Some very reliable patterns have formed in recent NCAA Tournament action. This past year was a banner one for those who chased the chalk, a complete turn from 2023’s craziness. In fact, over the course of the tournament last year, favorites went 40-27 ATS (59.7%). Also, we are currently in a pattern of early-round Unders, with those going 45-26-1 (63.4%) over the last two tournaments. I like to feel that readers of this particular piece have been not only able to stay afloat through these variations but also thrive by simply following some of the trends and systems I shared that break down the tournament on a round-by-round basis. In it, I look for edges by seed, line range, conferences, and much more.

The data used to derive these trends was pulled mostly from tournament games dating back to 2001. The year 2001 was not chosen randomly. That was the first year the tournament was expanded beyond 64 teams. Remember, we had no tournament at all in 2020 and an unusual single locale (Indianapolis) event in 2021.

 

Prior Tournament Game Systems

Before getting into the round-by-round stuff, I wanted to share five different “prior game reactionary systems” of 60% or better that I found. These angles focus on how a team did in one particular NCAA tournament game and how it affects their next performance. Look for these and give them consideration as the tournament moves along. For what it’s worth, I will be pointing these systems out for VSiN readers in my pre-round updated pieces over the next few weeks.

NCAA Tournament Prior Game System #1

Teams that win in the NCAAs by scoring less than 60 points have gone 46-43 SU and 56-33 ATS (63%) in the follow-up game since 2006

This is an interesting angle in that it could be assumed that this team “survived” a below-average offensive performance in a game and has a second life.

NCAA Tournament Prior Game System #2

Teams that win in the NCAAs by scoring 88 or more points have gone 57-10 SU and 42-25 ATS (62.7%) in the follow-up game since 2000 when favored by 6 points or more.

Obviously, a big offensive performance can dramatically lift the confidence of a team in a tournament setting. I would think this system would be enhanced in short turnaround games.

NCAA Tournament Prior Game System #3

Teams that win in upset fashion in the NCAAs by allowing 56 or fewer points have gone 28-28 SU and 38-18 ATS (67.9%) in the follow-up game since 2010.

Just as a big offensive outing can lift a team, so can a huge defensive effort that helped spring an upset. A 50% outright record for a team coming off an outright upset win is tremendous if you think about the chances that they would be an underdog again. These are clearly dangerous and galvanized teams.

NCAA Tournament Prior Game System #4

Teams that win in the NCAAs but are beaten by 7+ points on the point spread have rebounded nicely in the next game, going 30-8 SU and 25-12-1 ATS (67.6%) since 2010.

Judging by the fact that these teams were able to survive underperforming efforts, they are obviously among the stronger teams in the field. There is a reason the term “survive and advance” has accompanied this tournament for many years. Don’t expect a second straight flat effort.

NCAA Tournament Prior Game System #5

Teams that win in the NCAAs by scoring less than 60 points have gone 48-30 Under the total (61.5%) in the follow-up game since 2017

This is similar to #1 above, and it could be argued that since the team won with a lower-scoring effort in the prior game, they are probably trying to set a similar pace in the follow-up outing.

Navigating the Tournament Round by Round

As you’ll see from some of the analysis below, the tournament can change from round to round, and certain systematic patterns have formed in the ways you can profit from this transition.

First Round Games

Overall Trends

•  Teams that didn’t make their conference tournament championship game are on a first round slide of just 44-64-2 ATS (40.7%) versus conference champions, historically good go-against teams. However, they have put together back-to-back winning years, including 7-6 ATS in 2024, so we could be witnessing a shift as teams place less importance on advancing in their league title game as opposed to being ready for the NCAAs.

•  Power conference schools that lost SU and ATS in their conference championship game are 64-18 SU and 46-34-2 ATS (57.5%) in the first round over the last 16 seasons, a sign that the tournament experience they gained was valuable despite the conference championship loss.

•  Oddsmakers have done bettors a favor by signaling first round upsets, as small first round favorites of -1 to -3 are just 59-62 SU and 48-69-4 ATS (41%) since 2009. However, this trend has also swung the other way in the last two years, going 11-5 SU and ATS.

•  Of late, mid-level favorites of -3.5 to -7.5 have also struggled, going 41-27 SU but 28-40 ATS (41.2%) since 2016 in the first round.

•  Since 2016, first round double-digit favorites have been very successful, going 94-9 SU and 57-46 ATS (55.3%). This goes entirely against the Cinderella negative that the media and fans seem to crave.

•  On totals in the first round recently, games posted with totals of 149 or higher have trended decisively Under in the last five tourneys, going 21-10 (67.7%).

By Seeds

•  There are some sweet spots when it comes to betting #1 seeds. As huge favorites of -25.5 or more, they are 35-0 SU and 21-14 ATS (60%) since 2001. As favorites of -19 to -25 points, they are just 14-24 ATS (36.8%) since ‘09. When favored by 18.5 or less, they are on an 8-1 ATS run.  

•  #1 seeds have flexed their muscles defensively over the last seven tournaments, going 14-6 Under the total (70%) while holding opponents to 59 PPG. 

•  Be wary of laying big numbers with #2 seeds, as they are just 14-24-1 ATS (36.8%) since 2005 when favored by 17 points or more. Those #2s favored by less than 17 points are on an impressive 22-8-2 ATS (73.3%) run since 2007.

•  The last 27 #3 seeds to play in first round games are on an impressive 25-2 SU and 17-10 ATS (63%) surge. Of course, one of those outright losses came a year ago when Oakland upended Kentucky.

•  #3 seeds playing to lower than average totals (<140), and perhaps expected to win with defense, have been solid wagers, going 42-6 SU and 34-18 ATS (65.4%) in their last 52.

•  #3 seeds playing as single-digit favorites are on a massive Under the total run, going 20-7 (74.1%) since 2003, with games producing almost 6.9 PPG below their posted numbers on average.

•  #4 seeds have been somewhat unreliable lately for bettors, going 15-24-1 ATS (38.5%) over the last 10 tourney seasons, including 7-15-1 ATS (31.8%) when favored by 8.5 points or more.

•  Quite the opposite of the #3 seeds, the #4s have really struggled in lower totaled games of less than 142, going 15-7 SU but 5-17 ATS (22.7%) since 2013.

•  #5 seeds broke a lengthy skid versus the #12’s in 2023 by going 4-0 SU and ATS. They fell back to normal last year by going 2-2 SU and 1-3 ATS. In all, they are 23-34-3 ATS (40.4%) over the last 15 tournaments. These #5 seeds remain extremely vulnerable when playing as 6-point favorites or more lately, going 20-9 SU but 9-18-2 ATS (33.3%) since 2009.

•  Power conference schools are 24-19 SU and 13-28-2 ATS (31.7%) as #5 seeds in the first round since 2008, including Wisconsin’s outright loss in 2024. As #12 seeds, they are on a 13-4-1 ATS (76.5%) surge.

•  #5’s have also struggled in expectedly lower scoring games with totals of 141 or less recently, going 13-27-2 ATS (32.5%) since ’09.

•  #6 seeds are 28-32 SU and 22-37-1 ATS (37.3%) in their last 60 first round games versus #11’s (also 39-19-2 Under – 67.2%)

•  In #6-#11 games set with the #6 playing as an underdog or pick ’em, the #6’s are just 5-12 SU and ATS (29.4%) since 2001. This is a classic trap set by oddsmakers and it happened twice in 2024, with the seeds splitting the games.

•  Mid-major schools playing as #6 seeds have floundered against power conference #11’s, going 3-10 SU and ATS (23.1%) in the last 13 tries.

