March Madness Trends – Part 1 of a Six Part Series
By William Foote & the Superior Sports Staff
The NCAA Tournament is finally upon us! And we’re so damn (darn… sorry) wound up that it is difficult to know where to begin. After all, March Madness is truly that; unquestionably the most exciting and widely anticipated sporting occasion on the planet. And for the few that may be placing a dollar here or there on the outcome of one of these upcoming NCAA contests, we’ve compiled a few tidbits of information for you, hopefully of which, will aid in your March Mayhem capping.
This present piece will briefly outline some overall trends from a six year data set of NCAA Tournament outcomes. The study encompasses every single NCAA Tournament game since 1998. This will be the first in a series of tournament articles released over the next few days and weeks.
Our next piece will deal exclusively with first round trends and hopefully be out before the first round starts! Thereafter, we’ll do our best to release each article at least a day prior to the start of the round we are covering. So be sure and look for them in the days ahead! They will be posted right here.
For matters of simplicity; each article is broken down into three basic categories:
1. General Trends
2. Trends By Seed
3. Trends By Price Range
This first piece deals with overall trends based on the last six NCAA tournaments combined. So let’s get to it!
A Seemingly Simple Challenge
Before we jump into the numbers, let us pose a seemingly simply challenge. Could you pick the straight up winner of each and every NCAA tournament game at a 55% or better rate? How about a 60% or better rate? We are talking about just identifying the straight up winner with no point spread involved. You know… who will win out between Duke vs. Alabama State, Stanford vs. Texas-San Antonio or St. Joseph’s vs. Liberty? Again, no point spread. Just name the straight up winner. Presumably, most would say you could pick the straight up winner at an even higher rate. Our question then becomes: why don’t you?
One of the most glaring trends we have ever come across is the frequency in which straight up winners also cover the spread in the NCAA tournament. In fact, straight up winners are an incredible 283-84-11 ATS (77%) over the past six years during March Madness. This simply means that if you were able to identify who was going to win the game, irrespective of the spread, than you would be picking winners at a 3:1 ratio!
Since money seems to have lips, here is another way of looking at this trend. A “nickel” player who bets $550 to win $500 would be $95,300 wealthier if he or she were to accomplish this feat. A "half dollar" player risking the standard $55 to win $50 would be $9,530 closer to retirement.
Someone once said, “There are more important things in life to worry about than just money; how to get a hold of it, for example.” Well, picking straight up winners in the NCAA Tournament appears like a darn good place to start. Right?
As is always the case, however, if it looks to good to be true than it probably is. Let us quickly shed some light on why this ostensibly simple feat is anything but.
By definition the above trend reflects two basic components:
1. Underdogs who win outright.
2. Favorites who win and cover.
Why then, do we not simply play the favorite in every single tournament game and head to Hawaii for the rest of April, and perhaps part of May for that matter? Not so fast. As one notable professor, A.J. Carlton, wisely noted; “Let us keep our mouths shut and our pens dry until we know the facts.”
This rather callous remark actually segues perfectly into our next observation.
In the simplest of terms, underdogs are still a better bet than favorites. Specifically, underdogs were 198-167-13 ATS (54%) over the past six tournaments combined. Conversely, this implies that of course favorites were an unprofitable 46% winning proposition during the same time period.
If you know anything about how odds are set, this should hardly come as a surprise. After all, John Q. Public still bets favorites at a higher ratio than underdogs. In other words, most folks are interested in betting the hot or most notable teams, and thus, the oddsmakers adjust for this fact by inflating their numbers on favorites.
Keep in mind that March Madness brings in as many square bettors this side of the Super Bowl. Practically every Tom, Dick and Harry will place a bet on this tournament and rest assured they are laying the wood more often than not. If the lines makers did not adjust for this fact, then the books and Vegas would be wiped out. Rest assured fellas; a No. 16 seed has a better shot at winning the tournament than the books being wiped out. Conclusion; it may be a better idea to take notice in the teams no one else is interested in.
Underdogs That Lose SU
One of the more interesting trends we uncovered is that favorites who won SU were a startling 167-84-11 ATS (67%). This trend makes some sense when you remember, as we pointed out above, that SU winners covered at a 77% clip. And favorites during the past six tournaments were 262-114-2 SU (70%). (Note that the two pushes were games in which the final spread was a “pick.”) In other words, since SU winners cover at such a high rate and most SU winners are favorites, then it would stand to reason that favorites generally cover from these observations alone. However, the implication here is startling. Namely, underdogs who lose SU were a measly 33% ATS! So if you are going to play an underdog, you might be better served to play them on the money line. But be realistic. Please do not go out and play the No. 16 seed against a No. 1 seed on the money line and expect to come away with a lottery ticket and then bang on our door for a refund when it does not come in.
The Best Seeds
The two best seeds to bet the past six years are the No. 10 and No. 12 seeds. Both are hitting at a 62% rate. Everyone knows about the classic twelve over five seed upset in the first round by now, so this is not all surprising. But do not overlook the power of the ten seed, as they are winning at the same rate. Keep this in mind when handicapping ten vs. seven seeds in the first round of the tournament and beyond should the lower seed survive.
The Worst Seeds
The worst seeds can actually be the best seeds if you fade them! The very worst apple of the bunch is the unlucky No. 7 seed which went just 13-24-1 ATS (35%) over the past six years. No. 14 seeds did not fare much better at just 9-15-2 ATS (38%). The third worst performers among the group were the sixteen seeds who sported a poor 10-14 ATS (42%) record. Given that no sixteen seed has ever made it beyond the first round would simply imply that No. 1 seeds are 14-10 ATS (58%) in first round games the past six years. That is somewhat contradictory to the “take interest in teams no one else does” theory, but the following section quickly redeems our value premise.
By Price Range
Playing small double digit favorites is the quickest way to the poor house based on our data set. Namely, favorites priced between -11 and -14 are a back breaking 14-26-3 ATS (35%) during the past six tournaments combined. Favorites just below this price range were almost as smelly. That is, favorites between -8 and -10.5 were a paltry 18-28-3 ATS (39%). Taking these two price ranges combined suggest that playing underdogs between +8 and +14 would have yielded a wallet stuffing 54-32-3 ATS record (63%) over the past six years!
We also noted a dichotomy between very small favorites and very large favorites. Specifically, be weary of playing small favorites at -3.5 or less, as they were a wallet crushing 41-58-5 ATS (41%). On the other hand, do not be afraid to lay heavy chalk because favorites at -14.5 or greater were a decent 37-28 ATS (57%). This was easily the best performing price range among favorites in our study.
A quick disclaimer; whenever composing a piece that is based upon trends alone, we must at all times reiterate that the past does not always predict the future. As Mr. Warren E. Buffett often remarks; “if you could simply extrapolate the past into the future, the richest people of all would be librarians.” The point being is that history is a terrific guidepost to the future and can prove tremendously useful as a handicapping tool. But do not mistake history with "fait accompli" or in layman’s terms, irreversible fact.
The above highlighted some of the most notable overall tournament capping trends across all rounds. One of the brainiacs here in the office stumbled upon a compelling first round data set as well. We’ll check back with you tomorrow and share what we know. In the meantime ... good luck!
|
