The NCAA Tournament is a three-week event that has grown into a far bigger phenomenon than anyone probably envisioned. The only other event that probably captivates the sports world’s attention more is the Super Bowl each February. It certainly doesn’t make things easier for those handicapping the action, as the enormity of the madness can change things. 

The tourney attracts even the most casual fans, whether they are in pools, picking brackets, or choosing random games on which to place their wagers. In many cases, this can alter the bookmaking process and, hence, the routines of the bettors who have been grinding it out since November. This makes it the most important time of the year to have a foundation for your handicapping.

 

***Top College Basketball Betting Resources***

*Join thousands of other sports bettors and unlock access to picks, public betting splits data, & the VSiN live video broadcast by upgrading to VSiN Pro. Grab your first month for less than $10.*

I pride myself on sharing only information that I find to be foundational in nature. One sporting event in which I rely heavily on recent data is the NCAA Tournament. Although the teams involved might change from year to year, the motivation, relative strengths, and other extenuating factors involved in handicapping the games do not. That is one of the foremost principles I look for in developing betting trends and systems.

This past year’s tournament aside, some reliable patterns have formed in recent NCAA Tournament action. I can almost assure you that we won’t witness anything near the level of crazy we saw last March when not a single No. 1 seed reached the Elite Eight, and the Final Four consisted of a No. 4, two No. 5s, and a No. 9 seed. To put it mildly, brackets were busted, and bettors backing the big favorites, other than UConn, of course, suffered depleted bankrolls. 

On top of that, 27 of the first 36 games went Under the total. Still, along the way, readers of this particular piece stayed afloat by 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.

I caution every year that trends and systems can turn at any time. Still, they can also prove to be the foundation for successful wagering, especially if they form off of bettor’s misconceptions or are the result of physical mismatches that can arise and only the oddsmaking experts understand them. With all that said, gauge carefully for yourself whether or not you find there to be enough of a “foundation” to the info to make it bet-worthy.

Note that the data used to derive these trends was primarily pulled from tournament games dating back to 2001. In almost all cases, however, I’ve listed a date or the number of games span for which each trend has stood. The year 2001 was not chosen randomly. That was the first year that the tournament was expanded beyond 64 teams. Remember that after no tournament in 2020 and an unusual single locale (Indianapolis) event in 2021, this will be the third year in a row that the proceedings are back to “normal.”

If you’re curious about the general results from 2023, favorites won 44 out of 66 games, with one contest being a pick ’em spread. They were 33-32-1 ATS (50.8%) in those games. Ironically, the 44-22 outright mark was precisely the same as in 2022, and the ATS record was three wins better. 

So as crazy as the tournament got in the late rounds, there was little abnormal prior. However, there were three more double-digit teams to advance to the second round than in the prior season, with only one of those, Princeton, winning a second-round contest.

Navigating the Tournament Round by Round

As you’ll see from the analysis below, the tournament can change from round to round. Certain systematic patterns have formed regarding how to profit from this transition.

First Four Games

•    Over the last 11 NCAA Tournaments, underdogs own a 24-19 ATS (55.8%) edge in the First Four round.

•    Since 2001, there have only been eight First Four games with lines of 5 points or higher. Favorites are 7-1 SU and 6-2 ATS (75%) in those contests.

•    More on point spread benchmarks, in that same span since 2001, favorites of less than 5 points are 26-22 SU but just 19-28-1 ATS (40.4%)

•    Outright winners have gone 35-3 ATS (92.1%) in the First Four round since 2013, although in a strange most recent loss, Drake did win vs. Wichita State without covering in 2021 on a 1.5-point spread.

•    Formerly, all First Four games used to match No. 16 seeds. Recently, First Four games featuring seeds 12 or better have trended 15-7 Under (68.2%)

•    Higher totaled First Four games, or those higher than 139, have also trended 14-7 Under (66.7%)

First Round Games

Overall Trends

•    Teams that didn’t make their conference tournament championship game are on a first-round slide of just 37-58-2 ATS (38.9%) versus conference champions, good go-against teams. However, in another sign of how rare things were in the 2023 NCAA Tournament, this group was 5-1 ATS.

