Tweet
NCAA Tournament Trends: Overall, Round by Round, Seed Performance, and more.
Because of the great response StatFox received to this article a couple of years back and the increased requests for an updated version, we have decided to republish the NCAA Tournament Trends article with updated results from the most recent years’ action. Quite simply, the madness of March brings everyone’s college basketball wagering interest to its peak. Apparently there is no such thing as information overload at this time of year, as StatFox visitors are consumed by the thirst for as much stats, trends, and situations as possible for the Big Dance. Among the things we plan to deliver in this tournament trend article are; favorite/underdog results, how the various seeding affects ATS performance, how each conference fares, and even how line & total placement can be important. Of course, these results are generalities from the past eight years of NCAA tournament action, and in reality, matchups and execution are always the most critical factors. With that said, StatFox has always subscribed to the theory that when it comes to sports handicapping information, the more you know, the better you are!
Enjoy the analysis, hopefully it can help you uncover some winning handicapping strategies for this year’s big dance! In the meantime, if you’re interested in supplementing this information with the most comprehensive game by game analysis available for all 63 tournament games, browse to the end to see how you can get your hands on the FoxSheets – the ultimate Sports Tipsheet!
Overall Tournament Trends (since 1998)
It’s no secret that seeding is critical and that the regular season means everything when it comes to earning a higher seed in the tournament. The results show that 349 of the 507 games in the NCAA’s since ’98 have been won by the higher seed, 69%. Granted, this stat means more to the office pool participant than it does to the ATS enthusiast, who is more interested in the fact that the higher seed has compiled just a 232-265-8 ATS record in that span, or just 46.7%. Certainly makes the case for more money line wagering, doesn’t it? It also serves note that the hype surrounding the “Cinderella” teams that advance through the tournament only tells half of the story. You’ll see later that the seeds with the highest ATS marks in the last seven years are actually all 8th or below!
Recent NCAA tournament ATS trends:
- Favorites are just 231-264-8 ATS (46.7%) since ’98 in the NCAA’s.
- Double-digit favorites are 70-79-2 ATS, but were just 5-12 ATS last year.
- Favorites of 3 points or less are just 61-64 SU & 54-71-1 ATS (43.2%) in that span!
Totals
What about totals? The oddsmakers seem to have an excellent handle on total placement, as of the 437 NCAA tourney games that had totals, 216 went OVER and 221 went UNDER. Furthermore, there have been hardly any discernible general trends that can be pointed to on a consistent basis as successful. From an overall standpoint, most everything regarding totals seems to be as probable as the flip of the coin. Thankfully, you’ll see from some of the round by round analysis, that there are some total patterns that have formed.
Seed Records
The following are the ATS records by seed. Keep in mind that a handful of times, a #1 seed played another #1 seed, or a #2 played a #2, etc. For those who’ve saved past article, you’ll see that the differences in the top and bottom seed performance marks have generally tightened up. In 2005, a unique trend emerged as the #15 & #16 seeds compiled an impressive 7-1 ATS mark despite not winning any of those games.
Seed ATS Record Seed ATS Record Seed ATS Record Seed ATS record
#1: 63-64-3 (50%) #5: 37-34-2 (52%) #9: 24-26 (48%) #13: 21-18-2 (54%)
#2: 41-58-1 (41%) #6: 40-33-2 (55%) #10: 33-26-1 (56%) #14: 14-21 (40%)
#3: 51-43 (54%) #7: 26-30 (46%) #11: 20-23-2 (47%) #15: 20-13 (61%)
#4: 30-42-1 (42%) #8: 32-26 (55%) #12: 27-22 (55%) #16: 16-18 (47%)
Enter King of the Dance!
Conference Records
The following are the ATS records of the major conferences in the NCAA tournament since ’98. For the record, the small conferences with the most interesting records to note are the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference, which is 8-1 ATS, and the Ivy League, which is 0-8 SU & ATS. As far as the major conferences are concerned, the Big Ten, Big East, SEC and Conference USA continue to produce remarkably consistent results.
