Just a Cut and Paste Tounament Trends

[Baseball Guy]

SWEET 16

• The Sweet 16 is usually when the double-digit-seed winners see their dreams end. Better seeds and favorites have only lost eight of the past 40 games in this round over the past five years. They are 15-8-1 ATS (65%) in the past three years.

• Since 2003, there have been 23 favorites of at least 5.5 points in the Sweet 16 round. Those teams are 22-1 SU, with the lone exception being Syracuse (-6.5) losing to Butler last year. These teams are also 14-8-1 ATS (64%), holding opponents to 63 points per game and winning by 11.7 PPG.

• Syracuse’s loss to Butler in last year’s tourney snapped an eight-game win streak for #1 seeds in the Sweet 16. #1 Kansas didn’t even reach the second weekend in 2010, get- ting knocked off by Northern Iowa in Round 2. All three #1s were favored by at least 6.5 points last year, but in the last 10 occurrences where a #1 seed is favored by five points or less in Round 3, the record is just 5-5 SU and 2-7-1 ATS (22%).

• Last year’s Sweet 16 featured six teams seeded 6th or worse, but none of these teams played each other, and only #6 Tennessee advanced, beating #2 Ohio State. In the last seven occurrences when two teams seeded #6 or worse met in the Sweet 16, the lesser seed is 6-1 SU & ATS (86%).

• Double-digit seeds are just 2-13 SU & 4-11 ATS in the Sweet 16 round since 2003—that’s good news for this year’s versions of Kansas and North Carolina, not so good for #12 Richmond and #11 Marquette. All three teams seeded 10th or worse last year lost by a double-digit margin. #11 Washington lost by 13 to #2 West Virginia, #12 Cornell lost by 17 to #1 Kentucky and #10 Saint Mary’s lost by 23 points to #3 Baylor.

• Oddsmakers have been right on when predicting low- scoring games in this round—in games with posted totals of 128 points or less, the UNDER is 12-2-1 (86%) since 1999.


ELITE EIGHT

Since 1998, lesser seeds hold an overall advantage in the Elite 8, going 31-19-2 ATS (62%).
• Lesser seeds in the Elite 8 were a perfect 8-0 ATS in 2005 and 2006, but that success rate has dropped to 7-9 ATS (6-10 SU) in the past four years.
• In Elite 8 games that have had point spreads of three points or less, lesser seeds are on a run of 17-4 SU and 16-5 ATS (76%), including 13-3 SU & ATS as underdogs. There were no such instances of this scenario last year as #5 Michi- gan State was a two-point underdog to #6 Tennessee, and the line was 3.5 or more for the other three games.
• Teams favored by at least eight points in this round have lost just two of the past 12 games SU, but are 3-9 ATS (25%).
• Teams seeded #4 or worse and playing a better seed are 16-6 ATS (73%) in this quarterfinal round.
• Since 1998, there has been one Elite 8 upset when the difference between the seeds has been five or more. In these instances, the better seeds are 12-1 SU, but 4-8-1 ATS (33%).
• In games with totals less than 145, the OVER has won 76% of the time (25-8), including 3-1 last year. In games between “A” level conference teams, the OVER is 23-9 (72%) since 1999, including a perfect 3-0 last year.

FINAL FOUR

• Since the 1998 title game, in Final Four weekend games with unequal seeds, the better seed is 19-8 SU and 20-7 ATS (74%). There has only been one game in that span in which the winner did not cover (Connecticut over Duke in 2004 semifinals).
• Final Four weekend Favorites of 3-to-7.5 points are 16-5 SU & ATS (76%) since 1999, but the two games last year had spreads of 1.5 and 2.5.
• Seeds of #4 or worse that reach the Final Four are only 1-9 SU & 2-8 ATS (20%) thereafter since 1999, when not playing one another.
• #1 seeds that have faced a lesser seed in the semifinals and championship have gone 15-4 SU & 14-5 ATS (74%) over the past 13 years. When favored by less than eight points in such games, they were 12-2 SU and 11-3 ATS (79%). #1 Duke won and covered in the Final Four over #2 West Virginia last year, but the Blue Devils failed to cover the seven-point spread when they beat Butler in the championship game.
• The ACC owns the best record of any power conference that has reached the Final Four since 1998, going 10-4 SU & ATS (71%) in the tournament’s semifinal and final rounds.
• Non-power conferences, or those rated “B” or below, are 3-5 SU & ATS in their appearances in Final Four weekend games since 1998, including Butler winning last year.
• In the championship game, only two underdogs have won SU (Syracuse over Kansas in ’03 and Kansas over Memphis in ’08) with only three ATS wins (Butler covered vs. Duke in ’10) since 2000 (3-11, 21%).