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.