On Thursday, I started a series qualifying the key data from my Round-by-Round and Conference Trends articles in the VSiN Bracket Mania Betting Guide, essentially taking the leg work out of the process for readers. That piece on Thursday was for the First Round. This next piece is, of course, the NCAA betting trends for the second round, and I will continue this for every successive round afterward. Hopefully, it will help you attack the tournament more successfully in 2024. Best of luck on the Saturday & Sunday games.

Second Round Games

General NCAA betting trends

 

• Bettors have not enjoyed a winning second round since 2017, going 21-37-1 ATS (36.2%) in moving opening lines since then. This is a change from the first round, explained perhaps in the shorter prep period for the second round. (FADE LINE MOVES ALL GAMES)

• Second round Top 4 seeds that won but didn’t cover the spread in the first round are 44-16 SU and 33-26-1 ATS (55.9%) since 2013. They are also 34-23-3 Under (59.6%) the total. (ON KANSAS +4, UNDER 151.5 KAN-GON)

• Second-round double-digit favorites are 49-2 SU and 31-20 ATS (60.8%) since 2001. Fifteen of the last 22 such games went Under (68.2%) the total, with the favorites allowing just 60.8 PPG. (CONNECTICUT -14, PURDUE -10.5, ILLINOIS -10 – UNDER 136 CON-NOR, UNDER 148.5 PUR-USU, UNDER 148 ILL-DUQ))

NCAA betting trends by seed

• Over the last 25 years, there has been a clear benchmark for when heavily favored #1 seeds struggle to win ATS, and it comes at the 12-point line. In fact, in that span, #1 seeds favored by 12 or more are 23-1 SU but 9-15 ATS (37.5%). (AGAINST CONNECTICUT -14)

• #1 seeds are currently on a 4-12 ATS (25%) skid versus #8 seeds in the second round but are 9-7 ATS versus #9 seeds in that same 10-year window (AGAINST PURDUE -10.5).

• Second-round #2 seeds have felt the upset pressure, going just 14-23-2 ATS (37.8%) in their last 39 games. Those favored by 5 points or less are just 13-19 SU and 10-20-2 ATS (33.3%) since 2002. (AGAINST ARIZONA -9, IOWA ST -6.5, TENNESSEE -6.5, MARQUETTE -3.5)

• It’s been a struggle lately in the second round for the top 3 seeds overall, as here are the current ATS slides they are on: #1 seeds 12-18 ATS, #2 seeds 14-23-1 ATS, #3 seeds 9-17 ATS. (AGAINST ALL TOP 3 SEEDS)

• Seeds #4-#6 have been stellar lately in the second round, with these spread runs entering 2020: #4 seeds 18-11 ATS, #5 seeds 20-9 ATS, #6 seeds 20-10 ATS. Surviving the first-round upset attempt has seemingly propelled these teams to solid round two performances. (ON ALABAMA -6, DUKE -6.5, SAN DIEGO STATE -5, CLEMSON +4.5)

• Second round #10 seeds are on a 4-13 SU but 10-5-2 ATS (66.7%) run since 2011 (ON COLORADO +3.5)

• In second-round games between two double-digit seeds, the best seed has been 12-2 SU and ATS since 2001, playing each time as the favorite. (ON NC STATE -6)

• #14 seeds that pulled off upsets in the first round are 0-10 SU and ATS (0%) in the second round since 1998, losing by an average of 14.8 PPG. (AGAINST OAKLAND +6)

• Better-seeded teams are just 10-16 SU and ATS (38.5%) when playing as underdogs to worse-seeded teams in the second round since 2001. (AGAINST KANSAS +4)

ACC

  • Over the last three NCAA tournaments, the ACC boasts a record of 25-10 SU and 26-9 ATS (74.3%). (ON CLEMSON +4.5, DUKE -6.5, NORTH CAROLINA -4, NC STATE -6)
  • In the role of pick ’em or small underdog (up to 4.5 points), ACC teams are currently on a 17-3 ATS (85%) surge, including nine straight covers. (ON CLEMSON +4.5)
  • ACC teams are just 29-47-1 ATS (38.2%) as favorites of 5 points or less in the NCAAs since 1998. (AGAINST NORTH CAROLINA -4)
  • ACC teams playing as double-digit seeds are 17-8-1 ATS (68%) since 2012. (ON NC STATE -6)
  • ACC teams are on a current surge of 8-4 SU and 10-2 ATS (83.3%) in the NCAAs versus Big 12 foes. (ON CLEMSON +4.5)

Atlantic 10

  • Favorites are on an 18-6 SU and 15-9 ATS (60%) surge in Atlantic 10 NCAA tourney games since 2015. (AGAINST DAYTON +9, DUQUESNE +10)

Big 12

  • Big 12 teams in the #4-#8 seed ranges are on a slide of 25-32 SU and 21-35 ATS (37.5%) since 2010, popular upset victims. (AGAINST KANSAS +4, TEXAS +6.5)
  • Against mid-major teams in the NCAAs, Big 12 teams are on a 22-9 ATS (71%) surge. (ON KANSAS +4)
  • Underdogs are on a 16-3 ATS (84.2%) run in NCAA tourney games between Big 12 and Pac-12 teams. Big 12 teams are just 6-13 ATS (31.6%)in those contests. (AGAINST IOWA STATE -6.5)
  • Big 12 teams have lost 57 of their 72 NCAA tourney games since 2000 as underdogs of 2.5 points or more and are 29-42-1 ATS (40.8%) in those games. (AGAINST KANSAS +4, TEXAS +6.5)
  • As favorites of 7 points or more in the NCAAs, Big 12 teams are on a current run of 30-2 SU and 22-10 ATS (68.8%). (ON HOUSTON -9.5)

Big East

  • Big East teams have also thrived in the tournament’s second round of late, going 10-7 SU and 13-4 ATS (76.5%) since 2017. (ON CONNECTICUT -14, CREIGHTON -4.5, MARQUETTE -3.5)
  • Top two seeded (#1s & #2s) from the Big East have validated their positions by going 22-5 SU and 20-7 ATS (74.1%) in the NCAAs since 2016. (ON CONNECTICUT -14, MARQUETTE -3.5)
  • Teams from the Big East have been highly reliable double-digit favorites in the NCAAs since 2007, going 41-3 SU and 29-15 ATS (65.9%). (ON CONNECTICUT -14)
  • Big East teams have struggled versus the Pac-12 in NCAA tourney play, 7-7 SU and 4-10 ATS (28.6%) since 2010. (AGAINST CREIGHTON -4.5, MARQUETTE -3.5)
  • Favorites are 44-17 ATS (72.1%) in the last 61 Big East NCAA tourney games. (ON CONNECTICUT -14, CREIGHTON -4.5, MARQUETTE -3.5)

Big Ten

  • Overall, Big Ten teams and top 6 seeds haven’t meshed well since 2015, as they are 43-31 SU but 29-44-1 ATS (39.7%) in that scenario. (AGAINST ILLINOIS -10, PURDUE -10.5)
  • Big Ten teams have been relatively strong in the double-digit chalk role in the tournament, 51-5 SU and 31-21-4 ATS (59.6%) since 1998, (ON ILLINOIS -10, PURDUE -10.5)
  • For as good as Big Ten teams have been in the big favorite role, they have been brutal as underdogs of 5.5 points or more in the tournament, 6-50 SU and 21-35 ATS (37.5%) since 1998. (AGAINST NORTHWESTERN +14)
  • In tourney games of the second round and later, Big Ten teams are just 16-31 SU and 17-28-2 ATS (37.8%) since 2017. (AGAINST ILLINOIS -10, MICHIGAN STATE +4, NORTHWESTERN +14, PURDUE -10.5)

Horizon

  • Horizon League teams have lost 12 of their last 14 NCAA tourney games, but they are currently on a four-game ATS win streak. (ON OAKLAND +6)
  • Horizon League teams are on a 17-7 Under the total (70.8%) NCAA run. (UNDER 146.5 OAK-NCST)
  • Line placement has been key in Horizon League NCAA tourney games. As dogs of 8 points or more, they are 1-14 SU and 6-9 ATS (40%) since 2002. In all other games, they are 20-10 SU and 22-8 ATS (73.3%). (ON OAKLAND +6)
  • In their last 15 NCAA tourney games versus power conference foes, Horizon League teams are 2-14 SU and 6-10 ATS (37.5%) since 2002. Versus other mid-majors, Horizon League teams are on an 8-2 SU and ATS tourney surge. (AGAINST OAKLAND +6)

Ivy

  • Ivy League teams have gone 8-12 SU and 13-7 ATS (65%) in their last 20 NCAA tourney games. (ON YALE +5)
  • Ivy League teams are on a 20-11 Under the total (64.5%) NCAA run. (UNDER 128.5 YALE-SDSU)

Mountain West

  • Mountain West teams’ struggles in the NCAAs haven’t been that well-documented, but collectively, they are just 29-60 SU and 28-58-3 ATS (32.6%) since 2001. (AGAINST SAN DIEGO STATE -5, UTAH STATE +10.5)
  • As tournament underdogs, Mountain West teams are just 11-41 SU and 14-35-3 ATS (28.6%) since 2001. (AGAINST UTAH STATE +10.5)
  • Mountain West Conference teams have been totally overmatched against major conference programs in the NCAAs since 2000, 12-48 SU and 15-43-2 ATS (25.9%). (AGAINST UTAH STATE +10.5)
  • As seeds of 8 or worse in the NCAAs, MWC teams are on a brutal 5-35 SU and 7-31-2 ATS (18.4%) since 2003! (AGAINST UTAH STATE +10.5

Pac-12

  • Pac-12 teams are on an 18-4 ATS (81.8%) run versus Big 12 and Big East teams in NCAA tourney play since 2013. (ON COLORADO +3.5, OREGON +4.5, WASHINGTON STATE +6.5)
  • Pac-12 teams are on a run of 21-8 ATS (72.4%) in second-round NCAA tournament games. (ON ARIZONA -9, COLORADO +3.5, OREGON +4.5, WASHINGTON STATE +6.5)
  • Pac-12 teams have performed extremely well as underdogs lately in NCAA tourney games, 38-17 ATS (69.1%) since 2011. (ON COLORADO +3.5, OREGON +4.5, WASHINGTON STATE +6.5)
  • Double-digit seeded Pac-12 teams in the NCAAs have been hard to knock out, as they are 29-21 SU and 37-13 ATS (74%) since ’09. (ON COLORADO +3.5, OREGON +4.5)
  • Alternatively, Pac-12 teams in the #7-#9 seeds are on a 9-22 SU and 12-19 ATS (38.7%) skid in the NCAAs. (AGAINST WASHINGTON STATE +6.5)

SEC

  • The last five NCAA tournaments have been a struggle for SEC teams, as they are just 39-40 SU and 28-51 ATS (35.4%) since the Friday of the first round in the 2018 tourney. (AGAINST ALABAMA -6, TENNESSEE -6.5, TEXAS A&M +9.5)
  • Underdogs are 47-25 ATS (65.3%) in the last 72 SEC NCAA tourney games overall. (AGAINST ALABAMA -6, TENNESSEE -6.5 – ON TEXAS A&M +9.5)
  • Seeded in the bottom half of the field (#9-#14), SEC teams have struggled to a 10-24 SU and 12-20-2 ATS (37.5%) record since 2007. (AGAINST TEXAS A&M +9.5)
  • The #4 seed and the SEC haven’t meshed well of late, as they are 15-24 ATS (38.5%) in that spot since 2000 and have gone Under the total at a 28-10-1 (73.6%) rate. (AGAINST ALABAMA -6 – UNDER 168.5 ALA-GCU)
  • SEC teams are on a 2-8 ATS (20%) skid versus mid-major teams in the NCAAs and are 6-14 ATS (30%) in the last 16. (AGAINST ALABAMA -6)

Sun Belt

  • Sun Belt teams have gone Under the total at a 7-1 (87.5%) in the last eight NCAA tourney games. (UNDER 148.5 James Madison-Duke)
  • As #14-#16 seeds in the NCAAs, Sun Belt teams are on a 6-11-1 ATS (35.3%) slide since ’99, but as #13 or better, they’ve gone 11-4 ATS (73.3%) in that same span. (ON JAMES MADISON +6.5)
  • As underdogs of 7.5 points or less, Sun Belt teams are on a 3-9 SU and 3-8-1 ATS (27.3%) slide in the NCAAs. (AGAINST JAMES MADISON +6.5)
  • Sun Belt teams seem to take some motivation from playing major conference teams, as they are on a NCAA tourney run of 9-4 ATS (69.2%) versus those foes since 2008. (ON JAMES MADISON +6.5)

WAC

  • WAC teams have won just three of their last 24 games in the NCAAs since 2006, going 10-13 ATS; however, they are currently on a six-game ATS winning streak. (ON GRAND CANYON +6)

West Coast

  • Gonzaga is looking to slow a 4-12 ATS (25%) tourney skid for WCC teams. (AGAINST GONZAGA -4)

(789) MICHIGAN STATE vs. (790) NORTH CAROLINA
* NORTH CAROLINA is on a 7-1 ATS run versus Michigan State but lost the most recent meeting SU and ATS in 2017.

(791) TEXAS vs. (792) TENNESSEE
* Five of the last six games in the TEX-TEN series went Over the total

(835) TEXAS A&M vs. (836) HOUSTON
* TEXAS A&M has won the last four ATS versus Houston

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR