March Madness Second Round Analytics Report:
On Tuesday, I started a series qualifying the key data from my recently published articles in the VSiN March Mania Betting Guide for the First Four game, essentially taking the leg work out of the process for readers. I followed that with a piece on Thursday for the First Round. This next piece is of course for the second round, and I will continue this for every successive round afterward. Hopefully, it helps you attack the tournament more successfully in 2025. Best of luck on the Saturday and Sunday games.
Note that all the trend records, unless noted, are as of heading into this year’s tournament.
From the “Navigating the Tournament Round by Round” article in the guide, here are the trends and qualifying games for the Second Round:
Prior Tournament Game Systems
Here are the “prior game reactionary systems” of 60% or better that I found when I studied the subject and how they impact the Saturday and Sunday games:
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.
ST MARY’S (CA) qualifies for this trend on Sunday
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.
DUKE and FLORIDA both qualify for this system on Sunday
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, 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.
AUBURN qualifies for this system on Saturday versus Creighton and ALABAMA qualifies on Sunday vs. St Mary’s (CA)
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.
The ST MARY’S (CA)-Alabama contest qualifies for this trend on Sunday
Second Round Trends
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, which is explained perhaps in the shorter prep period for the second round. They were 6-8 ATS in 2024.
This trend suggests to fade all consensus line moves. As of Saturday morning, opening lines have since moved towards Purdue, St John’s, Texas A&M, Drake, Auburn, BYU, Gonzaga, Tennessee, Iowa State, Michigan State, and Arizona
• Second round Top 4 seeds that won but didn’t cover the spread in the first round are 44-17 SU and33-27-1 ATS (55%) since 2013. They are also 34-24-3 Under (58.6%) the total.
This trend favors Auburn -9.5, Tennessee -4.5, Texas Tech –7.5, Florida -9.5. Note St Mary’s (CA) and Alabama cancel each other out
• 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.
DUKE -11.5 is the only double-digit favorite for the second round, and the Duke-Baylor total is 143.5
• Second round worse seeded teams playing as favorites have been wildly successful, 15-7 SU and ATS (68.2%) since 2002.
This trend favors Illinois -1.5
• 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.
This trend favors Purdue -6.5, Texas Tech -6.5, Iowa State -5.5, Alabama -5.5, Tennessee -5.5
Trends by seed
• #1 seeds are currently on a 5-12 ATS (29.4%) skid versus #8s in the second round but are 11-8 ATS (57.9%) versus #9s in that same 10-year window.
This trend favors Auburn -9.5 and Duke -11.5 but goes against Houston -4.5 and Florida -9.5
• 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 and10-21-2 ATS (32.3%) since 2002.
This trend goes against St John’s -6.5, Tennessee -5.5, Alabama -5.5, and Michigan State -7.5
• #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 and12-5 ATS (70.6%) since 2005.
This trend favors Wisconsin -1 and Kentucky +1.5
• Seeds #4-#6 have been stellar lately in the second round, with these spread runs entering 2024: #4’s 20-12 ATS (62.5%), #5 seeds 21-9 ATS (70%), #6 seeds 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!
This trend favors Purdue -6.5, Texas A&M -2.5, Maryland -7.5, Arizona -4.5, Illinois -1.5, BYU +1, Ole Miss +5.5. Purdue and Maryland qualify for the latter trend playing against a #12 seed
• Second round #10 seeds are on a 4-14 SU but 11-5-2 ATS (68.8%) run since 2011
This trend favors Arkansas +7.5 and New Mexico +7.5
• 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.
This trend goes against Kentucky +1.5
From the “Handicapping the tournament by conferences” article, here are the conference trends that will be applicable for the Second Round games on Saturday and Sunday:
ACC
Teams in the field/First matchup
DUKE (#1) vs. BAYLOR (#9-Big 12)
Trends
– Over the last three NCAA tournaments, the ACC boasts a record of 33-15 SU and ATS (68.8%).
This trend favors Duke -11.5
– ACC teams are 34-3 SU but 12-25 ATS (32.4%) in their last 37 as double-digit tourney favorites.
This trend goes against Duke -11.5
– 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.
The ACC trend favors Duke -11.5, the underdog trend favors Baylor +11.5
Big 12
Teams in the field/First matchup
HOUSTON (#1) vs. GONZAGA (#8-West Coast)
TEXAS TECH (#3) vs. DRAKE (#11-Missouri Valley)
IOWA STATE (#3) vs. OLE MISS (#6-SEC)
ARIZONA (#4) vs. OREGON (#5-Big Ten)
BYU (#6) vs. WISCONSIN (#3-Big Ten)
BAYLOR (#9) vs. DUKE (#1-ACC)
Trends
– 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, popular upset victims.
This trend goes against Arizona -4.5
– 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.
This trend favors Arizona -4.5 and Wisconsin -1
– Against mid-major teams in the NCAAs, Big 12 teams are on a 22-10 ATS (68.8%) surge.
This trend favors Houston -4.5 and Texas Tech -6.5
– Big 12 teams have struggled vs. Missouri Valley teams in NCAA tourney play, going just 3-7 SU and1-9 ATS (10%) since 2001.
This trend goes against Texas Tech -6.5
– 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.
This trend goes against Baylor +11.5
Big East
Teams in the field/First matchup
ST JOHN’S (#2) vs. ARKANSAS (#10-SEC)
CONNECTICUT (#8) vs. FLORIDA (#1-SEC)
CREIGHTON (#9) vs. AUBURN (#1-SEC)
Trends
– Big East teams have also thrived in the tournament’s second round of late, going 13-7 SU and15-5 ATS (75%) since ’17.
This trend favors St John’s -7.5, Creighton +9.5, Connecticut +9.5
– Top two seeded (#1’s and#2’s) from the Big East have validated their positions by going 28-6 SU and25-9 ATS (73.5%) in the NCAAs since 2016.
This trend favors St John’s -7.5
– The last 46 Big East teams to play as seeds of #7 or worse in the NCAA tourney are just 12-34 SU and16-30 ATS (34.8%).
This trend goes against Creighton +9.5 and Connecticut +9.5
– Favorites are 51-19 ATS (72.9%) in the last 58 Big East NCAA tourney games, including 23-5 ATS (82.1%) the last two years.
This trend favors St John’s -7.5, but goes against Creighton +9.5 and Connecticut +9.5
Big Ten
Note the Big Ten was a perfect 8-0 SU and ATS in the First Round!
Teams in the field/First matchup
ILLINOIS (#6) vs. KENTUCKY (#3-SEC)
MARYLAND (#4) vs. COLORADO STATE (#12-Mountain West)
MICHIGAN (#5) vs. TEXAS A&M (#4-SEC)
MICHIGAN STATE (#2) vs. NEW MEXICO (#10-Mountain West)
OREGON (#5) vs. ARIZONA (#4-Big 12)
PURDUE (#4) vs. MCNEESE STATE (#12-Southland)
UCLA (#7) vs. TENNESSEE (#2-SEC)
WISCONSIN (#3) vs. BYU (#6-Big 12)
Trends
– Big Ten teams have been vulnerable in the #4 seed of late, 4-13-1 ATS (23.5%) in their last 18 tourney tries.
This trend goes against Purdue -6.5 and Maryland -7.5
– Overall, Big Ten teams and top six seeds haven’t meshed well since 2015, as they are 49-33 SU but 35-46-1 ATS (43.2%) in that scenario.
This trend goes against ALL Big Ten teams except UCLA
– 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.
This trend favors Illinois -1.5, Michigan +2.5, and UCLA +5.5
– Big Ten teams have gone just 16-20 SU and15-20-1 ATS (42.9%) since 2015 in the NCAA tournament vs. Big 12 foes.
This trend goes against Oregon +4.5 and Wisconsin -1
– 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, 6-53 SU and 21-38 ATS (35.6%) since ’98. They were 0-3 SU and ATS in this role a year ago, losing by 19 PPG.
This trend goes against UCLA +5.5
– 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 2006.
This trend goes against Maryland -7.5, Michigan State -7.5, and Purdue -6.5
– 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 ’17.
This trend goes against ALL Big Ten teams for the second round
Missouri Valley
Teams in the field/First matchup
DRAKE (#11) vs. TEXAS TECH (#3-Big 12)
Trends
– MVC teams are on an 18-10-1 ATS (64.3%) NCAA tourney run against power conference schools.
This trend favors Drake +6.5
– MVC teams are 15-6-1 ATS (71.4%) since 2006 as an NCAA tournament underdog of 3 points or more.
This trend favors Drake +6.5
– Underdogs are 20-7-1 ATS (74.1%) since 2013 in MVC NCAA tourney games.
This trend favors Drake +6.5
– Under the total is 15-6 (71.4%) in the last 20 Missouri Valley NCAA tourney games.
This trend favors Under the total in DRAKE-TEXAS TECH 126.5
Mountain West
Teams in the field/First matchup
NEW MEXICO (#10) vs. MICHIGAN STATE (#2-Big Ten)
COLORADO STATE (#12) vs. MARYLAND (#4-Big Ten)
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.
This trend goes against New Mexico +7.5 and Colorado State +7.5
– As tournament underdogs, Mountain West teams are just 11-44 SU and 14-38-3 ATS (26.9%) since 2001.
This trend goes against New Mexico +7.5 and Colorado State +7.5
– 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%).
This trend goes against New Mexico +7.5 and Colorado State +7.5
– As seeds of 8 or worse in the NCAAs, MWC teams are on a brutal 5-37 SU and 7-33-2 ATS (17.5%) since 2003!
This trend goes against New Mexico +7.5 and Colorado State +7.5
SEC
Teams in the field/First matchup
ALABAMA (#2) vs. ST MARY’S (CA) (#7-West Coast)
ARKANSAS (#10) vs. ST JOHN’S (#2-Big East)
AUBURN (#1) vs. CREIGHTON (#9-Big East)
FLORIDA (#1) vs. CONNECTICUT (#8-Big East)
KENTUCKY (#3) vs. ILLINOIS (#6-Big Ten)
OLE MISS (#6) vs. IOWA STATE (#3-Big 12)
TENNESSEE (#2) vs. UCLA (#7-Big Ten)
TEXAS A&M (#4) vs. MICHIGAN (#5-Big Ten)
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.
This trend goes against ALL SEC teams for second round
– Underdogs are 48-32 ATS (60%) in the last 80 SEC NCAA tourney games overall, but they were just 5-11 ATS last year.
This trend goes against Auburn -9.5, Florida -9.5, Alabama -5.5, Tennessee -5.5, and Texas A&M -2.5, but favors Kentucky +1.5, Ole Miss +5.5, and Arkansas +7.5
– As pick em’s 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.
This trend goes against Texas A&M -2.5
– Seeded in the bottom half of the field (#9-#14), SEC teams have struggled to a 10-25 SU and13-20-2 ATS (39.4%) record since 2007.
This trend goes against Arkansas +7.5
– 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.
This trend goes against Texas A&M -2.5
– 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 last 21.
This trend goes against Alabama -5.5
Southland
Teams in the field/First matchup
MCNEESE STATE (#12) vs. PURDUE (#4-Big Ten)
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.
This trend favors McNeese State +6.5
West Coast
Teams in the field/First matchup
ST MARY’S (CA) (#7) vs. ALABAMA (#2-SEC)
GONZAGA (#8) vs. HOUSTON (#1-Big 12)
Trends
– Going into the 2025 NCAAs, West Coast Conference teams are on a 5-13 ATS (27.8%) tourney skid.
This trend goes against Gonzaga +4.5 and St Mary’s (CA) +5.5
– 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.
This trend goes against Gonzaga +4.5 and St Mary’s (CA) +5.5
– West Coast Conference teams haven’t been as good as suspected as NCAA tournament underdogs, 7-23 SU and 8-22 ATS (26.7%) since 2007, including 11 straight outright and ATS losses.
This trend goes against Gonzaga +4.5 and St Marys-CA +5.5
Top Head-to-Head Trends for the Second Round
There are only three Second Round games with any recent relevancy in terms of head-to-head history:
(857) BAYLOR at (858) DUKE
* DUKE has beaten Baylor in back-to-back head-to-head games SU and ATS, most recently 78-70 in December 2023
(859) CONNECTICUT at (860) FLORIDA
* CONNECTICUT is on a four-game SU and ATS winning streak against Florida, most recent win coming in 12/22
(871) OREGON at (872) ARIZONA
* Fourteen of the last 18 games in the former Pac-12 rivalry between Oregon and Arizona went Over the total