•    Power conference schools that lost SU and ATS in their conference championship game are 60-16 SU and 42-32-2 ATS (56.8%) in the first round over the last 15 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 54-59 SU and 43-66-4 ATS (39.5%) since 2009. However, this trend also swung the other way last year, going 6-2 SU and ATS.

•    Of late, mid-level favorites of -3.5 to -7.5 have also struggled, going 38-22 SU but 27-33 ATS (45%) since 2016 in the first round.

•    In the last 10 NCAA Tournaments, first-round favorites of 13.5 points or more have only enjoyed one winning ATS season, that coming in 2022. In that span, they have compiled a record of 82-9 SU but 39-50-1 ATS (43.8%). Last year, these teams were 2-5 ATS, with Arizona and Purdue losing outright.

•    On recent first-round totals, games posted with totals of 149 or higher have trended decisively Under in the last four tourneys, going 17-6 (73.9%).

By Seeds

•    There are some sweet spots for betting No. 1 seeds. As favorites of -19 to -25 points, they are just 13-24 ATS (35.1%) since 2009. When favored by 18.5 or less, they are on an 8-1 ATS run.  

•    No. 1 seeds have flexed their muscles defensively over the last six tournaments, going 12-4 Under the total (75%) while holding opponents to 60.6 PPG. 

•    Be wary of laying big numbers with No. 2 seeds, as they are just 13-23-1 ATS (36.1%) since 2005 when favored by 17 points or more.  Those No. 2s favored by less than 17 points are on an impressive 20-8-2 ATS (71.4%) run since 2007.

•    The last 23 No. 3 seeds to play in first-round games are on an impressive 22-1 SU and 14-9 ATS (60.9%) surge.

•    No. 3 seeds playing as single-digit favorites are on a massive Under the total run, 20-7 (74.1%) since 2003, with games producing almost 6.9 PPG below their posted numbers on average.

•    No. 4 seeds have been somewhat unreliable lately for bettors, going 13-22-1 ATS (37.1%) over the last nine tourney seasons, including 6-14-1 ATS (30%) when favored by 8.5 points or more.

•    The No. 5 seeds broke a lengthy 18-31-3 ATS (36.7%) skid versus the No. 12 seeds last year by going 4-0 SU and ATS. Still, these No. 5s remain extremely vulnerable when playing as 6-point favorites or, more recently, 18-8 SU but 8-16-2 ATS (33.3%) since 2009.

•    Power conference schools are 24-18 SU and 13-27-2 ATS (32.5%) as No. 5 seeds in the first round since 2008. As No. 12 seeds, they are on a 13-4-1 ATS (76.5%) surge.

•    The No. 6 seeds are 27-29 SU and 21-34-1 ATS (38.2%) in their last 56 first-round games versus No. 11s (also 37-18-1 Under, 67.3%)

•    In No. 6 vs. No. 11 games set with the No. 6 playing as an underdog or pick ’em, the No. 6s are just 4-11 SU and ATS (26.7%) since 2001. This is a classic trap set by oddsmakers, and it happened last in 2022, with No. 6 Colorado State losing to Michigan.

•    Be aware of a total opportunity when No. 6 seeds are favored by 4 points or more, as Unders are 19-5 (79.2%) in such games since 2009, with games producing just 128.7 PPG on average and totals of about 138.2.

•    Non-power conference schools playing as No. 7 seeds have been a sound wagering choice, 21-9-1 ATS (70%) since 2004. In the 2022 bracket, No. 7 Murray State (-2) edged San Francisco by 5.

•    The No. 7 seeds playing in the +3 to -3 line range have proven to be quite profitable over the long haul, 38-21 SU and 35-23-1 ATS since 2003.

•    The No. 7 vs. No. 10 matchups have been among the rare higher-scoring tilts of late, going 18-13 Over (58.1%) since 2015.

•    The No. 8 seeds went 2-2 SU and ATS in 2023, running their five-year mark to just 7-13 SU and ATS (35%).