Conference ATS Record
ACC: 50-56-2 (47%)
Atlantic 10: 20-21-1 (49%)
Big 12: 56-47 (54%)
Big East: 58-45-3 (56%)
Big Ten: 69-49-2 (58%)
Conf-USA: 22-34 (39%)
Pac 10: 39-44-1 (46%)
SEC: 42-57-2 (42%)
First Round
In looking at the last eight years of first round action, the favorite/underdog results are close to the 50/50 mark at 49%. The lower seeds have put up some impressive numbers over the last three years, covering 55 of the 96 games, or 56%. The most significant trends that have formed in the first round seem to center around the seeded matchups. For instance, the #5 vs #12 matchup has long been regarded as the potential upset, but in truth, the #9 & #10 seeds have been the best underdog of late, splitting their head to head games overall since ‘97. Also, the UNDER holds sizable edges in five of the 8 seeded matchups. Take a look at the stats for all of the matchups:
Seed Matchup Results
#1 vs. #16: The #1 seed is 32-0 SU & 17-15 ATS. 16 of 28 totaled games went UNDER.
#2 vs. #15: #2 seeds are 31-1 SU but just 12-20 ATS. 18 of 28 totaled games went UNDER.
#3 vs. #14: This matchup has been owned by the #3 seed, 29-3 SU & 18-14 ATS. OVER/UNDER is 11/17.
#4 vs. #13: The #4 seed is 25-7 SU & 15-16-1 ATS vs the #13. The OVER/UNDER ratio is 15/13.
#5 vs. #12: 5th seeds are 20-12 SU & but 14-17 ATS vs the #12’s. The OVER is 18-10 in the series.
#6 vs. #11: #6 seeds have done fairly well, going 23-9 SU & 17-15 ATS. 17 of the 27 games went UNDER.
#7 vs. #10: As mentioned earlier, the #10 seed is 16-16 SU & ATS in this matchup. The UNDER is 17-9-2.
#8 vs. #9: Another close series, even at 16-16 SU w/ a 17-15 ATS #9 edge. O/U ratio is 15/13.
Second Round
A number of significant patterns have formed over the past five years in the second round of the tournament. Most notably are the performances of the underdog and lower seeds, and the results against the total. In fact, judging by the trend regarding the last day of the tournament’s opening weekend, we may rename it “Upset Sunday”. See if any of these trends can help you in your second round wagering:
General Trends
- The rate of straight up wins by the lower seeds is 5% better in the second round than overall. (37%-32%)
- Nearly two thirds of the lower seed wins come on Sunday of the second round. In fact, the lower seeds own a straight up record of 29-35, or 45% . They are also 35-29 ATS, 55%.
- The second round, in general, has been a higher scoring round. 60 of 110 (55%) totaled games have gone OVER the total. In fact, the highest scoring tournament games of the last seven years were second round games. Last year’s 111-105 West Virginia win over Wake Forest shattered the previous mark of 2001’s second round 105-101 UCLA upset of Cincinnati.
Line placement:
- Favorites of more than 6 points are just 33-31 ATS since ’98, but 17-8 ATS the last three years.
- Favorites of 4-6 points are 11-12 ATS. However, over the last three years, that mark is 1-5 SU & 0-6 ATS.
- Favorites of less than 4 points are an atrocious 13-23 ATS!
Seeding Patterns
- The #1, #2, & #3 seeds have a combined record of 42-49 ATS (46%) in the second round.
- The #2 seed’s performance is particularly troubling when facing the #10 seed: 5-10 SU & 4-11 ATS, including last year’s NC State upset of Connecticut!
- The #2 seed does perform well against a #7 seed though, 11-5 SU & ATS.
- The #10 & #8 seeds own the best ATS records in this round, with the #10 going 12-4 ATS, the #8 11-6 ATS.
Sweet 16 Round
Over the last five years, the Sweet 16 round might be best described as the round where the underdogs give it the ole’ college try but come up short as there is a 17 game difference between the SU & ATS records of the higher seeds here. Check out these and some other interesting trends from recent Sweet 16 action:
- Higher seeds own a 43-21 SU record but are just 26-35-3 ATS in the Sweet 16 round.
- Similarly, favorites are 46-18 SU. The highest SU winning percentage of any round (72%).
- Overall, totals in this round are 24 OVER, 30 UNDER. However, in games with totals below 140, the results are 12 OVERS-11 UNDERS. In totals above 140, the result: 12 OVERS, 19 UNDERS.
- Seeds #8- #13 who have reached the Sweet 16 are 8-19 SU but 13-13-1 ATS.
- Interestingly, the #8 seed has won straight up in all four appearances in the Sweet 16, the latest being when Alabama beat Syracuse in 2004.
- The #4 seed has done dreadfully in this round, going just 3-10 SU & 5-8 ATS. Louisville became just the third #4 seed since ‘97 to advance to the Elite Eight when it edged Washington last year.
