsets and coaching experience. In 1985-1992, the era where there were less experienced repeat coaches (6.5 bids) and fewer "deer-in-headlights" rookie coaches (21 percent), upsets were at their highest (10 per tourney). Conversely, in 1993-2000, the period where there were more experienced repeat coaches (7.5 bids) and more rookie coaches (25 percent), upsets were at their mildest (7 per tourney. The most recent eight-year period has been in right in the middle: with repeat coaches averaging 7.0 bids and newbie coaches occupying 22 percent of the bracket slots, upsets have been exactly in the midpoint between seven and ten (8.5). Eerie. Maybe there's something to this correlation -- and maybe it's a coincidence.
One thing is for sure though: coaching experience has never had a stronger connection to overachievement than it has in these last eight years. If you look at the PASE values of coaches making their first trip, between two and five trips, or more than five trips to the dance, rookie coaches have always been underachievers. Since 2001, they're just slight underperformers (-.005 PASE)...but that's the best they've been over the three eight-year periods. On the other hand, coaches with more than five tourney trips have never been bigger overachievers. Their +.042 PASE between 2001 and 2008 marks a big comeback over their underperforming -.017 PASE between 1993 and 2000. What about coaches with two to five years of tourney experience? Lately, they're -.028 underachievers...but during the 1993-2000 era, they were solid +.068 overperformers.
Here's another way of looking at whether coaching experience helps in the tourney. Consider the average number of tourney trips for coaches whose teams: 1) make the tourney, 2) advance to the Sweet Sixteen, 3) reach the Final Four, and 4) win the championship. In all three eight-year periods, teams advancing through the bracket are led by successively more experienced coaches. Here's how the numbers graph out:
Not only are teams that go deeper in the tourney led by more experienced coaches, but the size of the experience gap has grown in each of the eight-year periods. Just compare the line for 2001-2008 with the other two eight-year periods: recent Sweet Sixteen survivors are just a little more experienced than their counterparts (8.3 trips to 8.1 for 1993-2000), while Final Four contenders are even more experienced (10.5 to 9.3). And champions? Over the last eight years, coaches boasting an average 14 tourney trips have cut down the nets. The number was just 11.1 between 1993-2000.
The bottom line: coaching experience has always helped confer a performance advantage in the tourney. And, recently, that advantage has gotten bigger.
Tourney trends: High seeds have strong ATS record
Tourney trends: High seeds have strong ATS record
The last two NCAA tournaments have been favorable to the chalk. The top four seeds in each region have gone 30-2 straight up and 22-9-1 against the spread in their opening round game.
Here's a few more numbers to chew before you place your bet at the window:
-Since the Tournament was expanded to 64 teams, No. 2 seeds have lost only four of a possible 96 games straight up against No. 15 seeds. In the last nine years No. 2 seeds have gone 15-22-1 ATS and just 6-9-1 in the last four specifically.
-No. 3 seeds have gone 81-15 SU against No. 14 seeds in the opening round. Over the last nine years No. 3 seeds have a 16-11-1 ATS record vs. No. 14 seeds.
-No. 4 seeds have gone 76-20 SU against No. 13 seeds in the first round of the NCAA Tournament.
. Over the last nine years, No. 4 seeds have gone 19-17 ATS in the opening-round game.
-The numbers say a No. 11 seed will beat a No. 6 seed almost 33 percent of the time. Since 1985 No. 6 seeds have gone 66-30 SU against No. 11 seeds.
Over the last nine years No. 6 seeds have covered in 20 of 31 games over No. 11 seeds.
-Betting on the No. 7 seed in the opening round has been profitable.
Over the last nine years No. 7 seeds have gone 23-12-1 ATS against the No. 10 seeds.
Overall No. 7 seeds have gone 62-36 SU against No. 10 seeds.
-No. 9 seeds have the advantage in the head-to-head matchups with No. 8 seeds.
Overall No. 9 seeds are 52-44 against No. 8 seeds SU and over the last nine years they have gone 20-16 ATS.
The last two NCAA tournaments have been favorable to the chalk. The top four seeds in each region have gone 30-2 straight up and 22-9-1 against the spread in their opening round game.
