Major Conference Tournament Betting Trends

Hopefully you picked up the Conference Tournament Tendencies article focusing in on the leagues that started their tourney’s last week, as some of the trends uncovered really fared well, especially those dealing with totals. In that piece, I covered the smaller conferences. Here, I am back to address all of the action occurring this week, including the major conferences like the Big East, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 10 and SEC. Many bettors find the action this week to be even more exciting, or if you want to say, maddening, than the first days of the NCAA tournament. There will certainly be a lot to choose from, both at your sportsbook and on your TV. Make sure you consider the following trends before making your commitments.

Big East Conference

In Tuesday/Wednesday Big East Conference Tournament action, or the early rounds, FAVORITES are on a run of 17-5 SU & 14-8 ATS (63.5%) since ’05. When broken down among line ranges, you’ll find FAVORITES of less than 7-points are on a 9-2 SU & ATS run.
The quarterfinal round of the Big East tournament has been very high scoring over the last four years, with 11 of 16 games (68.8%) going OVER the total.

On average, one of every four Big East quarterfinal games is an upset, with 12 underdogs winning outright over the L12 years. Underdogs of 7-points or more during that span hold a 10-6 ATS edge (62.5%).

Underdogs have held the edge in the Big East semifinal round over the last five years, going 6-4 SU & 7-3 ATS (70%). Those getting more than 3-points have covered five of the L6 (83.3%).

Fatigue tends to set in this round as well, as defense rules the day. Since ’99, UNDER the total is 15-7 (68.2%).

A strange pattern has developed in the Big East tournament title game, with underdogs and favorites alternating ATS wins EVERY YEAR since ’98. Accordingly, the UNDERDOG is scheduled to cover in ’10 after Louisville’s chalk win over Syracuse last spring.

Atlantic 10 Conference

UNDERDOGS have managed to split the eight first round Atlantic 10 tournament games of the last two years after FAVORITES had been on an incredible 24-2 SU & 21-5 ATS (80.8%) run.

FAVORITES of 7-points or less are on a run of 18-4 SU & 17-5 ATS (77.3%) in first round Atlantic 10 tournament action since ’01.

Including 3-1 ATS a year ago, FAVORITES in the quarterfinal round of the A-10 tourney, going 20-7 SU & 18-9 ATS (66.7%) since ’03. During that stretch, DOUBLE-DIGIT FAVORITES are 9-0 SU & 7-2 ATS (77.8%).

The semifinal round of the A-10 tournament has proven quite competitive, with UNDERDOGS of 4.5-points or more having gone 5-3 SU & 7-1 ATS over the last dozen years.
The A-10 title game has been anything but competitive, with underdogs having won just once in the last 10 years (1-8 ATS 11.1%).

Big 12 Conference
There might be no other major conference tournament that has seen more UNDERDOGS cover with regularity than the Big 12. In fact, since 2000, dogs are 61-44 ATS, a solid 58.1%. UNDERDOGS of 6-points or more are 37-21 ATS (63.8%) during that stretch.

The last three Big 12 tournaments have been particularly defensive-oriented, with UNDER the total converting in 22 of 33 games (66.7%), and the losing team being held to 60 points or less in 17 of those contests.

On Big 12 tournament games with totals set at 147-points or higher, the UNDER is 13-3 (81.3%).

The last 12 Big 12 tournament quarterfinal games have gone UNDER the total (100%). UNDERDOGS are 7-3-2 ATS (70%) in that span.

Like clockwork, the last seven years of Big 12 semifinal games have seen one favorite cover, one underdog. Of the games with lines set at 6-points or higher, UNDERDOGS are 5-1 ATS (83.3%).

Conference-USA

The millennium also saw a shift from favorites to underdogs holding the edge in Conference USA, as dogs are a healthy 60-45 ATS (57.1%) since ’00.

Double-digit lines are a regular occurrence in the C-USA tourney, and teams laying 10-points or more are 19-0 SU & 11-8 ATS (57.9%) since ’06.

The best value on C-USA tourney UNDERDOGS comes with those getting 6.5-points or less, as they are 20-17 SU & 26-10-1 ATS (72.2%) dating back to ’03.

C-USA UNDERDOGS in the FIRST ROUND own a 24-13-2 ATS (64.9%) record since ’00.
Of the 16 C-USA round one matchups since ’06, the UNDER is 13-3 (81.3%).

The C-USA quarterfinal round also “goes to the dogs”, as UNDERDOGS are 9-3 ATS (75%) over the last three seasons.

With Memphis dominating the proceedings, the FAVORITES turn the tables in the semifinal round, having gone 17-3 SU & 12-8 ATS (60%) over the L10 years. The Tigers have won four straight title games as favorites as well, going 3-1 ATS (75%).

Since 2006, UNDER the total is 10-2 (83.3%) in the C-USA semifinal & final games.

Mountain West Conference

Having held the yearly edge in every one of the last eight Mountain West tournaments except 2005, UNDERDOGS are 40-18 ATS (68.9%) overall during that span.

There is a sizeable break at one particular line point in past Mountain West Tournament games. FAVORITES of 9-points or more are 8-7 ATS (53.3%) since ’02. UNDERDOGS of 8.5-points or less are an incredible 33-10 ATS (76.7%).

UNDERDOGS hold a particularly strong edge in the early Mountain West Tournament action, going 16-4 ATS (80%) in the round one and quarterfinals games since ’06.

FAVORITES have done well late in the last three MWC tourney’s, going 7-1 SU & ATS (87.5%) over the last three years in the semi’s and title games. Note: last year’s championship game was a pick em’ pointspread.

Pac 10 Conference

The Pac 10 is one of the few conferences whose tournaments have been ruled by FAVORITES in recent years, as those teams laying the points are 23-10 ATS (69.7%) over the last four years, including the first six games of the ’09 proceedings.

The Pac 10 tourney games have also been high scoring over the L4 years, 23-12-1 OVER (65.7%) since ’06.

FAVORITES of -3 to -6 points are on a run of 12-0 SU & 9-2-1 ATS in the Pac 10 Tournament.
Don’t even bother considering underdogs in the first round or quarterfinals of the Pac 10 tourney if basing it on recent years, as FAVORITES are on an incredible surge of 20-4 SU & 19-5 ATS (79.2%) in those rounds since ’06.

UNDERDOGS stand a much better chance of covering late in the Pac 10 Tournament, 11-7-1 ATS (61.1%) since ’03 in the semi’s and title games.

The key benchmark on wagering totals in the Pac 10 tourney is 156. In games with posted numbers less than that, the OVER is 34-19 (64.2%) since inception. In those higher than 156, the UNDER is 7-2 (77.8%).

Big West Conference
The Big West Conference has seen a fairly even distribution of favorites and underdog covers over the last seven seasons, with FAVORITES owning a slight 25-22 ATS (53.2%) edge.

More on the competitiveness of the Big West tourney…since ’03, there have been only 10 games with lines of 7.5-points or more, with UNDERDOGS going just 1-9 SU, but 8-2 ATS (80%) in those contests.

The last five years of the Big West Tournament have been a goldmine for UNDER bettors, as those playing that side of the total have gone 25-9, for 73.5%. During that span, on totals averaging 137.6 PPG, the games have produced just 133.5 PPG.

Big Sky Conference
The Big Sky Conference has shown a shift to FAVORITES in the last three seasons, as those teams laying points have converted 10 of the 15 (66.7%) games during that stretch.

There have only been two upsets in the Big Sky Conference tournament semifinals over the last seven years, and FAVORITES are 10-4 ATS (71.4%) in that span.

The Big Sky Conference is one of few where LARGE UNDERDOGS, or those getting 7-points or more, have a good shot at an upset, owning a 4-8 SU & 8-4 ATS record since ’98, including 2-2 SU & 4-0 ATS over the L2 years.

FAVORITES in the -4 to -6.5-point line range have been nearly automatic in Big Sky Conference tournament action, 16-1 SU & 15-2 ATS (88.2%).

Big Ten Conference
For being a dog-dominated event for most of its early years, there has been a shift to FAVORITES in the last three Big Ten Tournaments, 18-12 ATS (60%) since ’07.

There has also been a huge shift in oddsmakers’ perception on totals. Between ’99 & ’06, the average posted total in Big Ten tourney games was 130.5. Since then, it has dropped nine points to 121.5. Still, UNDER has been the correct choice in 18 of 30 games during that span (60%).

