Does hot shooting matter (for wagering) in college hoops?

In the late 1990’s, a person I had known for a number years had told me about a method of betting college and professional basketball that he used as part of his way of picking games. His reasoning was sound; though I’d never taken the time to go on a fact finding mission to see if what he was saying was true.

Over the years I never forgot he told me and would use his methodology as one last piece of the wagering puzzle in looking at a given contest. Three years ago I delved into the NBA numbers and found his idea to be somewhat accurate, with one area more profitable than the other. With a bit more time to look into different elements with football fading away in the rearview mirror, decided to check his beliefs in college hoops.

My gambling friend said this – Bet on college basketball teams that shoot 55 to 59.9 percent in last game and wager against those that connect on 60 percent or better of shot attempts in the same circumstance.

His logic was this, if a team shot the ball extremely well, in the 55 to almost 60 percent range, this would have a positive carryover affect into the next encounter, regardless of the opponent. The team would be playing with extreme confidence and though they might not win, they ended up playing well enough to cover the spread.

Concerning teams shooting 60 percent or higher, that is almost a freakish occurrence, as teams made a large number of shots close the bucket or they just shot “lights out”. Since this was such an unusual event, invariably the basketball gods would punish this team and they would shoot below their average in the next contest and lose against the spread. Again, sound logic.
For every college basketball team that shoots 55 to 59.5 percent, just over a third of the time (37.3 percent) will any team shoot 60 percent or higher. I went thru 18 different conferences to see what kind of results I could find for this season. If a team made enough shots in either category but did not face an opponent that would yield a pointspread, I discounted that game. Otherwise, everything else mattered.

Starting with the 55-59.9 percent range, the results were hugely disappointing. Through yesterday, teams that converted this many shots were 138-83 SU, with 107-110-5 ATS record. Not only were these teams not a good bet, they weren’t even .500.

Have to admit to being shocked, since over the years as I stated earlier, I had used this as part of handicapping arsenal and believed it was somewhat beneficial. Not having the time to check back over several years does leave open questions, however thinking about it, because the diversity of college opponents is far more varied for any team compared to the NBA, I could at least reason why this was the end result.

A number of the results did reveal or at least cause a moment of betting reflection. The Big East is the biggest conference, thus they have the most number of games that fit the criteria and the winners were 18-6 and 12-10-2 ATS. The A-10 has 14 teams despite its name and they were third with 16 qualifiers at 9-7 and 7-9 ATS, which is a rather low win percentage considering the number of baskets per attempts. The Big 12 was second in volume of games at 14-4, with unimpressive 7-11 ATS mark.

Teams from the Big Ten were 12-4 and 10-6 ATS; with Horizon League squads having same exact spread record with 7-9 SU mark.

A few other aspects stood out and are noteworthy. The Colonial Athletic Conference and MAC are well-respected mid-majors so to speak, with 12 teams in each league, yet they have had only six and eight games that made this study. It is to be presumed these conferences don’t have the same talent level as so-called BCS conferences, yet once you get beyond non-conference play, they are matched up against similar competition. Just an observation.

St. Mary’s and Syracuse are 5-0 ATS and 7-0 ATS respectively after shooting 55 to 59.9 percent this season.

The next area was also a surprise on a couple of levels and though better for gamblers, not overwhelming.

It starts with teams shooting 60 percent or higher are 54-34 SU in next game, which is 61.3 percent. The lower winning percentage made sense given how they played the previous outing, yet the spread results were nothing better than fair (in my opinion) at 40-48 ATS, 45.4 percent.

Once again perception vs. reality is frequently different and while this is just one not completed college basketball season, these are the facts as I could find. Its fun to note the Pac-10 is having a down year and teams off a hot shooting night of 60 percent or better are 3-3 with 1-5 ATS record, more in line with my thinking.

We’ve all witnessed Georgetown’s ups and downs and they are 0-3 SU and ATS after bursting to 60 percent bubble this year.

The final conclusion is it’s not a bad idea to bet against teams after they shoot the ball extremely well and this could be particularly true if they are facing a solid defensive club. Otherwise, burning the nets doesn’t carry much weight in betting on next contest.

One final sad, yet mildly humorous note. I had not spoken to this individual in a few years since we both moved away from where we used to live and I called him to tell him about this article and research and before I could even give him all the results he blurted out “I haven’t used that in years for college buckets, doesn’t work to well these days”. Now I find out.

Another example of always trying to understand the ever changing world of sports betting.