Here's a few more numbers to chew before you place your bet at the window:
-Since the Tournament was expanded to 64 teams, No. 2 seeds have lost only four of a possible 96 games straight up against No. 15 seeds. In the last nine years No. 2 seeds have gone 15-22-1 ATS and just 6-9-1 in the last four specifically.
-No. 3 seeds have gone 81-15 SU against No. 14 seeds in the opening round. Over the last nine years No. 3 seeds have a 16-11-1 ATS record vs. No. 14 seeds.
-No. 4 seeds have gone 76-20 SU against No. 13 seeds in the first round of the NCAA Tournament.
. Over the last nine years, No. 4 seeds have gone 19-17 ATS in the opening-round game.
-The numbers say a No. 11 seed will beat a No. 6 seed almost 33 percent of the time. Since 1985 No. 6 seeds have gone 66-30 SU against No. 11 seeds.
Over the last nine years No. 6 seeds have covered in 20 of 31 games over No. 11 seeds.
-Betting on the No. 7 seed in the opening round has been profitable.
Over the last nine years No. 7 seeds have gone 23-12-1 ATS against the No. 10 seeds.
Overall No. 7 seeds have gone 62-36 SU against No. 10 seeds.
-No. 9 seeds have the advantage in the head-to-head matchups with No. 8 seeds.
Overall No. 9 seeds are 52-44 against No. 8 seeds SU and over the last nine years they have gone 20-16 ATS.
Sports books favor UNC slightly in NCAA tournament
Sports books favor UNC slightly in NCAA tournament2009
LAS VEGAS (AP) -Nevada sports books have picked North Carolina as a slight favorite to win the NCAA tournament this year, assuming point guard Ty Lawson is OK to play.
Oddsmaker Dan O'Brien of Las Vegas Sports Consultants says the Tar Heels will likely get 5-2 odds in many books, or may be 2-1 favorites in casinos where many bettors have gambled on them.
North Carolina is a 4-to-1 choice, according to Keith Glantz and Russell Culver.
O'Brien says that without Lawson, who sat out of the ACC tournament last week, the Tar Heels would probably be underdogs compared with Louisville and Pittsburgh.
O'Brien says the No. 1 seeds will be considered slightly better this year than in past years.
LAS VEGAS (AP) -Nevada sports books have picked North Carolina as a slight favorite to win the NCAA tournament this year, assuming point guard Ty Lawson is OK to play.
Oddsmaker Dan O'Brien of Las Vegas Sports Consultants says the Tar Heels will likely get 5-2 odds in many books, or may be 2-1 favorites in casinos where many bettors have gambled on them.
North Carolina is a 4-to-1 choice, according to Keith Glantz and Russell Culver.
O'Brien says that without Lawson, who sat out of the ACC tournament last week, the Tar Heels would probably be underdogs compared with Louisville and Pittsburgh.
O'Brien says the No. 1 seeds will be considered slightly better this year than in past years.
The Big East is Best as Top Seeds
The Big East is Best as Top Seeds
DENVER (AP) - Built for basketball, the Big East is a big hit in March yet again.
Louisville, Pittsburgh and Connecticut helped the league that was created decades ago for hoops become the first conference to earn three No. 1 seeds in the NCAA tournament.
North Carolina, the regular-season Atlantic Coast Conference champion, was the other top seed.
Still, the headlines on Selection Sunday belonged to the Big East, the league that gave us Patrick Ewing and John Thompson, one of the game's biggest upsets (Villanova over Georgetown in 1985) and one of its greatest games (Syracuse over UConn in six overtimes just last week).
The coup of placing three teams on the top line comes 24 years after the Big East became the first league to get three teams in the Final Four - Georgetown, Villanova and St. John's.
So much has changed since then. And so much has stayed the same. "It speaks volumes for what it means to win the Big East," said Louisville coach Rick Pitino, whose Cardinals are the tournament's overall top seed and will play in the Midwest.
The Cardinals (28-5), winners of the regular-season and conference championships in the nation's top-ranked conference, will open against the winner of an opening-round game Tuesday between Alabama State and Morehead State.
The rest of the tournament starts Thursday and Friday.
The Final Four is scheduled for Ford Field in Detroit on April 4 and 6. Last year, all four No. 1 teams made it to the Final Four. But Pitt (East), Carolina (South) and UConn (West) all know its called March Madness for a reason - things rarely go to form.
So, time to break out the brackets, sharpen some pencils and pay into an office pool (or two).
Maybe do a little griping here and there.
Among the aggrieved: Duke and Memphis, both overlooked in the quest for top seeding, settling for No. 2 seeds despite winning their conference tournaments. Memphis is often downgraded for playing in the less-than-steller Conference USA, but John Calipari's team proved people wrong last year, making it to the national title game.
"I know people in the city are mad," he said. "That's OK. Good karma, good will."
At least they're in the big show.
Penn State, San Diego State and St. Mary's were among those left out despite some impressive credentials. St. Mary's went 26-6 but lost by 25 to Gonzaga in its conference tournament final.
"I was hoping common sense prevailed," coach Randy Bennett said. "Using common sense, we're one of the top 34 (at-large) teams. This was the best team we've ever had, so it's just disappointing to be in this situation."
Feeling much differently was Arizona, which extended its NCAA-leading streak of tournament appearances to 25. But this one might be the most hotly debated. The Wildcats finished 19-13 and were all but written off after a first-round loss in the Pac-10 tournament.
"They beat UCLA, they beat Gonzaga, they beat us," said Washington coach Lorenzo Romar, whose team won the Pac-10 regular-season title.
"I think people missed the boat on our conference this year. The selection committee understood the Pac-10 is better than people thought."
Thrilled as Arizona was, maybe nobody got a bigger kick out of hearing their names called than the North Dakota State Bisons. New players on the Division I level, the ND State seniors all committed to a redshirt year when they arrived, knowing this would be the first year they'd be eligible for the tournament.
"We all talked about it and said we have to have the opportunity to go to the biggest basketball tournament our senior year," guard Ben Woodside said.
Welcome to the party, fellas: Your first game is against defending national champion Kansas, the No. 3 seed in the Midwest.
Not surprisingly, the Big East also tied for the lead with seven teams in the tournament, along with the ACC and Big Ten.
The selection committee went with some travel arrangements that weren't ideal but couldn't be avoided. For instance, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah all travel to Miami, while Florida State goes to Boise, Idaho.
Whether Utah State's Blue Bull mascot will also make it to Boise to square off with the Marquette Golden Eagle is still an unknown; the bull got in a fight with New Mexico State's cowboy at the conference tournament and was suspended for the final.
It should be interesting to see if there's any long-term effect from the six-overtime classic that Syracuse, third seed in the South, and UConn put on in the quarterfinals of the Big East tournament - just another wonderful chapter in that conference's storied history.
Founded in 1979, the Big East enjoyed all kinds of success in the early years. Yet football came into the mix and the league found itself on the verge of extinction only six years ago when Miami, Boston College and Virginia Tech bailed for the ACC and a better situation on the gridiron.
The Big East went out and recruited Louisville, among other teams, and this year had five of the top 12 spots on the sport's biggest stage (Villanova was also a No. 3)
Who's laughing now?
"It just gives you an idea, if theoretically half the top teams in America are coming out of one conference, how difficult it was for anybody," UConn coach Jim Calhoun said.
Although the Big East had no problem with numbers, the Southeastern Conference placed only three teams in the tournament - the third coming only because Mississippi State won the conference tournament and earned the automatic bid.
That result, plus Southern California's championship in the Pac-10 tournament, cost a couple of bubble teams spots among in the 65.
Among the last teams to make it were: Wisconsin, a 12th seed in the East; Maryland, a surprisingly high 10th seed in the Midwest; and Dayton, one of only four teams from small conferences to earn an at-large bid.
The so-called mid-major conferences have gone from nine at-large bids in 2005 to four this year. Besides St. Mary's, Creighton got left out, as did New Mexico, UNLV and San Diego State, all from the Mountain West.
"We look at teams, we don't use a label," said Mike Slive, chairman of the selection committee. "It's not about mid-major teams and major teams. It's about teams. In the final analysis, it's about who you play, where you play and how you do. It's about teams, not about conferences."
Penn State also got left out. The Nittany Lions had the 311th-ranked non-conference strength of schedule - certainly not a help in the selection group's meeting room.
"We tried to deliver a message that it's the entire body of work," Slive said. "It starts in November and December and goes through the conference tournament."
Also absent will be Indiana and Kentucky - the first time both traditional powerhouses have been missing in the tournament since 1979.
DENVER (AP) - Built for basketball, the Big East is a big hit in March yet again.
Louisville, Pittsburgh and Connecticut helped the league that was created decades ago for hoops become the first conference to earn three No. 1 seeds in the NCAA tournament.
North Carolina, the regular-season Atlantic Coast Conference champion, was the other top seed.
Still, the headlines on Selection Sunday belonged to the Big East, the league that gave us Patrick Ewing and John Thompson, one of the game's biggest upsets (Villanova over Georgetown in 1985) and one of its greatest games (Syracuse over UConn in six overtimes just last week).
The coup of placing three teams on the top line comes 24 years after the Big East became the first league to get three teams in the Final Four - Georgetown, Villanova and St. John's.
So much has changed since then. And so much has stayed the same. "It speaks volumes for what it means to win the Big East," said Louisville coach Rick Pitino, whose Cardinals are the tournament's overall top seed and will play in the Midwest.
The Cardinals (28-5), winners of the regular-season and conference championships in the nation's top-ranked conference, will open against the winner of an opening-round game Tuesday between Alabama State and Morehead State.
The rest of the tournament starts Thursday and Friday.
The Final Four is scheduled for Ford Field in Detroit on April 4 and 6. Last year, all four No. 1 teams made it to the Final Four. But Pitt (East), Carolina (South) and UConn (West) all know its called March Madness for a reason - things rarely go to form.
So, time to break out the brackets, sharpen some pencils and pay into an office pool (or two).
Maybe do a little griping here and there.
Among the aggrieved: Duke and Memphis, both overlooked in the quest for top seeding, settling for No. 2 seeds despite winning their conference tournaments. Memphis is often downgraded for playing in the less-than-steller Conference USA, but John Calipari's team proved people wrong last year, making it to the national title game.
"I know people in the city are mad," he said. "That's OK. Good karma, good will."
At least they're in the big show.
Penn State, San Diego State and St. Mary's were among those left out despite some impressive credentials. St. Mary's went 26-6 but lost by 25 to Gonzaga in its conference tournament final.
"I was hoping common sense prevailed," coach Randy Bennett said. "Using common sense, we're one of the top 34 (at-large) teams. This was the best team we've ever had, so it's just disappointing to be in this situation."
Feeling much differently was Arizona, which extended its NCAA-leading streak of tournament appearances to 25. But this one might be the most hotly debated. The Wildcats finished 19-13 and were all but written off after a first-round loss in the Pac-10 tournament.
"They beat UCLA, they beat Gonzaga, they beat us," said Washington coach Lorenzo Romar, whose team won the Pac-10 regular-season title.
"I think people missed the boat on our conference this year. The selection committee understood the Pac-10 is better than people thought."
Thrilled as Arizona was, maybe nobody got a bigger kick out of hearing their names called than the North Dakota State Bisons. New players on the Division I level, the ND State seniors all committed to a redshirt year when they arrived, knowing this would be the first year they'd be eligible for the tournament.
"We all talked about it and said we have to have the opportunity to go to the biggest basketball tournament our senior year," guard Ben Woodside said.
Welcome to the party, fellas: Your first game is against defending national champion Kansas, the No. 3 seed in the Midwest.
Not surprisingly, the Big East also tied for the lead with seven teams in the tournament, along with the ACC and Big Ten.
The selection committee went with some travel arrangements that weren't ideal but couldn't be avoided. For instance, Arizona, Arizona State and Utah all travel to Miami, while Florida State goes to Boise, Idaho.
Whether Utah State's Blue Bull mascot will also make it to Boise to square off with the Marquette Golden Eagle is still an unknown; the bull got in a fight with New Mexico State's cowboy at the conference tournament and was suspended for the final.
It should be interesting to see if there's any long-term effect from the six-overtime classic that Syracuse, third seed in the South, and UConn put on in the quarterfinals of the Big East tournament - just another wonderful chapter in that conference's storied history.
Founded in 1979, the Big East enjoyed all kinds of success in the early years. Yet football came into the mix and the league found itself on the verge of extinction only six years ago when Miami, Boston College and Virginia Tech bailed for the ACC and a better situation on the gridiron.
The Big East went out and recruited Louisville, among other teams, and this year had five of the top 12 spots on the sport's biggest stage (Villanova was also a No. 3)
Who's laughing now?
"It just gives you an idea, if theoretically half the top teams in America are coming out of one conference, how difficult it was for anybody," UConn coach Jim Calhoun said.
Although the Big East had no problem with numbers, the Southeastern Conference placed only three teams in the tournament - the third coming only because Mississippi State won the conference tournament and earned the automatic bid.
That result, plus Southern California's championship in the Pac-10 tournament, cost a couple of bubble teams spots among in the 65.
Among the last teams to make it were: Wisconsin, a 12th seed in the East; Maryland, a surprisingly high 10th seed in the Midwest; and Dayton, one of only four teams from small conferences to earn an at-large bid.
The so-called mid-major conferences have gone from nine at-large bids in 2005 to four this year. Besides St. Mary's, Creighton got left out, as did New Mexico, UNLV and San Diego State, all from the Mountain West.
"We look at teams, we don't use a label," said Mike Slive, chairman of the selection committee. "It's not about mid-major teams and major teams. It's about teams. In the final analysis, it's about who you play, where you play and how you do. It's about teams, not about conferences."
Penn State also got left out. The Nittany Lions had the 311th-ranked non-conference strength of schedule - certainly not a help in the selection group's meeting room.
"We tried to deliver a message that it's the entire body of work," Slive said. "It starts in November and December and goes through the conference tournament."
Also absent will be Indiana and Kentucky - the first time both traditional powerhouses have been missing in the tournament since 1979.
Cardinals, Panthers, Heels, Huskies earn top seeds
Cardinals, Panthers, Heels, Huskies earn top
The Big East put up a big number Sunday:
Three No. 1 seeds in the NCAA tournament.
Louisville, Pittsburgh and Connecticut helped the Big East, a group originally created for basketball only, become the first conference to put three teams on the top line. North Carolina, regular-season Atlantic Coast conference champions, was the other top seed.
Louisville was the top overall seed in the tournament and will play in the Midwest. The Cardinals will open against the winner of an opening-round game Tuesday between Alabama State and Morehead State. Pitt was tops in the East, Carolina in the South and UConn in the West.
Of the four top seeds, Rick Pitino's Cardinals were the only team to win its conference tournament. Louisville entered the Big East conference tournament as the top seed, though Pitt and UConn were more highly regarded throughout the regular season, each spending time at No. 1 in The Associated Press poll.
Memphis (31-3) got snubbed, taking the second seed in the West despite a 25-game winning streak. The Tigers are often downgraded for playing in the less-than-steller Conference USA, but John Calipari's team proved people wrong last year, making it to the national title game.
In the West, it's No. 2 seed Memphis vs. Cal State-Northridge; Missouri vs. Cornell; Washington vs. Mississippi State; Purdue vs. Northern Iowa; Marquette vs. Utah State; California vs. Maryland; BYU vs. Texas A&M.
Last year's national champion, Kansas, is almost completely revamped this year and was seeded third in the Midwest with an opening game against North Dakota State.
Arizona extended its string of tournament appearances to a quarter century, and the 25th bid will be among the most debated. The Wildcats were thought by many to be off the bubble after an early loss to Arizona State in the Pac-10 tournament, but made it as 12th seed in the Midwest.
In the Midwest, No. 2 seed Michigan State will face No. 15 seed Robert Morris. In other games: Kansas vs. N. Dakota State; Wake Forest vs. Cleveland State; Utah vs. Arizona; West Virginia vs. Dayton; Boston College vs. Southern California; Ohio State vs. Siena.
Tournament wins by Southern California in the Pac-10 and Mississippi State in the Southeastern Conference cost a couple of bubble teams spots among in the 65. Among the last teams to make it were Wisconsin, a 12th seed in the East, and Maryland, a surprisingly high 10th seed in the Midwest.
In the East, it's No. 2 seed Duke vs. Binghamton; Villanova vs. American; Xavier vs. Portland State; Florida State vs. Wisconsin; UCLA vs. Virginia Commonwealth University; Texas vs. Minnesota; and Oklahoma State vs. Tennessee.
In the South, it's No. 2 seed Oklahoma vs. Morgan State; Syracuse vs. Stephen F. Austin; Gonzaga vs. Akron; Illinois vs. Western Kentucky; Arizona State vs. Temple; Clemson vs. Michigan; LSU vs. Butler.
Teams that were left out included San Diego State, Creighton, Penn State and Saint Mary's.
The ACC, Big East and Big Ten all had seven teams, the Big 12 and Pac-10 six each while the A-10 and SEC had three. Florida missed for the second straight year after winning two consecutive titles, and Auburn also was left out after a strong finish.
The Big East put up a big number Sunday:
Three No. 1 seeds in the NCAA tournament.
Louisville, Pittsburgh and Connecticut helped the Big East, a group originally created for basketball only, become the first conference to put three teams on the top line. North Carolina, regular-season Atlantic Coast conference champions, was the other top seed.
Louisville was the top overall seed in the tournament and will play in the Midwest. The Cardinals will open against the winner of an opening-round game Tuesday between Alabama State and Morehead State. Pitt was tops in the East, Carolina in the South and UConn in the West.
Of the four top seeds, Rick Pitino's Cardinals were the only team to win its conference tournament. Louisville entered the Big East conference tournament as the top seed, though Pitt and UConn were more highly regarded throughout the regular season, each spending time at No. 1 in The Associated Press poll.
Memphis (31-3) got snubbed, taking the second seed in the West despite a 25-game winning streak. The Tigers are often downgraded for playing in the less-than-steller Conference USA, but John Calipari's team proved people wrong last year, making it to the national title game.
In the West, it's No. 2 seed Memphis vs. Cal State-Northridge; Missouri vs. Cornell; Washington vs. Mississippi State; Purdue vs. Northern Iowa; Marquette vs. Utah State; California vs. Maryland; BYU vs. Texas A&M.
Last year's national champion, Kansas, is almost completely revamped this year and was seeded third in the Midwest with an opening game against North Dakota State.
Arizona extended its string of tournament appearances to a quarter century, and the 25th bid will be among the most debated. The Wildcats were thought by many to be off the bubble after an early loss to Arizona State in the Pac-10 tournament, but made it as 12th seed in the Midwest.
In the Midwest, No. 2 seed Michigan State will face No. 15 seed Robert Morris. In other games: Kansas vs. N. Dakota State; Wake Forest vs. Cleveland State; Utah vs. Arizona; West Virginia vs. Dayton; Boston College vs. Southern California; Ohio State vs. Siena.
Tournament wins by Southern California in the Pac-10 and Mississippi State in the Southeastern Conference cost a couple of bubble teams spots among in the 65. Among the last teams to make it were Wisconsin, a 12th seed in the East, and Maryland, a surprisingly high 10th seed in the Midwest.
In the East, it's No. 2 seed Duke vs. Binghamton; Villanova vs. American; Xavier vs. Portland State; Florida State vs. Wisconsin; UCLA vs. Virginia Commonwealth University; Texas vs. Minnesota; and Oklahoma State vs. Tennessee.
In the South, it's No. 2 seed Oklahoma vs. Morgan State; Syracuse vs. Stephen F. Austin; Gonzaga vs. Akron; Illinois vs. Western Kentucky; Arizona State vs. Temple; Clemson vs. Michigan; LSU vs. Butler.
Teams that were left out included San Diego State, Creighton, Penn State and Saint Mary's.
The ACC, Big East and Big Ten all had seven teams, the Big 12 and Pac-10 six each while the A-10 and SEC had three. Florida missed for the second straight year after winning two consecutive titles, and Auburn also was left out after a strong finish.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