FAVORITES swept all three opening round games of the Big Ten tourney last year, both SU & ATS, slowing a run of 14-4 ATS by dogs.

Similarly, FAVORITES own a 5-1 SU & 4-2 ATS mark in the semifinals of the L3 Big Ten tourney’s after going just 1-11 ATS prior.

DOUBLE-DIGIT Big Ten tourney UNDERDOGS are 7-1 ATS (87.5%) since ’05.

LOWER SEEDED FAVORITES boast an 11-5 SU & 9-6-1 ATS (60%) record since ’98 in the Big Ten Tournament.

Atlantic Coast Conference
ACC UNDERDOGS swept the quarterfinal & semifinal games of 2009 against the spread and boast an overall mark of 44-23-3 ATS (65.7%) since ’03.

UNDERDOGS of 9-points or more are 18-6-1 ATS (75%) in the ACC Tournament since ’03, including five straight covers.

How about giving some thought to UNDERDOGS on the pointspread and money line in the opening round of this year’s ACC tourney, as they are 13-6 SU & ATS (68.4%) since ’05.

Quarterfinal UNDERDOGS are effective against the spread, but that’s it, boasting a record of 7-21 SU & 18-9-1 ATS (66.7%) since ’03.

Semifinal UNDERDOGS are even better than previous rounds, 15-6-1 ATS (71.4%) since ’99.
It’s not until the ACC title game where FAVORITES take over, 10-1 SU & 6-3-2 ATS (66.7%) since ’99.

The only recognizable trend I could uncover on totals in the ACC tourney came on games with posted numbers 150 points or higher, 10-5 OVER (66.7%) in the L15.

Mid-American Conference

FAVORITES are the preferred betting choice in MAC tournament games in recent years, with a record of 40-26 ATS (60.6%) over the L6 seasons.

The MAC title game has seen the FAVORITE go 9-3 SU & ATS (75%) since its inception. The straight up winner is 12-0 ATS.

Semifinal FAVORITES in the MAC tournament have swept the last three years of action and are 5-1 ATS (83%) in that span.

The best spot for playing UNDERDOGS in the MAC tournament has proven to be in games when the lines are 3-points or less. In such cases, they are 23-16 ATS (59%) since ’98.

OVER the total has been the preferred choice on that wagering option since ’04, with a 37-24 (60.7%) record since ’04.

Southeastern Conference
The 2008 SEC Tournament was dominated by dogs, 7-4 SU & 9-2 ATS, but split down the middle last year, 5-5-1. Overall, since ’05, dogs own a 29-25-1 ATS (53.7%) edge.

Georgia became the first SEC tourney DOUBLE-DIGIT dog to pull an upset since prior to ’98 when it beat Mississippi State in ’08. Overall, those teams are 1-15 SU & 5-11 ATS (31.3%) in that span.

In past SEC games with pointspreads less than 3-points, UNDERDOGS are 15-13 SU & 16-11-1 ATS (59.3%) since ’98.

Although it’s fluctuated back-and-forth in the last few seasons, FAVORITES own a 22-11 ATS edge in opening round SEC tourney action since ’00. Lower-seeded chalk is 5-1 SU & ATS of those games.

UNDERDOGS have been the preferred choice of bettors in SEC quarterfinals over the L3 seasons, 8-3 ATS (72.7%).

In the last nine SEC Tournament championship games, the UNDER is 8-1 (88.9%), and the UNDERDOGS are 4-5 SU & 5-3-1 ATS (62.5%).

Western Athletic Conference
UNDERDOGS covered all but one game in the 2009 WAC Tournament, increasing their four-year record to 20-9 ATS (69%). That span has also seen OVER the total go 21-10 (67.7%).

Lines of less than 3-points should raise an immediate red-flag for WAC tourney bettors, as UNDERDOGS of 2.5-points or less are a profit-making 13-5 SU & 13-4-1 ATS (76.5%) since ’00.

Although there is no first round in this year’s WAC tourney, since ’06, UNDERDOGS in the first round and quarterfinals combined have gone 14-5 ATS (73.7%) over the L4 seasons.

The WAC quarterfinals have produced 14 OVER’s, 6 UNDER’s (70%) over the last five seasons. Similarly, eight of the L10 (80%) WAC semifinal contests have gone OVER the posted total.

Amazingly, in that same stretch, all five WAC title games exceeded the total as well. If you’re combining those numbers, it’s 27-8 (77.1%) OVER for the last five years.

Enjoy the action this week everyone, and be sure to check back next week for the key information you’ll need to sort out the NCAA, NIT, CBI, and CIT brackets!

Written by Steve Makinen of StatFox.com.

Conference Tournament Pointspread Tendencies

As with any other type of game in college basketball betting, certain trends or tendencies form in the conference tournaments. These annual events are loaded with tradition and offer, in some cases, nearly identical circumstances from one year to the next. This is the type of foundation from which successful betting systems are built. Think about it, in many leagues, some of the teams, depending upon their seedings, will play at home. In other leagues, all the games are in a neutral environment. Some of the games are on multiple consecutive days, while in others, the schedules tend to favor the better teams. It all adds up to what should be a goldmine of data from which to dig. Let’s see what we can uncover for this first group of conference tournaments starting this week. Next week, I’ll be back to cover more of the major conferences.

Horizon League

*Since ’06, FAVORITES have held the upper hand in Horizon League Tournament games, going 21-12 ATS (63.6%).
*Horizon League FAVORITES playing on their home court in the conference tournament are 15-7 ATS (68.2%) since ’06.
*The last 20 Horizon League Tournament FAVORITES of 7-points or more have won outright and are 14-6 ATS (70%).
*Horizon League tournament games have been high scoring than expected of late, with the OVER the total going 21-13 (61.7%) over the L4 seasons.

Ohio Valley Conference

*UNDERDOGS have held a slight edge in the last five seasons of Ohio Valley Conference Tournament action, going 18-15 ATS (54.5%).
*The most successful UNDERDOGS in the OVC tournament are those that reach the semifinal round, as they are 5-5 SU & 7-3 ATS (70%) since ’05, including 3-1 SU & 4-0 ATS the L2 years. * Only one UNDERDOG of 6.5-points or more has pulled an upset in the OVC Tournament since ’02, going 1-27 SU. However, these teams are 14-14 ATS (50%).

Missouri Valley Conference

*The Missouri Valley Conference has seen some significant trends develop by round. In the Opening Round games, UNDERDOGS are a profitable 11-11 SU & 14-8 ATS (63.6%) since ’98. *In the Quarterfinals, FAVORITES turn the tables, 14-6 ATS (70%) over the last five seasons.
*There have been 11 instances since ’04 where a LOWER SEEDED MVC tourney team was FAVORED. They are just 3-8 SU & ATS (27.3%) in that span.
*Large FAVORITES, or those laying 7-points or more have been very successful in the MVC tourney of late, 16-0 SU & 10-6 ATS (62.5%) since ’02.
*Since the MVC Tournament games started having totals on every contest (’05), the UNDER the total has dominated at a 30-15 (66.7%) rate.

Colonial Athletic Association

*The Colonial Athletic Association tournament has shown some strong trends dependent upon the round of play. In the Quarterfinals, UNDERDOGS are just 5-15 SU but on a 13-7 ATS (65%) run over the L5 seasons. In the Championship, the FAVORITE has won nine straight games while going 6-2-1 ATS (75%).
*DOUBLE-DIGIT UNDERDOGS have been an unbelievable cover in the CAA tournament of late, going 2-15 SU but 15-2 ATS (88.2%) since ’03.
*FAVORITES of less than 10-points have also been a highly profitable bet in the CAA tournament since ’02, going 40-19 ATS (67.8%).
*UNDER has been the flavor of choice on totals for CAA tournament games, with a bankroll-building 37-17 (68.5%) mark since ’04.

Sun Belt Conference

*Like a few of the other conferences already discussed, the Sun Belt Conference has shown some distinctive tendencies by round. In the opening round, UNDERDOGS have covered eight of 10 games (80%) over the L2 years.

*In the semifinals, FAVORITES are on a run of 7-3 ATS.
*SMALL FAVORITES of 3-points or less have produced a 16-9 ATS (64%) record in the Sun Belt Conference Tournament since ’02.
*Totals have shown a favoritism towards the OVER in the L5 Sun Belt Conference tournaments, going 35-20 (63.6%).

Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference

*FAVORITES have had their way in the opening round of the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference tournament of late, going 10-4-1 ATS (71.4%) since ’04.
*UNDERDOGS of 4.5-points or more have only won five of the L44 MAAC tournament opportunities they’ve had while going 18-25-1 ATS (41.9%).
*Where offense has ruled the day in the MAAC Semifinals (7-1 OVER L4 years), defense has taken over the title game (6-1 UNDER L7).

Southern Conference

*Despite a 3-7 ATS mark in the 2007 Southern Conference Tournament, UNDERDOGS have held the upper hand in the league’s postseason proceedings, going 26-21 ATS (55.3%) since ’05.
*The early Southern Conference Tournament action has shown the most distinctive trends forming, with FAVORITES 18-10 ATS (64.3%) since ’02, and the UNDER 14-3 (82.3%) since ’04 in the Opening Round.
*Those favorites that survive the Opening Round of the Southern Conference Tournament also tend to fare well in the Quarterfinals, as UNDERDOGS in that round are on a 12-6 ATS (66.7%) run since ’05.
*Like the CAA, Southern Conference Tournament games have shown a strong UNDER tendency, going 36-17 (67.9%) on that side of the total since ’05.

West Coast Conference

*The West Coast Conference Tournament has been dominated by FAVORITES since ’98 to the tune of a 55-28 ATS (66.3%) record.
*FAVORITES own the edge in every round of the West Coast Conference Tournament over the L12 seasons, highlighted by a 10-3 ATS (76.9%) record in Round One.
*Neutral court FAVORITES of 7-points or more are 27-0 SU & 19-8 ATS (70.4%) in the WCC tournament since ’98.
*Oddsmakers have hinted which games in the WCC tournament have been high scoring, as on those with totals of 146 or higher since ’01, OVER the total is 10-1 (90.9%).

Big Sky Conference

*The Big Sky Conference has shown a shift to FAVORITES in the last three seasons, as those teams laying points have converted 10 of the 15 (66.7%) games during that stretch.
*There have only been two upsets in the Big Sky Conference tournament semifinals over the last seven years, and FAVORITES are 10-4 ATS (71.4%) in that span.
*The Big Sky Conference is one of few where LARGE UNDERDOGS, or those getting 7-points or more, have a good shot at an upset, owning a 4-8 SU & 8-4 ATS record since ’98, including 2-2 SU & 4-0 ATS over the L2 years.
*FAVORITES in the -4 to -6.5-point line range have been nearly automatic in Big Sky Conference tournament action, 16-1 SU & 15-2 ATS (88.2%).

Summit League

This year’s Summit League Tournament will be the first one where games beyond the championship will be lined. In the previous two title games, the FAVORITE is 2-0 SU & 1-1 ATS.

Mid-American Conference

*FAVORITES are the preferred betting choice in MAC tournament games in recent years, with a record of 40-26 ATS (60.6%) over the L6 seasons.
*The MAC title game has seen the FAVORITE go 9-3 SU & ATS (75%) since its inception. The straight up winner is 12-0 ATS.
*Semifinal FAVORITES in the MAC tournament have swept the last three years of action and are 5-1 ATS (83%) in that span.
*The best spot for playing UNDERDOGS in the MAC tournament has proven to be in games when the lines are 3-points or less. In such cases, they are 23-16 ATS (59%) since ’98.
*OVER the total has been the preferred choice on that wagering option since ’04, with a 37-24 (60.7%) record since ’04.

By Steve Makinen of StatFox.com.

Making Sense of Numbers in Revenge Games

With less then two weeks remaining in the regular reason for college basketball, nearly every game has a revenge twist to it. Some of the bigger conferences will not have every game playing into pay back contests, with the unruly nature of trying to play most every team once, with leagues of more than 12 universities. In fact, the Mid-American Conference to date has not had a single return match this season.

In looking for an edge in gambling on college basketball, trying to comprehend what certain numbers mean from the oddsmakers is important. For example, if two teams in the same conference are evenly matched, the standard deviation should have the home team favored by four to five points, depending on the league and what a typical home court advantage would be. This would mean any normal return game should have a swing of eight to 10 points. When this doesn’t occur, what does this mean?

If a team was favored by 10 points playing at home and is now favored by eight on the road (instead of about two), how should this information be interpreted? Was the favorite undervalued to start with or has the other team gotten worse and needs more points from those setting the line to make a more even contest from wagering point of view?

For this and other answers, went thru every conference that keeps track of point spreads and limited all revenge situations to in-conference only. (Random tournaments and scheduled games did pop up) Stayed with the standard deviation of 8-10 points, also added revenge games where the spread was 7.5 or less or 10.5 or greater.

The specific question was -how do teams perform in following meeting after having beaten their opponent, be it home or away, against the spread? Ended up studying the results of 21 conferences and this is what was found thru Feb. 23.

Starting with the normal turnaround numbers of 8-10 points, the first time winner was not very successful in posting 91-104 ATS record, good for 46.6 percent mark. This is not entirely surprising given the fact the numbers fell within conventional parameters. If the two schools are somewhat comparable, then it would stand to reason the more motivated previous loser would play better. Certain conference contributed more to the losing than others as you can see.

Big 12 1-6 ATS
Horizon 3-7 ATS
Ivy 1-5 ATS
Sun Belt 4-8 ATS
WAC 2-5 ATS
West Coast 1-4-1 ATS

Each of the other two categories essentially generated the same meanings, depending on how you interpret the numbers; however the volume of games was dramatically different.

The spread differential of 7.5 or less points yielded 189 games almost as many as what was perceived as average point spread differences. (195) In this case, the results again favored the team in revenge, even to a greater degree. The revenge-minded club was 104-85 ATS, 55 percent. Why this number could be higher, is the results of the initial contest might not have accurately reflected the strengths or weakness of the two teams and enough has changed since prior encounter to limit the amount of movement in the spread.

Here we find sharp figures pointing pronounced results in particular conferences, with teams looking a for season split very profitable.

Big Ten 7-3 ATS
Big West 8-1 ATS
Colonial 6-1 ATS

Nevertheless, the numbers are balanced out is some method and other leagues saw the previous winning team covering the spread in next contest.

Ohio Valley 11-7-1 ATS
Pac-10 8-5 ATS
WAC 2-0 ATS

Spread differentials that were greater than 10 points were less than half, with a total of 89 recognized plays. The results were remarkably similar to the other groups, with the revenger 48-41 ATS, 54 percent.

In this part of the study, two conferences stood out for different reasons. In the Colonial, the winning team looking for a cover was 0-4 ATS, while the same squad in the Pac-10 was an even better going the other way at 6-0 ATS.

For the rest of the regular season, look to certain conferences which have had a proclivity to revenge situations. Here are the best and worst records against the linemaker for teams trying to sweep league rivals and cover the number.

Colonial 9-22 ATS
Horizon 13-20 ATS
Ivy 3-8-1 ATS
MAAC 13-21-1 ATS
WAC 9-14 ATS
West Coast 6-12-1 ATS

Pac-10 19-7-1 ATS
Big Sky 16-10 ATS

Keep these numbers handy over the next several days and remember, revenge is best served with a purpose.

Best Plays for Thursday, Feb. 5

A special thanks to Kendall who was 4-1 here before losing yesterday. He finally got bit a little with 3-4 day. Sal will take his place later today with his best offering. One last chance to brag on ourselves off 1-2 Hump Day, now at 11-6 in last six days. The Indiana Pacers head to Philly armed with a Top Trend in their arsenal. Today’s best system looks at a pair of teams out of the mildly obscure Big Sky Conference, but nothing obscure about an 81.2 percent winning system. Good Luck.

The weird line on Northeastern and William & Mary ended up being correct, as that lovely couple won outright. (See yesterday’s read)

Free Basketball System-1) PLAY AGAINST any team like No. Arizona revenging a home loss, against an opponent off two or more consecutive upset losses as a road favorite. This makes the play Portland State in this situation, with 30-7 ATS mark, good for 81.2 percent.

Free Basketball Trend -2) The Indiana Pacers are 13-3 ATS after two or more consecutive losses this season.

Free Basketball Selection -3) Sal was 3-0 in college hoops yesterday and is 6-0 this week. His Best Bet is Wisconsin. (Sorry to be so late)