Elite 8 Round
The Elite 8 round had historically produced the biggest percentage of blowout games, that was prior to last year’s thrilling two days of basketball, when each of the four Elite Eight games went to the wire. In fact, all four underdogs covered that weekend. In addition, the Elite 8 round has also produced some higher scoring games, with 19 of the 28 totaled games going OVER, including all four of last year’s thrillers. Here are a few other interesting points regarding the Elite 8 round:
- 19 of the 28 games in the round have involved #1 seeds. They are 13-8 SU but just 7-12-2 ATS. In fact, over the last two years, #1 seeds have advanced past this round in just half of 8 games.
- #5 and #8 seeds have combined for a 5-2 SU & 6-1 ATS record in Elite 8 action. The only two teams to not advance to the final four from this group were Rhode Island, a # 5 seed in ’98 who fell 2 points shy of Stanford, and Alabama in ’04, who lost to eventual champion Connecticut by 16.
- The only one of the eight favorites of more than 7 points to lose straight up was Arizona in ’98, who lost to Utah by 25 points. That game marks the second “easiest” ATS wager over the past five years as the 35-1/2 point differential from the game spread fell just shy of the 38-1/2 point difference in UCLA’s 105-70 second round upset over Maryland in 2000.
- The ACC & Big Ten have made the most of their Elite 8 opportunities. The ACC is 9-1 SU & 5-4-1 ATS, while the Big Ten is 8-4 SU & 7-4-1 ATS since ’98.
- Underdogs have held a large advantage in this round since 2001, going 14-4-2 ATS.
Final Four Game Trends
With each year having just two final four round games and a single championship game, we typically expand our analysis of the entire final four weekend as a whole by going back a few more years, to 1987, the self-described “Modern Era” of College Basketball, the arrival of the 3pt shot. Be sure to refer back to some of these patterns that have formed when the big weekend arrives.
Overall Favorite/Underdog Results
Since 1987, there have been 57 final four games played, and the SU/ATS results have generally held serve with the overall patterns formed in all recent tournament games. While the favorites have won 37 of the 57 games straight up, the underdogs own a 29-28 ATS edge. However, all three favorites won and covered in 2005. In the championship game, the favorites hold a bigger edge, having won 11 of 19 ATS and 15 of those 19 straight up. Currently, the favorite in the final is on quite a stretch, with a 13-3 SU and 11-5 ATS record in the last 16. Syracuse was the last underdog to win SU & ATS in the final, beating favored Kansas 81-78 as a 5-1/2 point dog.
Line Placement
Going simply with a favorite or underdog trend in a final four game will not lead you to any guaranteed kind of success. Analyzing the amount of points being given or had does reveal some secrets though. Take a look at some of these records based on the line placement:
- Favorites of 6-1/2 points or more are a mere 9-7 SU & 3-13 ATS!!!
- Favorites of 4-6 points are 14-5 SU & ATS!!!
- Favorites of less than 4 points are 14-9 SU & 11-12 ATS.
The only three times since ’87 that a team favored by more than 6-1/2 points covered that game were in the 2000 semis when Michigan State beat Wisconsin, 53-41 as an 8 pt favorite, in the ’97 semis, when Kentucky, laying 6-1/2 points, knocked off Minnesota 78-69, and finally, in the 2002 championship game when Maryland, a 7-1/2 point favorite, beat Indiana 64-52. Furthermore, based solely on the final score margin, none of these games were easy covers. Which leads to the next question, what game provided the cushiest ATS win? That would be the ’03 semifinal between Kansas and Marquette as the Jayhawks routed the Golden Eagles 94-61 as a 4-1/2 point favorite, easily covering as 4-1/2 point chalk. That 28-1/2 point margin barely edged UNLV’s 26 point cover in its 103-73 Championship Game win over Duke in ‘90.
Seed Records
Does a team’s seed help determine anything about potential wagers on final four weekend? Unfortunately, only slightly: the #3 & #5 seeds. Check out the records of the seeds since ’87:
Seed # ATS Record (SU Mark)
#1’s: 25-22, 53.1% (29-20)
#2’s: 10-14, 41.6% (11-13)
#3’s: 11-7, 61.1% (9-9)
#4’s: 4-6, 40.0% (3-7)
#5’s: 2-4, 33.3% (2-4)
#6’s: 3-2, 60.0% (3-2)
#8’s: 0-2, 0.0% (0-2)
The #3 seed has been the most reliable performing team when it makes it this deep into the tournament. However, despite the seed leading 61.1% ATS, only two 3rd seeds, Michigan in ’89 and Syracuse in ‘03, have won a championship. Digging a bit deeper into some other trends reveals that any #1 seed that is an underdog has performed at a 9-3 ATS clip.
Conference Records
Do any particular conferences enjoy more success at the final four than others? You’ll see from the following that the Big East and Pac 10 seem to thrive at the final four, while the Big 12 and SEC struggle somewhat. Ironically, it took a last second, 30-foot, back door 3pt shot by Duke against UConn in 2004 to keep the Big East from going 12-1 ATS! Check out the conference records:
Conference ATS Record (SU Mark)
ACC: 16-14, 53.3% (16-14)
Atlantic 10: 1-0, 100% (0-1)
Big 12: 5-9, 35.7% (5-9)
Big East: 11-2, 84.6% (9-4)
Big Ten: 9-12, 42.8% (10-11)
Conf-USA: 0-3, 0.0% (0-3)
Pac 10: 6-3, 66.7% (5-4)
SEC: 6-10, 37.5% (9-7)
WAC: 3-3, 50.0% (3-3)
Totals
In general, the OVER/UNDER Totals posted for the final four games are higher than most you would see in the regular season. The reason? My suspicion would be that oddsmakers trap exuberant bettors into thinking that since the best teams are playing, there should be more offensive fireworks. Last year’s games produced three UNDER plays. In all, there have been 33 UNDERS, 23 OVERS, and 1 PUSH since ‘87. Thirty-seven of the games have had a total higher than 150 points. Of those, 23 were UNDERS.
Hopefully all of this helps you towards some success this year. Enjoy the tournament, and good luck from everyone at StatFox!
The FoxSheets have earned their reputation as the Ultimate Sports Tipsheet! Loaded with professional strategies including Super Situations, Game Estimators, Situational & Matchup Trends, Line Movement Analysis, plus much, much more, the FoxSheets are a must for every self-handicapper’s arsenal. Go to www.FoxSheets.com for more details! Or use the convenient links at www.StatFox.com, the web’s leading sports handicapping information provider.
Because of the great response StatFox received to this article a couple of years back and the increased requests for an updated version, we have decided to republish the NCAA Tournament Trends article with updated results from the most recent years’ action. Quite simply, the madness of March brings everyone’s college basketball wagering interest to its peak. Apparently there is no such thing as information overload at this time of year, as StatFox visitors are consumed by the thirst for as much stats, trends, and situations as possible for the Big Dance. Among the things we plan to deliver in this tournament trend article are; favorite/underdog results, how the various seeding affects ATS performance, how each conference fares, and even how line & total placement can be important. Of course, these results are generalities from the past eight years of NCAA tournament action, and in reality, matchups and execution are always the most critical factors. With that said, StatFox has always subscribed to the theory that when it comes to sports handicapping information, the more you know, the better you are!
Enjoy the analysis, hopefully it can help you uncover some winning handicapping strategies for this year’s big dance! In the meantime, if you’re interested in supplementing this information with the most comprehensive game by game analysis available for all 63 tournament games, browse to the end to see how you can get your hands on the FoxSheets – the ultimate Sports Tipsheet!
Overall Tournament Trends (since 1998)
It’s no secret that seeding is critical and that the regular season means everything when it comes to earning a higher seed in the tournament. The results show that 349 of the 507 games in the NCAA’s since ’98 have been won by the higher seed, 69%. Granted, this stat means more to the office pool participant than it does to the ATS enthusiast, who is more interested in the fact that the higher seed has compiled just a 232-265-8 ATS record in that span, or just 46.7%. Certainly makes the case for more money line wagering, doesn’t it? It also serves note that the hype surrounding the “Cinderella” teams that advance through the tournament only tells half of the story. You’ll see later that the seeds with the highest ATS marks in the last seven years are actually all 8th or below!
Recent NCAA tournament ATS trends:
- Favorites are just 231-264-8 ATS (46.7%) since ’98 in the NCAA’s.
- Double-digit favorites are 70-79-2 ATS, but were just 5-12 ATS last year.
- Favorites of 3 points or less are just 61-64 SU & 54-71-1 ATS (43.2%) in that span!
Totals
What about totals? The oddsmakers seem to have an excellent handle on total placement, as of the 437 NCAA tourney games that had totals, 216 went OVER and 221 went UNDER. Furthermore, there have been hardly any discernible general trends that can be pointed to on a consistent basis as successful. From an overall standpoint, most everything regarding totals seems to be as probable as the flip of the coin. Thankfully, you’ll see from some of the round by round analysis, that there are some total patterns that have formed.
Seed Records
The following are the ATS records by seed. Keep in mind that a handful of times, a #1 seed played another #1 seed, or a #2 played a #2, etc. For those who’ve saved past article, you’ll see that the differences in the top and bottom seed performance marks have generally tightened up. In 2005, a unique trend emerged as the #15 & #16 seeds compiled an impressive 7-1 ATS mark despite not winning any of those games.
Seed ATS Record Seed ATS Record Seed ATS Record Seed ATS record
#1: 63-64-3 (50%) #5: 37-34-2 (52%) #9: 24-26 (48%) #13: 21-18-2 (54%)
#2: 41-58-1 (41%) #6: 40-33-2 (55%) #10: 33-26-1 (56%) #14: 14-21 (40%)
#3: 51-43 (54%) #7: 26-30 (46%) #11: 20-23-2 (47%) #15: 20-13 (61%)
#4: 30-42-1 (42%) #8: 32-26 (55%) #12: 27-22 (55%) #16: 16-18 (47%)
Enter King of the Dance!
Conference Records
The following are the ATS records of the major conferences in the NCAA tournament since ’98. For the record, the small conferences with the most interesting records to note are the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference, which is 8-1 ATS, and the Ivy League, which is 0-8 SU & ATS. As far as the major conferences are concerned, the Big Ten, Big East, SEC and Conference USA continue to produce remarkably consistent results.
Conference ATS Record
ACC: 50-56-2 (47%)
Atlantic 10: 20-21-1 (49%)
Big 12: 56-47 (54%)
Big East: 58-45-3 (56%)
Big Ten: 69-49-2 (58%)
Conf-USA: 22-34 (39%)
Pac 10: 39-44-1 (46%)
SEC: 42-57-2 (42%)
First Round
In looking at the last eight years of first round action, the favorite/underdog results are close to the 50/50 mark at 49%. The lower seeds have put up some impressive numbers over the last three years, covering 55 of the 96 games, or 56%. The most significant trends that have formed in the first round seem to center around the seeded matchups. For instance, the #5 vs #12 matchup has long been regarded as the potential upset, but in truth, the #9 & #10 seeds have been the best underdog of late, splitting their head to head games overall since ‘97. Also, the UNDER holds sizable edges in five of the 8 seeded matchups. Take a look at the stats for all of the matchups:
Seed Matchup Results
#1 vs. #16: The #1 seed is 32-0 SU & 17-15 ATS. 16 of 28 totaled games went UNDER.
#2 vs. #15: #2 seeds are 31-1 SU but just 12-20 ATS. 18 of 28 totaled games went UNDER.
#3 vs. #14: This matchup has been owned by the #3 seed, 29-3 SU & 18-14 ATS. OVER/UNDER is 11/17.
#4 vs. #13: The #4 seed is 25-7 SU & 15-16-1 ATS vs the #13. The OVER/UNDER ratio is 15/13.
#5 vs. #12: 5th seeds are 20-12 SU & but 14-17 ATS vs the #12’s. The OVER is 18-10 in the series.
#6 vs. #11: #6 seeds have done fairly well, going 23-9 SU & 17-15 ATS. 17 of the 27 games went UNDER.
#7 vs. #10: As mentioned earlier, the #10 seed is 16-16 SU & ATS in this matchup. The UNDER is 17-9-2.
#8 vs. #9: Another close series, even at 16-16 SU w/ a 17-15 ATS #9 edge. O/U ratio is 15/13.
Second Round
A number of significant patterns have formed over the past five years in the second round of the tournament. Most notably are the performances of the underdog and lower seeds, and the results against the total. In fact, judging by the trend regarding the last day of the tournament’s opening weekend, we may rename it “Upset Sunday”. See if any of these trends can help you in your second round wagering:
General Trends
- The rate of straight up wins by the lower seeds is 5% better in the second round than overall. (37%-32%)
- Nearly two thirds of the lower seed wins come on Sunday of the second round. In fact, the lower seeds own a straight up record of 29-35, or 45% . They are also 35-29 ATS, 55%.
- The second round, in general, has been a higher scoring round. 60 of 110 (55%) totaled games have gone OVER the total. In fact, the highest scoring tournament games of the last seven years were second round games. Last year’s 111-105 West Virginia win over Wake Forest shattered the previous mark of 2001’s second round 105-101 UCLA upset of Cincinnati.
Line placement:
- Favorites of more than 6 points are just 33-31 ATS since ’98, but 17-8 ATS the last three years.
- Favorites of 4-6 points are 11-12 ATS. However, over the last three years, that mark is 1-5 SU & 0-6 ATS.
- Favorites of less than 4 points are an atrocious 13-23 ATS!
Seeding Patterns
- The #1, #2, & #3 seeds have a combined record of 42-49 ATS (46%) in the second round.
- The #2 seed’s performance is particularly troubling when facing the #10 seed: 5-10 SU & 4-11 ATS, including last year’s NC State upset of Connecticut!
- The #2 seed does perform well against a #7 seed though, 11-5 SU & ATS.
- The #10 & #8 seeds own the best ATS records in this round, with the #10 going 12-4 ATS, the #8 11-6 ATS.
Sweet 16 Round
Over the last five years, the Sweet 16 round might be best described as the round where the underdogs give it the ole’ college try but come up short as there is a 17 game difference between the SU & ATS records of the higher seeds here. Check out these and some other interesting trends from recent Sweet 16 action:
- Higher seeds own a 43-21 SU record but are just 26-35-3 ATS in the Sweet 16 round.
- Similarly, favorites are 46-18 SU. The highest SU winning percentage of any round (72%).
- Overall, totals in this round are 24 OVER, 30 UNDER. However, in games with totals below 140, the results are 12 OVERS-11 UNDERS. In totals above 140, the result: 12 OVERS, 19 UNDERS.
- Seeds #8- #13 who have reached the Sweet 16 are 8-19 SU but 13-13-1 ATS.
- Interestingly, the #8 seed has won straight up in all four appearances in the Sweet 16, the latest being when Alabama beat Syracuse in 2004.
- The #4 seed has done dreadfully in this round, going just 3-10 SU & 5-8 ATS. Louisville became just the third #4 seed since ‘97 to advance to the Elite Eight when it edged Washington last year.
Elite 8 Round
The Elite 8 round had historically produced the biggest percentage of blowout games, that was prior to last year’s thrilling two days of basketball, when each of the four Elite Eight games went to the wire. In fact, all four underdogs covered that weekend. In addition, the Elite 8 round has also produced some higher scoring games, with 19 of the 28 totaled games going OVER, including all four of last year’s thrillers. Here are a few other interesting points regarding the Elite 8 round:
- 19 of the 28 games in the round have involved #1 seeds. They are 13-8 SU but just 7-12-2 ATS. In fact, over the last two years, #1 seeds have advanced past this round in just half of 8 games.
- #5 and #8 seeds have combined for a 5-2 SU & 6-1 ATS record in Elite 8 action. The only two teams to not advance to the final four from this group were Rhode Island, a # 5 seed in ’98 who fell 2 points shy of Stanford, and Alabama in ’04, who lost to eventual champion Connecticut by 16.
- The only one of the eight favorites of more than 7 points to lose straight up was Arizona in ’98, who lost to Utah by 25 points. That game marks the second “easiest” ATS wager over the past five years as the 35-1/2 point differential from the game spread fell just shy of the 38-1/2 point difference in UCLA’s 105-70 second round upset over Maryland in 2000.
- The ACC & Big Ten have made the most of their Elite 8 opportunities. The ACC is 9-1 SU & 5-4-1 ATS, while the Big Ten is 8-4 SU & 7-4-1 ATS since ’98.
- Underdogs have held a large advantage in this round since 2001, going 14-4-2 ATS.
Final Four Game Trends
With each year having just two final four round games and a single championship game, we typically expand our analysis of the entire final four weekend as a whole by going back a few more years, to 1987, the self-described “Modern Era” of College Basketball, the arrival of the 3pt shot. Be sure to refer back to some of these patterns that have formed when the big weekend arrives.
Overall Favorite/Underdog Results
Since 1987, there have been 57 final four games played, and the SU/ATS results have generally held serve with the overall patterns formed in all recent tournament games. While the favorites have won 37 of the 57 games straight up, the underdogs own a 29-28 ATS edge. However, all three favorites won and covered in 2005. In the championship game, the favorites hold a bigger edge, having won 11 of 19 ATS and 15 of those 19 straight up. Currently, the favorite in the final is on quite a stretch, with a 13-3 SU and 11-5 ATS record in the last 16. Syracuse was the last underdog to win SU & ATS in the final, beating favored Kansas 81-78 as a 5-1/2 point dog.
Line Placement
Going simply with a favorite or underdog trend in a final four game will not lead you to any guaranteed kind of success. Analyzing the amount of points being given or had does reveal some secrets though. Take a look at some of these records based on the line placement:
- Favorites of 6-1/2 points or more are a mere 9-7 SU & 3-13 ATS!!!
- Favorites of 4-6 points are 14-5 SU & ATS!!!
- Favorites of less than 4 points are 14-9 SU & 11-12 ATS.
The only three times since ’87 that a team favored by more than 6-1/2 points covered that game were in the 2000 semis when Michigan State beat Wisconsin, 53-41 as an 8 pt favorite, in the ’97 semis, when Kentucky, laying 6-1/2 points, knocked off Minnesota 78-69, and finally, in the 2002 championship game when Maryland, a 7-1/2 point favorite, beat Indiana 64-52. Furthermore, based solely on the final score margin, none of these games were easy covers. Which leads to the next question, what game provided the cushiest ATS win? That would be the ’03 semifinal between Kansas and Marquette as the Jayhawks routed the Golden Eagles 94-61 as a 4-1/2 point favorite, easily covering as 4-1/2 point chalk. That 28-1/2 point margin barely edged UNLV’s 26 point cover in its 103-73 Championship Game win over Duke in ‘90.
Seed Records
Does a team’s seed help determine anything about potential wagers on final four weekend? Unfortunately, only slightly: the #3 & #5 seeds. Check out the records of the seeds since ’87:
Seed # ATS Record (SU Mark)
#1’s: 25-22, 53.1% (29-20)
#2’s: 10-14, 41.6% (11-13)
#3’s: 11-7, 61.1% (9-9)
#4’s: 4-6, 40.0% (3-7)
#5’s: 2-4, 33.3% (2-4)
#6’s: 3-2, 60.0% (3-2)
#8’s: 0-2, 0.0% (0-2)
The #3 seed has been the most reliable performing team when it makes it this deep into the tournament. However, despite the seed leading 61.1% ATS, only two 3rd seeds, Michigan in ’89 and Syracuse in ‘03, have won a championship. Digging a bit deeper into some other trends reveals that any #1 seed that is an underdog has performed at a 9-3 ATS clip.
Conference Records
Do any particular conferences enjoy more success at the final four than others? You’ll see from the following that the Big East and Pac 10 seem to thrive at the final four, while the Big 12 and SEC struggle somewhat. Ironically, it took a last second, 30-foot, back door 3pt shot by Duke against UConn in 2004 to keep the Big East from going 12-1 ATS! Check out the conference records:
Conference ATS Record (SU Mark)
ACC: 16-14, 53.3% (16-14)
Atlantic 10: 1-0, 100% (0-1)
Big 12: 5-9, 35.7% (5-9)
Big East: 11-2, 84.6% (9-4)
Big Ten: 9-12, 42.8% (10-11)
Conf-USA: 0-3, 0.0% (0-3)
Pac 10: 6-3, 66.7% (5-4)
SEC: 6-10, 37.5% (9-7)
WAC: 3-3, 50.0% (3-3)
Totals
In general, the OVER/UNDER Totals posted for the final four games are higher than most you would see in the regular season. The reason? My suspicion would be that oddsmakers trap exuberant bettors into thinking that since the best teams are playing, there should be more offensive fireworks. Last year’s games produced three UNDER plays. In all, there have been 33 UNDERS, 23 OVERS, and 1 PUSH since ‘87. Thirty-seven of the games have had a total higher than 150 points. Of those, 23 were UNDERS.
Hopefully all of this helps you towards some success this year. Enjoy the tournament, and good luck from everyone at StatFox!
The FoxSheets have earned their reputation as the Ultimate Sports Tipsheet! Loaded with professional strategies including Super Situations, Game Estimators, Situational & Matchup Trends, Line Movement Analysis, plus much, much more, the FoxSheets are a must for every self-handicapper’s arsenal. Go to www.FoxSheets.com for more details! Or use the convenient links at www.StatFox.com, the web’s leading sports handicapping information provider.