•  Be aware of a total opportunity when #6 seeds are favored by 4 points or more, as Unders are 20-5-1 (80%) in such games since ’09, with games producing just 129.8 PPG on average, with totals of about 138.7.

•  Mid-major schools playing as #7 seeds have been a sound wagering choice, going 22-9-1 ATS (71%) since 2004. In the 2024 bracket, #7 Dayton (+1.5) edged Nevada by 3.

•  #7 seeds playing in the +3 to -3 line range have proven to be quite profitable over the long haul, going 42-21 SU and 39-23-1 ATS (62.9%) since 2003, including 4-0 SU and ATS last year.

•  #8 seeds went 1-3 SU and ATS in 2024, running their six-year mark to just 8-16 SU and ATS (33.3%).

•  As small favorites of 3 points or less over #9’s, #8 seeds are on a brutal skid of 8-15 SU and 5-17-1 ATS (22.7%)!

•  Of the last 29 #8-#9 matchups, 19 have gone Over the total (65.5%).

•  Combined, mid-major conference programs playing in the #4-#6 seeds over the last 22 years have gone 30-24 SU but 21-32-1 ATS (39.6%). They have been far more successful against the spread in the lesser pressure #7 and #8 seeds, going 35-25-4 ATS (58.3%) in that same time range.

•  Power conference programs have been VERY dangerous in the #11-#14 seed range, going 30-19 SU and 31-17-1 ATS (64.6%) since 2008. In the 2024 tournament, #11 seeds Oregon, NC State, and #10 Colorado all won their first round games.

Second Round Games

General trends

•  Bettors have not enjoyed a winning second round since 2017, going 27-45-1 ATS (37.5%) in moving opening lines since then. This is a change from the first round, explained perhaps in the shorter prep period for the second round. They were 6-8 ATS in 2024.

•  Second round Top 4 seeds that won but didn’t cover the spread in the first round are 44-17 SU and 33-27-1 ATS (55%) since 2013. They are also 34-24-3 Under (58.6%) the total.

•  Second round double-digit favorites are 52-2 SU and 34-20 ATS (63%) since 2001. Sixteen of the last 25 such games went Under (64%) the total, with the favorites allowing just 61 PPG.

•  Second round worse seeded teams playing as favorites have been wildly successful, going 15-7 SU and ATS (68.2%) since 2002.

•  There has been a crazy trend that has developed in the second round lately, with favorites in the tight -5.5 to -6.5 line range, as they boast a 50-12 SU and 42-20 ATS (67.7%) record since 1998.

Trends by seed

•  Over the last 25 years, there has been a clear benchmark for when heavily favored #1 seeds struggle to win ATS, and it comes at the 12-point line. In fact, in that span, #1 seeds favored by 12 or more are 24-1 SU but 10-15 ATS (40%).

•  #1 seeds are currently on a 5-12 ATS (29.4%) skid versus #8 seeds in the second round but are 11-8 ATS (57.9%) versus #9 seeds in that same 10-year window.

•  Second round #2 seeds have felt the upset pressure, going just 16-25-2 ATS (39%) in their last 43 games. Those favored by 5 points or less are just 14-19 SU and 10-21-2 ATS (32.3%) since 2002.

•  #3 seeds haven’t been great overall for bettors, but they have been at their best in expectedly higher scoring games (totals >=144), going 14-3 SU and 12-5 ATS (70.6%) since 2005.

•  Seeds #4-#6 have been stellar lately in the second round, with these spread runs entering 2024: #4 seeds 20-12 ATS (62.5%), #5’s 21-9 ATS (70%), #6’s 20-10 ATS (66.7%). Surviving the first round upset attempt has seemingly propelled these teams to solid round two performances. Furthermore, collectively, when not playing against another seed of that range, they are 19-1 SU and 17-3 ATS (85%) since 2014!

•  Second round #10 seeds are on a 4-14 SU but 11-5-2 ATS (68.8%) run since 2011.

•   In second round games between two double-digit seeds, the better seed is 13-2 SU and 12-3 ATS (80%) since 2001, playing each time as the favorite. Alternatively, when facing seeds in the 5-7 range, double-digit seeds are just 5-22 SU and 8-16-3 ATS (33.3%) in that same timeframe.

•  #14 seeds that pulled off upsets in the first round are 0-11 SU and 1-10 ATS (9.1%) in the second round since 1998, losing by an average of 14 PPG.

• Better-seeded teams are just 10-17 SU and ATS (37%) when playing as underdogs to worse-seeded teams in the second round since 2001.

•   In second round games between mid-major teams, underdogs of more than 7 points are on a 6-5 SU and 9-2 ATS run (81.8%). Favorites of 7 points or less in these games are on a 12-1 SU and 11-2 ATS surge (84.6%).

Sweet 16 Games

•  Laying big points seems to be getting riskier in the Sweet 16 in recent years, as favorites of 5 points or more are 14-11 SU but just 8-17 ATS (32%) since 2017.

•  Sweet 16 favorites of 8 points or more are on a 27-8-3 Under (77.1%) the total run allowing 62.7 PPG.

•  Sweet 16 #1 and #2 seeds have taken care of business lately and combined are on a 38-17 SU and 31-23-1 ATS (57.4%) run over the last 10 seasons. However, they are just 4-8 SU and ATS over the last two years, as many people’s brackets have been obliterated on those Thursday and Friday nights.

•  Sweet 16 round is usually the end of the line for double-digit seeds. However, they have been very competitive as underdogs, going 16-7-1 ATS (69.6%) in that role since 2011.

•  The popular #1-#4 matchup has been all #1 lately, going 12-4 SU and 9-6-1 ATS (60%) over the last 10 tournaments. However, #4 seeds Duke and Alabama both won last year over #1 seeds.

•  In Sweet 16 games between teams “both not supposed to be there” or both seeded 5 or worse, the lower-seeded team is 11-7 SU and ATS (61.1%) since 2001.

• Better-seeded teams playing as underdogs or pick ’ems in Sweet 16 games are on a 6-2 SU and ATS (75%) surge.

•  In recent Sweet 16 games featuring a better-seeded mid-major team taking on a lower-seeded Power 6 conference team, the latter are on a current 7-5 SU and 7-4-1 ATS (63.6%) run.

•  Since 2010, in Sweet 16 games involving at least one mid-major conference program, Under the total is 26-14 (65%).

•  Over the last 10 years, there have been 25 Sweet 16 games with totals of less than 138, and Under the total is 18-7 (75%).

•  I mentioned earlier that bettors have not enjoyed a winning second round since 2017, and I referenced the short prep window as the potential reason. In the Sweet 16, they have bounced back, going 38-27-1 ATS (58.5%) in moving opening lines since 2012.

Elite Eight Games

•  The Elite Eight round has for long been a dangerous spot for better-seeded teams, as they are just 50-46 SU and 36-56-4 ATS (39.1%) since 2000.

•  Elite Eight favorites of 4 points or fewer have gone just 4-10 SU and 3-10-1 ATS (23.1%) in their last 14 games and are just 17-33-1 ATS (34%) since 1998. However, both teams that qualified last year won their games outright and ATS.

•  Elite Eight games have been decisive, with outright winners owning a stellar record of 65-5-2 ATS (92.9%) since 2006.

•  Cinderella teams, or those not from power conferences, have been good bets when they reach the Elite Eight round, going 14-12 SU and 15-10-1 ATS (60%) since 2003, including 9-2-1 ATS as underdogs of 3 points or more.

•  The Elite Eight round is clearly a “survival round” for #1 seeds, as they are just 34-25 SU but 25-30-4 ATS (45.4%) in this round since 2001.

•  Elite Eight #1-#3 seeds have struggled mightily against teams seeded #4 or worse, going 17-14 SU and 8-21-2 ATS (27.6%) since 2001.

•  The Elite Eight round has easily been the best round to play Overs on totals, as the Over is 88-66-2 (57.1%) since 2001. In games with lower totals of 143 or less, it has been 59 Overs and 30 Unders, for 66.3%.

•  In Elite Eight games between teams “both not supposed to be there” or both seeded 3 or worse, the lower-seeded team has gone 8-4 SU and 9-3 ATS (75%) since 2013.

•  In Elite Eight games matching #1 and #3 seeds, the #1 has been stellar, going 12-3 SU and 11-4 ATS since 2007 (73.3%).

•  In Elite Eight games featuring a #2, #3, or #4 seed “expected to win” against a lower seed, these better seeds have gone just 8-17 SU and 4-21 ATS (16%) since 2005!

Final Four Games

•  In the Final Four, outright winning teams own a record of 37-7-2 ATS (84.1%) since 2001, although most recently, San Diego State did beat Florida Atlantic in a 2023 clash without covering.

•  Final Four #1 seeds are 19-5 SU and 14-9-1 ATS (60.9%) since 2001 when not matched against another #1 seed. This was 2-0 SU and ATS last year, with UConn and Purdue each winning by double-digits.

•  Final Four favorites of 5 points or more are on a solid surge of 21-3 SU and 15-8-1 ATS (65.2%) over the last 25 years.

•  The last seven Final Four games that didn’t feature a #1 or #2 seed have all gone to the better-seeded team, with that team going 6-1 ATS (85.7%).

•  The last seven mid-major conference teams to reach the Final Four and face a power conference team have gone 4-3 SU and 3-4 ATS (42.9%).

•  ACC teams have been most successful in the Final Four, going 11-7 SU and 10-8 ATS (55.6%) since 2001, including 8-2 SU and 6-4 ATS when favored.

•  On totals, the last seven Final Four games that had posted numbers of 130 or less went Under, producing just 112.2 combined PPG on average. In all other games, totals are 24-17-2 Over (58.5%) in the Final Four since 1999.

•  Bettors have been sharp in moving lines for the Final Four games since 2015, going 12-1 SU and 8-5 ATS (61.5%) in games that have seen the point spread shift off the opener.

•  Eight of the last 10 Final Four games that have seen an opening total moved downward through the week until tip-off have ended up going Over the total (80%).

Championship Games

• Championship game favorites of 3 points or more are on a 15-3 SU and 13-5 ATS (72.2%) run, while those favored by 2.5 or less are just 4-4 SU and ATS since 1998. Last year, UConn (-7) handled Purdue rather comfortably, 75-60.

•  Only twice in the last 24 years did the championship-winning team not cover the spread (Duke against Butler in 2010, Kansas versus North Carolina in 2022).

•  In the last 15 championship games matching non-equal seeds, the better seed is on a 13-3 SU and 11-5 ATS (68.8%) run.

•  Over the last 24 years of championship games, excluding the improbable 2014 matchup of #7 vs. #8, and the 2023 #4 vs. #9, teams seeded #3 or worse are just 2-9 SU and 4-7 ATS (36.4%).

•  Big East schools own a perfect 8-0 SU and ATS record in championship games since 2001, while Big Ten teams are winless at 0-8 SU and ATS. These trends “collided” in the 2024 title game win by UConn over Purdue.

•  The last eight mid-major conference teams to reach the championship game are just 2-6 SU and ATS (25%). All but one of the seven of those games that had totals went Under (85.7%).

•  There have been eight championship games since 2001 that closed with totals of 150 or higher, and those contests were 6-2 Under the total (75%).

•  Bettors have gone just 7-10 ATS (41.2%) in their last 17 championship games when moving opening lines towards one team or the other. In the last two years, they have won with UConn, however. This same group is on a 14-7 (66.7%) run when moving totals one way or the other. Last year’s game pushed downward from 147.5 to 143 and went Under handily.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR