March
Madness Picks from William Foote
The Madness, folks, is finally upon us. The most
beautiful three weeks of sports during the year. When
the nation’s productivity drops 50 percent, as employees
wear out the refresh button and extend their lunch
breaks to catch the waning seconds of a first round game
where some pimple faced kid from “Where the Hell is
That?” college is about to send their bracket up in
flames.
Yes, the NCAA Tournament is finally upon us! And while
we can’t help you fill out a perfect bracket, we have
been holed up for weeks dissecting the stats and
march madness trends from the previous eight
tournaments to help pad your collective wallets. So
without further ado …
A Seemingly Simple Challenge
Before we jump into the numbers, let us pose a seemingly
simply challenge. Could you pick the straight up winner
of each and every NCAA tournament game at a 55 percent
or better rate? How about a 60 percent or better rate?
We are talking about just identifying the straight up
winner with no point spread involved. You know… like who
will win out between Duke and “We are making our first
Tournament appearance ever” College? Presumably, most
would assume that even a monkey could pick the SU
winners at a higher rate. Our question then becomes: why
don’t you?
One of the most glaring trends we have ever come across
is the frequency in which straight up winners also cover
the spread in the NCAA tournament. In fact, straight up
winners are an incredible 376-116-13 ATS (76 percent)
over the past eight years during March Madness. This
simply means that if you were able to identify who was
going to win the game, irrespective of the spread, than
you would be cashing tickets at a 3:1 ratio!
Since money talks, let us put it another way. A “nickel”
player who bets $550 to win $500 would be $124,200
wealthier if he or she were to accomplish this feat over
the past eight tournaments. A "half dollar" player
risking the standard $55 to win $50 would be $12,420
closer to retirement.
Someone once said,
“There are more important things
in life to worry about than just money; how to get a
hold of it, for example.” Well, picking straight up
winners in the NCAA Tournament appears like a darn good
place to start. Right?
As one notable annoying football analyst likes to say,
“not so fast, my friend.” As is so often the
case, if it looks to good to be true; it probably is.
Let us quickly shed some light on why this ostensibly
simple feat is anything but.
By definition, SU Winners Can Be Broken Down Into Two
Categories:
1. Favorites who win
and cover.
2. Underdogs who win outright.
Why then, do we not simply play the favorite in every
single tournament game and head to Hawaii for the rest
of April, and perhaps part of May for that matter? As
one notable professor, A. J. Carlton, wisely noted;
“Let us keep our mouths shut and our pens dry until we
know the facts.”
This rather callous remark actually segues
perfectly into our next observation.
In the simplest of terms, underdogs are still a better
bet than favorites. Specifically, underdogs were
265-224-15 ATS (54 percent) over the past eight
tournaments combined. Conversely, this implies that of
course favorites were an unprofitable 46 percent winning
proposition during the same time period.
If you know anything about how odds are set, this should
hardly come as a surprise. After all, John Q. Public
still bets favorites at a higher ratio than underdogs.
In other words, most folks are interested in betting the
hot or most notable teams. And do not think this fact is
lost on the oddsmakers!
Keep in mind that March Madness brings in as many square
bettors this side of the Super Bowl. Practically every
Tom, Dick and Harry will place a bet on this tournament
and rest assured they are laying the wood more often
than taking the points. If the lines makers did not
adjust for this fact, then the books and Vegas would be
wiped out.
Conclusion: it may be a better idea to take notice in
the teams no one else is interested in when doing
NCAA tournament betting.
Underdogs That Lose SU
One of the more interesting trends we uncovered is that
favorites who won SU were a startling 222-117-13 ATS (65
percent). This trend makes some sense when you remember,
as we pointed out above, that SU winners covered at a 76
percent clip. And favorites during the past eight
tournaments were 351-151-2 SU (70 percent). (Note that
the two pushes were games in which the final spread was
a “pick.”)
In other words, since SU winners cover at such a high
rate and most SU winners are favorites, then it would
stand to reason that favorites generally cover from
these observations alone. However, the implication here
is startling. Namely, underdogs who lose SU were a
measly 35 percent ATS!
So if you are going to play an underdog, you might be
better served to play them on the money line. But be
realistic. Please do not go out and play the No. 16 seed
against a No. 1 seed on the money line and expect to
come away with a lottery ticket and then bang on our
door for a refund when it does not come in.
