ACC

Trends

–   Over the last three NCAA tournaments, the ACC boasts a record of 33-15 SU and ATS (68.8%).

 

–   ACC teams have been most successful in the Final Four, going 11-5 SU and 10-6 ATS (62.5%) since 2001. However, NC State did lose last year.

–   In the role of pick ’em or small underdog (up to 4.5 points), ACC teams are currently on a 19-5 ATS (79.2%) surge.

–   ACC teams are just 32-49-1 ATS (39.5%) as favorites of 5 points or less in the NCAAs since 1998.

–   ACC teams are 34-3 SU but 12-25 ATS (32.4%) in their last 37 as double-digit tourney favorites.

–   ACC teams playing as double-digit seeds are 19-11-1 ATS (63.3%) since 2012.

–   #2 ACC seeds are on a brutal 11-28-1 ATS (28.2%) slide since 2001. However, Duke did go 4-1 SU and 3-2 ATS in 2022.

–   ACC teams are 16-4 SU but 1-19 ATS (5%) combined versus Atlantic Sun, CAA, and Ohio Valley teams since 2001.

–   ACC teams are on a current surge of 11-4 SU and 13-2 ATS (86.7%) in the NCAAs versus Big 12 foes, including 3-0 SU and ATS last year. In addition, underdogs are on an impressive 9-9 SU and 13-5 ATS (72.2%) surge in the matchup.

–   In the 19 most recent NCAA tourney matchups between the ACC and Big East, Over the total is 13-7 (65%).

–   Seventeen of the last 24 NCAA tourney matchups between the ACC and SEC have gone Under the total (70.8%). However, both went Over last year.

–   In that same ACC-SEC conference NCAA matchup, underdogs are on a 13-3-1 ATS (81.3%) surge since ’17.

–   There have been nine tourney matchups since 2001 pitting ACC foes against one another. All but one went Over the total (88.9%), producing 148.9 PPG on totals averaging 142. That one Under was in the 2024 game between Duke and NC State. Underdogs have won the last four SU and ATS as well.

America East

Trends

–   Vermont’s loss to Duke in 2024 dropped the America East record in the NCAAs to 11-5 ATS (68.8%) since 2011.

–   America East teams are 16-8-1 Under (66.7%) the total in NCAAs since 2003.

AAC

Trends

–   AAC teams are 13-4 Under the total (76.5%) in their last 17 tourney games as underdogs.

–   In their last 25 tourney games versus power conference foes, AAC teams are 18-10 Under the total (64.3%).

–   AAC teams boast a recent NCAA tourney record versus fellow mid-major conferences of 8-2 ATS (80%).

–   As seeds #7-#10, AAC teams have been dangerous lately, going 11-10 SU and 14-7 ATS (66.7%) in their last 21 tourney tries. However, FAU did lose a year ago, as did Memphis in 2023.

Atlantic 10

Trends

–   Atlantic 10 teams have won just four of their last 15 NCAA tourney games, both SU and ATS (26.7%).

–   A-10 teams are also on a 3-9 SU and ATS (25%) skid in the NCAA’s against fellow mid-major conference foes. However, Dayton did beat Nevada last year.

–   Underdogs are 10-3 ATS (76.9%) in the last 13 NCAA tourney games between Atlantic 10 and Big East.

–   Favorites are on a 20-6 SU and 17-9 ATS (65.4%) surge in A-10 NCAA tourney games since 2015.

–   Atlantic 10 teams are 19-6 SU and 14-7-4 ATS (66.7%) in their last 25 games as tournament favorites.

Atlantic Sun

Trends

–   Atlantic Sun teams are on an 11-5 ATS (68.8%) run in NCAA tourney games since 2013, including 9-4 ATS (69.2%) vs. Power 5 conferences.

–   Atlantic Sun teams are on a 12-7 Over (63.2%) run in NCAAs.

Big 12

Trends

–   Big 12 teams have been dominant in the First Four/first round games of the tournament since 2017, going 35-13 SU and 30-18 ATS (62.5%).

–   Big 12 teams in the #4-#8 seed ranges are on a slide of 25-35 SU and 22-37 ATS (37.3%) since 2010, making them popular upset victims.

–   Favorites are 14-6 SU and 12-7-1 ATS (63.2%) in the last 20 NCAA tournament games between the Big 12 and Big Ten.

–   Against mid-major teams in the NCAAs, Big 12 teams are on a 22-10 ATS (68.8%) surge.

–   Big 12 teams are just 11-13 SU and 8-16 ATS (33.3%) in their last 24 NCAA tourney games vs. the Big East.

–   Big 12 teams have struggled vs. Missouri Valley teams in NCAA tourney play, going just 3-7 SU and 1-9 ATS (10%) since 2001.

–   Big 12 teams have lost 59 of their 74 NCAA tourney games since 2000 as underdogs of 2.5 points or more and are 30-43-1 ATS (41.1%) in those games.

–   As favorites of 7 points or more in the NCAAs, Big 12 teams are on a current run of 31-2 SU and 22-11 ATS (66.7%).

Big East

Trends

–   Big East schools own a perfect 8-0 SU and ATS record in championship games since 2001, including Connecticut’s current back-to-back wins.

–   Big East teams have also thrived in the tournament’s second round of late, going 13-7 SU and 15-5 ATS (75%) since 2017.

–   Top two seeded (#1s and #2s) teams from the Big East have validated their positions by going 28-6 SU and 25-9 ATS (73.5%) in the NCAAs since 2016.

–   The last 46 Big East teams to play as seeds of #7 or worse in the NCAA tourney are just 12-34 SU and 16-30 ATS (34.8%).

–   Teams from the Big East Conference have been highly reliable double-digit favorites in the NCAAs since 2007, going 44-3 SU and 32-15 ATS (68.1%).

–   Teams from the Big East in the #8-#9 first round matchup are just 4-13 SU and 3-14 ATS (17.6%) in the NCAAs since 2005.

–   Big East teams are on a 10-2 SU and ATS (83.3%) run against Mountain West teams in the tournament.

–   Favorites are 51-19 ATS (72.9%) in the last 58 Big East NCAA tourney games, including 23-5 ATS (82.1%) in the last two years.

–   In NCAA tourney games between Big East programs and non-major conferences since 2015, favorites are on a 33-11 SU and 32-10 ATS (76.2%) run.

Big Sky

Trends

–   Big Sky teams are just 1-23 SU and 6-18 ATS (25%) in the tournament since 2001, including 3-16 ATS (15.8%) as an underdog of less than 20 points.

–   Big Sky teams have lost 21 straight NCAA tournament games against major conference teams, going 5-16 ATS (23.8%).

Big South

Trends

–   Big South teams are 8-4-1 ATS (66.7%) as #16 seeds in the tournament since 2003, 3-8 ATS (27.3%) in all other seeds.

–   Big South teams are on a 15-6 Under the total (71.4%) tourney surge vs. major conference teams, scoring just 56.6 PPG.

Big Ten

Trends

–   Big Ten teams are winless at 0-8 SU and ATS in the championship game since 2001, including Purdue’s loss a year ago.

–   Big Ten teams have been vulnerable in the #4 seed of late, 4-13-1 ATS (23.5%) in their L18 tourney tries.

–   Overall, Big Ten teams and top 6 seeds haven’t meshed well since 2015, as they are 49-33 SU but 35-46-1 ATS (43.2%) in that scenario.

–   Big Ten teams have been relatively strong in the double-digit chalk role in the tournament, going 54-5 SU and 34-21-4 ATS (61.8%) since 1998, including 5-0 SU and ATS last year.

–   Big Ten teams are on a 13-8 SU and 15-5-1 ATS (75%) run vs. SEC foes in the NCAA tourney, including 2-1 SU and ATS last year.

–   Big Ten teams have gone just 16-20 SU and 15-20-1 ATS (42.9%) since 2015 in the NCAA tournament vs. Big 12 foes.

–   For as good as Big Ten teams have been in the big favorite role, they have been brutal as underdogs of 5.5 points or more in the tournament, going 6-53 SU and 21-38 ATS (35.6%) since 1998. They were 0-3 SU and ATS in this role a year ago, losing by 19 PPG.

–   In tourney games with single-digit point spreads versus mid-major conference foes in the NCAAs, Big Ten teams are on an ugly 30-44 ATS (40.5%) skid since ‘06.

–   In tourney games of the second round and later, Big Ten teams are just 22-35 SU and 23-32-2 ATS (41.8%) since 2017.

Big West

Trends

–   Big West teams are just 4-20 SU and 9-14-1 ATS (39.1%) in their last 24 NCAA tournament games.

–   Big West teams have trended Under on totals in four straight NCAA tourney games.

–   Big West teams have struggled in the role of large underdog, going 1-20 SU and 8-14-1 ATS (36.4%) when catching 6.5 points or more in the tourney since 1998.

–   All five Big West teams that reached the second round since 2001 lost SU and ATS by an average of 18 PPG.

CAA

Trends

–   CAA teams used to be among the country’s best in terms of NCAA tournament spread performance. However, they have lost their last five games SU and ATS and are on an 11-game outright losing streak.

–   CAA teams are on a 23-9-2 ATS (71.9%) run as NCAA tourney dogs to major conference teams. Again though, they are off four straight losses currently.

–   Under the total is 8-2 (80%) in the last 10 CAA NCAA tournament games versus other mid-major conference teams.

–   CAA teams have covered the spread in all nine NCAA tourney games (9-0 ATS 100%) vs. ACC teams since 2001.

Conference USA

Trends

–   Take away Florida Atlantic’s 4-1 SU and ATS run in 2023 and it’s a 6-17 SU and 7-16 ATS (30.4%) NCAA tourney slide for Conference USA teams since 2009.

–   Versus power conference schools in the NCAA tournament, Conference USA teams are just 24-39 SU and ATS (38.1%) since 1998, including 9-22 ATS (29%) as dogs of 4.5 points or more.

–   Favorites have won the last six NCAA tourney games SU and ATS between Conference USA and the ACC.

–   Favorites are on a 10-2 SU and ATS (83.3%) run in NCAA tournament games between Conference USA and Big Ten, although North Texas did upend Purdue in 2021.

–   Conference USA teams are on a brutal slide of 4-22 SU and 6-20 ATS (23.1%) as an underdog of +2 to +9.5 in the NCAA tournament.

–   Double-digit seeded Conference USA teams are on a 6-17 SU and 7-16 ATS (30.4%) slide in the NCAAs.

Horizon

Trends

–   Horizon League teams have lost 13 of their last 15 NCAA tourney games while going 7-8 ATS (43.8%). However, they are currently on a five-game ATS win streak.

–   Horizon League teams are on a 17-8 Under the total (68%) NCAA run.

–   Line placement has been key in Horizon League NCAA tourney games. As dogs of 8 points or more, they are 1-14 SU and 6-9 ATS (40%) since 2002. In all other games, they are 20-11 SU and 23-8 ATS (74.2%).

–   In their last 15 NCAA tourney games versus power conference foes, Horizon League teams are 2-15 SU and 7-10 ATS (41.2%) since 2002. Versus other mid-majors, Horizon League teams are on an 8-2 SU and ATS tourney surge.

Ivy

Trends

–   Ivy League teams have gone 8-13 SU and 13-8 ATS (61.9%) in their last 21 NCAA tourney games, including Yale a year ago, who upset Auburn to reach the second round.

–   Ivy League teams are on a 20-12 Under the total (62.5%) NCAA run, but they have gone Over in each of their last three tries.

–   As underdogs of 5 points or more in the NCAAs, Ivy League teams are just 5-23 SU and 11-17 ATS (39.3%) since 2000. They are also 19-9 Under the total (67.9%) in those games, scoring just 62.1 PPG.

MAAC

Trends

–   MAAC teams are now 1-6 SU and ATS (14.3%) in their last seven NCAA tourney tries as a non-double-digit underdog. They are 4-1 ATS (80%) in their last five as a double-digit dog.

–   MAAC teams are 2-2 SU and 0-4 ATS (0%) historically in First Four games.

–   MAAC teams have produced a record of 3-4 SU and 5-2 ATS versus SEC teams since 2001 in the NCAAs, but St Peter’s did lose a year ago to Tennessee, 83-49.

MAC

Trends

–   MAC teams are 14-7 ATS (66.7%) in their last 21 NCAA tourney games as a #13 seed or worse but 9-11 ATS (45%) in other seeds during that stretch.

–   MAC teams are on a run of 11-4 ATS (73.3%) in their last 15 tries as dogs of 6.5 points or more in the NCAA tourney.

–   MAC teams have gone Under the total in their last six NCAA tourney games (100%).

MEAC

Trends

–   MEAC teams are on a 4-16 SU and 5-15 ATS (25%) slide in the NCAAs.

–   MEAC teams are 1-10 SU and 2-9 ATS (18.2%) in their last 11 NCAA tourney games as double-digit dogs.

–   NCAA Tourney games featuring MEAC teams have trended heavily Under on totals, 18-10 (64.3%) in the last 28.

Missouri Valley

Trends

–   Missouri Valley Conference teams have gone 20-15 SU and 20-14-1 ATS (58.8%) in the NCAA tournament since 2013 but are currently on a 0-4 SU and ATS skid.

–   Missouri Valley teams are on an 18-10-1 ATS (64.3%) NCAA tourney run against power conference schools.

–   Missouri Valley schools are 6-4 SU and 7-1-2 ATS (70%) in their last 10 NCAA tourney contests vs. the SEC.

–   Missouri Valley teams are 15-6-1 ATS (71.4%) since 2006 as a NCAA tournament underdog of 3 points or more.

–   Underdogs are 20-7-1 ATS (74.1%) since 2013 in Missouri Valley NCAA tourney games.

–   Under the total is 15-6 (71.4%) in the last 20 Missouri Valley NCAA tourney games.

Mountain West

Trends

–   I have documented Mountain West teams’ struggles well in the NCAAs in recent years, as collectively, they are just 30-63 SU and 29-61-3 ATS (32.2%) since 2001, including 4-6 SU and 3-7 ATS in 2024.

–   As tournament underdogs, Mountain West teams are just 11-44 SU and 14-38-3 ATS (26.9%) since 2001.

–   Mountain West Conference teams have been totally overmatched against major conference programs in the NCAAs since 2000, 13-51 SU and 16-46-2 ATS (25.8%).

–   As seeds of 8 or worse in the NCAAs, Mountain West teams are on a brutal 5-37 SU and 7-33-2 ATS (17.5%) since 2003!

–   It’s a stretch to find any NCAA tourney trends in which Mountain West teams are successful, but they do boast a 14-14-1 ATS (50%) mark versus fellow mid-major schools since 2002.

Northeast

Trends

–   Northeast teams are 4-1 ATS over the last two NCAA tourneys, snapping a slide of 4-9-1 ATS in the prior 14 games.

–   Northeast Conference teams are on an 8-3 Over (72.7%) surge as a double-digit NCAA tourney underdog.

Ohio Valley

Trends

–   Ohio Valley Conference teams have gone 1-5 SU and ATS (16.7%) in their last six NCAA tournament games after a 15-6 ATS run prior.

–   Ohio Valley teams are 8-3 ATS (72.7%) in their last 11 NCAA tourney games when playing as dogs of 9 points or more.

–   Over the total is 10-3 (76.9%) in the last 13 Ohio Valley NCAA tourney games.

Patriot

Trends

–   Patriot League teams are 10-9 ATS (52.6%) in the first round of the NCAA tournament since 2004 but are 1-4 ATS (20%) in all other games.

–   Patriot League teams are 10-6 (62.5%) ATS as double-digit underdogs in the NCAAs since 2000.

–   Patriot League teams are 12-8 (60%) ATS vs. power conference foes in the NCAAs since 2000, but 1-7 SU and 2-6 ATS (25%) against fellow mid-major teams.

SEC

Trends

–   The last five NCAA tournaments have been a struggle for SEC teams, as they are just 44-43 SU and 33-54 ATS (37.9%) since the Friday of the first round in the 2018 tourney. They were a combined 8-8 SU and ATS in 2024. This trend figures to get tested heavily in 2025.

–   As NCAA favorites of more than 20 points, SEC teams are 11-0 Over the total (100%) since 2001, scoring 86.5 PPG.

–   Underdogs are 48-32 ATS (60%) in the last 80 SEC NCAA tourney games Overall, but they were just 5-11 ATS last year.

–   As pick ’ems or small favorites of 5 points or less, SEC teams are an ugly 45-51 SU and 37-55-4 ATS (40.2%) in the NCAAs since 1999.

–   SEC teams have been a solid wager in the Sweet 16, going 23-14-2 ATS (62.2%) since 2003.

–   SEC teams are on a 17-8 Over the total (68%) run in Elite Eight games.

–   Seeded in the bottom half of the field (#9-#14), SEC teams have struggled to a 10-25 SU and 13-20-2 ATS (39.4%) record since 2007.

–   The #4 seed and the SEC haven’t meshed well of late, as they are 18-25 ATS (41.9%) in that spot since 2000 and have gone Under the total at a 30-12-1 (71.4%) rate.

–   SEC teams are on a 3-8 ATS (27.3%) skid versus mid-major teams in the NCAAs and are 7-14 ATS (33.3%) in the last 21.

Southern

Trends

–   Southern Conference teams have been very competitive in the NCAAs when playing as an underdog of fewer than 15 points, going 17-6 ATS (73.9%) in the last 23.

–   Southern Conference teams have trended Under the total in recent NCAAs, going 12-4 (75%) in the last 16.

–   Teams from the Southern Conference have covered six straight NCAA first round games (100% ATS).

Southland

Trends

–   As underdogs of 8.5 points or less (or favored), Southland Conference teams are 8-6-1 ATS (57.1%) in their last 15 NCAA tournament tries, but when a larger underdog than that, they are 0-15 SU and 5-9-1 ATS (35.7%) since 2000.

–   Southland Conference teams are 12-5 Under the total (70.6%) in their last 17 NCAA tournament first round games.

Summit

Trends

–   Overall, Summit League teams are on a 7-4-1 ATS (63.6%) run in NCAA tourney action, and underdogs are 8-3-1 ATS (72.7%) in those games. However, both trends are 0-3 SU and ATS in the last three years.

–   Summit League teams have been a very competitive first round NCAA team in recent years, going 2-8 SU but 6-3-1 ATS (66.7%) in the last 10.

–   Recognized as a high-scoring, up-tempo league, five of the last seven NCAA tourney games featuring a Summit League team went Under the total (71.4%).

Sun Belt

Trends

–   Sun Belt teams have gone Under the total in eight of their last nine (88.9%) NCAA tourney games.

–   As #14-#16 seeds in the NCAAs, Sun Belt teams are on a 6-11-1 ATS (35.3%) slide since 1999, but as #13 or better, they’ve gone 11-5 ATS (68.8%) in that same span.

–   As underdogs of 7.5 points or less, Sun Belt teams are on a 3-10 SU and 4-8-1 ATS (33%) slide in the NCAA’s, but when +8 or higher, they are 13-5 ATS (72.2%) since 2000.

–   Sun Belt teams seem to take some motivation from playing major conference teams, as they are on an NCAA tourney run of 8-4 ATS (66.7%) versus those foes since 2008.

–   Sun Belt teams are 12-3 Under the total (80%) in NCAA tourney games since ‘13

SWAC

Trends

–   SWAC teams are on a 6-4 ATS (60%) run currently in NCAA tourney games, including three straight wins in First Four games.

–   As NCAA tourney dogs of +26 or more, SWAC teams are 0-7 SU and 1-6 ATS (14.3%) since 2000.

WAC

Trends

–   WAC teams have won just three of their last 25 games in the NCAAs since 2006, going 11-14 ATS. However, they are 6-1 ATS (85.7%) in their last seven, and Grand Canyon did end an 18-game losing skid last year.

–   Six of the last eight WAC first round NCAA tourney games have gone Over the total (75%).

West Coast

Trends

–   Going into the 2025 NCAAs, West Coast Conference teams are on a 5-13 ATS (27.8%) tourney skid.

–   West Coast Conference teams are just 2-12 SU and 3-11 ATS (21.4%) in their last 14 NCAA games against top 3 seeds.

–   West Coast Conference teams haven’t been as good as suspected as NCAA tournament underdogs, going 7-23 SU and 8-22 ATS (26.7%) since 2007, including 11 straight outright and ATS losses.

–   WCC teams have struggled against other non-major conference teams in NCAA tourney play, going 20-9 SU but 9-20 ATS (31%) since 2004.

–   WCC teams are just 5-14 ATS (26.3%) in their last 19 NCAA tourney games as favorites of 9.5 points or more.

–   Favorites have won the last seven tourney games SU and ATS (100%) between West Coast and Big East conferences in the NCAAs.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR