|
March 2008
The best two sports betting days of the year, the opening round of the NCAA
Men's Basketball Tournament, dribbles into the wagering picture on March 20 and
21 and gamblers already are sharpening their attacks for the 32-game onslaught.
Some sportsbooks are warming up by making future book wagers on a series of
conference tournaments that precede entry to the Big Dance.
Not a bad way to go.
Besides having merit as a free standing wager, betting on conference
tournaments, where teams have to play several games in a short time span,
simulates conditions during March Madness, preparing the gambler for actual
tournament pressures.
Other gamblers are dutifully sifting through the ruins of past years' 16-team
brackets, attempting to uncover valid clues that could unveil a winning pattern
for this year's tournament.
Allow us to help.
In the history of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, a No. 16 seed never has
beaten a No. 1 seed. So, prudence would dictate that taking the final seed on
the money line is, well, a waste of money.
But basketball is a game primarily bet against a pointspread and No. 16 seeds,
perhaps because it's so difficult for oddsmakers to come up with an accurate
number on what are mostly obscure, off-the-board outfits, haven't been quite
the money line washout versus No. 1 seeds when the line becomes a part of the
wagering equation. In fact, since 2002, No. 16 seeds are 14-10 against the
spread (ATS) versus No. 1 seeds.
Top seeds were 3-1 ATS versus No. 16 seeds last year but in 2006, Duke (-25)
failed to cover against Southern, 70-54; Connecticut (-22) came up short versus
Albany, 72-59; and Villanova (-19 1/2) never threatened the spread against
Monmouth, 58-45. Only Memphis (-12 1/2) got the job done, versus Oral Roberts,
94-78.
Led by unheralded teams with limited or no pointspread resumes such as
Winthrop, Hampton, Montana, Florida Atlantic, Vermont, Central Florida,
Southeast Louisiana, Eastern Kentucky, East Tennessee State, Illinois-Chicago
and Penn, since 2002, No. 2 seeds are a healthy 15-9 ATS versus No. 2 seeds.
So, taken together, since 2002, with oddsmakers struggling to assess the true
worth of the lower seeds, No. 15 and No. 16 seeds are 29-19 (.604) ATS. That's
a success rate that will win you a few bucks.
Since they are more adept at dealing with teams with which they have a
pointspread familiarity, you might assume, as the seeds narrow and as the
straight up (SU) mismatches disappear, oddsmakers would do a better job with
the numbers. That's exactly what's happened over the last six NCAA Men's
Basketball Tournaments.
Since 2002, in opening round play, No. 3 seeds hold a mere 12-11-1 pointspread
advantage over No. 14 seeds.
No. 4 seeds are 13-11 ATS versus No. 13 seeds in first round action and while
much is made if No. 12 seeds upending No. 5 seeds, the pointspread matchup
since 2002 is dead even at 11-11-2.
Interestingly—-and this does make sense from an oddsmaking standpoint--the
higher seeds have enjoyed their greatest wagering advantage when the difference
between the teams is obvious but not overwhelming. Thus, since 2002, No. 6
seeds are 14-10 ATS versus No. 11 seeds and No. 7 seeds are 17-7 ATS versus No.
10 seeds. When the picture gets a bit murkier, as in the case of evenly matched
No. 8 and No. 9 seeds, the record gets closer as well, with No. 8 seeds on top
of No. 9 seeds by a 13-11 margin.
It seems clear then that oddsmakers have had their most difficulty assigning
odds to the bigger mismatches and, if you fancy underdogs, your best March
Madness betting opportunities in the first round are with the No. 15 and No. 16
seeds. On the other sneaker, sports betting enthusiasts who prefer to back the
favorite, will want to take a look at No. 6 and No. 7 seeds.
|