•    As small favorites of 3 points or less over No. 9’s, No. 8 seeds are on a brutal skid of 8-15 SU and 5-17-1 ATS (22.7%)!

•    Of the last 25 No. 8 vs. No. 9 matchups, 17 have gone Over the total (68%).

•    Combined, non-power conference programs playing in the No. 4-No. 6 seeds over the last 21 years have gone 28-23 SU but 20-30-1 ATS (40%). They have been far more successful against the spread in the lesser pressure No. 7 and No. 8 seeds, 33-24-4 ATS (57.9%) in that same time range.

•    Power conference programs have been very dangerous in the No. 11-No. 14 seed range, going 27-19 SU and 28-17-1 ATS (62.2%) since 2008.

Second Round Games

General trends

•    Bettors have not enjoyed a winning second round of the NCAA Tournament since 2017, going 21-37-1 ATS (36.2%) in moving opening lines since then. This is a change from the first round, perhaps explained by the shorter prep period for the second round.

•    Second-round top-4 seeds that won but didn’t cover the spread in the first round are 44-16 SU and 33-26-1 ATS (55.9%) since 2013. They are also 34-23-3 Under (59.6%) the total.

•    Second-round double-digit favorites are 49-2 SU and 31-20 ATS (60.8%) since 2001. Fifteen of the last 22 such games went Under (68.2%) the total, with the favorites allowing just 60.8 PPG.

Trends by seed

•    Over the last 25 years, there has been a clear benchmark for when heavily favored No. 1 seeds struggle to win ATS, which comes at the 12-point line. In fact, in that span, No. 1 seeds favored by 12 or more are 23-1 SU but 9-15 ATS (37.5%).

•    The No. 1 seeds are currently on a 4-12 ATS (25%) skid versus No. 8s in the second round but are 9-7 ATS versus No. 9s in that same 10-year window.

•    Second-round No. 2 seeds have felt the upset pressure, going just 14-23-2 ATS (37.8%) in their last 39 games. Those favored by five points or less are just 13-19 SU and 10-20-2 ATS (33.3%) since 2002.

•    It’s been a struggle lately in the second round for the top 3 seeds overall, as here are the current ATS slides they are on: No. 1s 12-18 ATS, No. 2s 14-23-1 ATS, No. 3s 9-17 ATS.

•    Seeds No. 4-No. 6 have been stellar lately in the second round, with these spread runs entering 2020: No. 4s 18-11 ATS, No. 5s 20-9 ATS, No. 6s 20-10 ATS. Surviving the first-round upset attempt has seemingly propelled these teams to solid round-two performances.

•    Second-round No. 10 seeds are on a 4-13 SU but 10-5-2 ATS (66.7%) run since 2011

•    In second-round games between two double-digit seeds, the better seed is 12-2 SU and ATS since 2001, playing each time as the favorite. Alternatively, when facing seeds in the 5-7 range, double-digit seeds are just 5-21 SU and 8-15-3 ATS (34.8%) in that same timeframe.

•    The No. 14 seeds that pulled off upsets in the first round are 0-10 SU and ATS (0%) in the second round since 1998, losing by an average of 14.8 PPG.

•    Better-seeded teams are just 10-16 SU and ATS (38.5%) 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%).

Sweet 16 Round

•    Laying big points seems to be getting riskier in the Sweet 16 of the NCAA Tournament in recent years, as favorites of 5 points or more are 13-9 SU but just 7-15 ATS (31.8%) since 2017.

•    Sweet 16 favorites of 8 points or more are on a 26-8-3 Under (76.5%), the total run allowing 63.0 PPG

•    The Sweet 16 No. 1 and No. 2 seeds have taken care of business lately. Together, they are on a 35-12 SU and 28-18-1 ATS (60.9%) run over the last nine seasons. However, they were just 1-3 SU and ATS a year ago.

•    The Sweet 16 round is usually the end of the line for double-digit seeds. However, they have been very competitive as underdogs, going 15-7-1 ATS (68.2%) in that role since 2011.

•    The popular No. 1-No. 4 matchup has been all No. 1 lately, 12-2 SU and 9-4-1 ATS (69.2%) over the last nine tournaments.

•    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 lesser seeded Power 6 conference team, the latter are on a 7-5 SU and 7-4-1 ATS (63.6%) run.

•    Since 2010, in Sweet 16 games involving at least one non-major conference program, Under the total is 24-14 (63.2%).

•    Over the last 23 years, there have been 23 Sweet 16 games with totals of 128 or less, and Under the total is 16-6-1 (72.7%).

Elite Eight Round

•    The Elite Eight round of the NCAA Tournament has long been a dangerous spot for better-seeded teams, as they are just 47-45 SU and 33-55-4 ATS (37.5%) since 2000.

•    Elite Eight favorites of 4 points or fewer have gone just 2-10 SU and 1-10-1 ATS (9.1%) in their last 12 games and are just 15-33-1 ATS (31.3%) since 1998.

•    Elite Eight games have been decisive, with outright winners owning a stellar record of 61-5-2 ATS (92.4%) since 2006.

•    Cinderella teams, or those not from power conferences, have been good bets when they reach the Elite Eight round, 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 No. 1 seeds, as they are just 32-25 SU but 23-30-4 ATS (43.4%) in this round since 2001.

•    Elite Eight No. 1-No. 3 seeds have struggled mightily against teams seeded No. 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, 87-63-2 (58%) since 2001. In games with lower totals of 143 or less, it has been 59 Overs and 29 Unders, for 67%.

•    In Elite Eight games between teams “both not supposed to be there” or both seeded 3 or worse, the lower-seeded team has gone 7-3 SU and  8-2 ATS (80%) since 2013.

Final Four Round

•    In the Final Four of the NCAA Tournament, outright winning teams own a record of 35-7-2 ATS (83.3%) since 2001, although most recently, San Diego State did beat Florida Atlantic in a 2023 clash without covering.

•    Final Four No. 1 seeds are 17-5 SU and 12-9-1 ATS (57.1%) since 2001 when not matched against another No. 1 seed.

•    Final Four favorites of 5 points or more are on a solid surge of 19-3 SU and 13-8-1 ATS (61.9%) over the last 24 years.

•    The last seven Final Four games that didn’t feature a No. 1 or No. 2 seed have all gone to the better-seeded team, with that team going 6-1 ATS (85.7%).

•    The last seven non-power 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 11-6 SU and 10-7 ATS (58.8%) since 2001, including 8-2 SU and 6-4 ATS when favored.

•    On totals, the last seven Final Four games that posted numbers of 130 or less went Under, producing just 112.2 combined PPG on average. In all other games, totals are 24-15-2 Over (61.5%) in the Final Four since 1999.

•    Five of the last six semifinal games all went Over the total, extending a string of 12-5-1 Over (70.6%) in the last nine tournaments.

•    Bettors have been sharp in moving lines for the Final Four games since 2015, going 11-0 SU and 7-4 ATS (63.6%) in games that have seen the point spread shift off the opener.

•    Eight of the last nine Final Four games that have seen an opening total moved downward through the week until tip-off have ended up going Over the total (88.9%).

Championship Round

•    NCAA Tournament championship game favorites of 3 points or more are on a 14-3 SU and 12-5 ATS (70.6%) run, while those favored by 2.5 or less are just 4-4 SU and ATS since ’98. Last year, UConn (-7.5) handled San Diego State rather comfortably, 76-59.

•    Only twice in the last 23 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 23 years of championship games, excluding the improbable 2014 matchup of No. 7 vs. No. 8 and last year’s No. 4 vs. No. 9, teams seeded No. 3 or worse are just 2-9 SU and 4-7 ATS (36.4%).

•    Big East schools have a perfect 7-0 SU and ATS record in championship games since 2001, while Big Ten teams are winless at 0-7 SU and ATS. These trends last “collided” in Villanova’s 2018 title game win over Michigan.

•    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 had totals that 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 6-10 ATS (37.5%) in their last 16 championship games when moving opening lines towards one team or the other. Last year, they won with UConn, moving the line from -6.5 to -7.5. This same group is on a 13-7 (65%) run when moving totals one way or the other.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR