Seeds in 2020 (Round 1)

 

Seeds in 2020

One of the most common discussions I see online is discussions around the "seeds" in various games.  As a Data Driven Punter ("DDP"), we know how the NCAA tournament uses the "seeds" and it is NOT the absolute science that everyone assumes it is. 

In 2020, we could very well see significant adjustments to the S Curve based on the NCAA Seeding Guidelines.... Here is a reminder of how it works: 

Use this reference:   Long Form -- NCAA 

There are 3 steps, they are unique and although at times overlapping done mutually exclusive to each other.  

The hardest part is Step 3, which is why we learn the most important thing we need to understand about how to assess "seeds" when we are punting; 

"A team may be moved up or down one (or in extraordinary circumstances) two lines from its true seed line (e.g., from the 13 seed line to the 12 seed line; or from a 12 seed line to a 13 seed line) when it is placed in the bracket if necessary to meet the principles."

And based on the other rules, "if necessary" is often necessary.  

- Each of the first four teams selected from a conference shall be placed in different regions if they are seeded on the first four lines.
- Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional final if they played each other three or more times during the regular season and conference tournament.
- Teams from the same conference shall not meet prior to the regional semifinals if they played each other twice during the regular season and conference tournament.
- Teams from the same conference may play each other as early as the second round if they played no more than once during the regular season and conference tournament.
- Any principle can be relaxed if two or more teams from the same conference are among the last four at-large seeded teams participating in the First Four.
- To recognize the demonstrated quality of such teams, the committee shall not place teams seeded on the first four lines at a potential “home-crowd disadvantage” in the first round. 

This year with the Big 10 driving so many teams toward the NCAA tournament, I'd guess we will see significant "seed movement" up and down the S Curve to make the bracket a valid bracket within the guidelines.   

So before I share the next data, please just trust me, don't trust "seeds".  

But since so many of the masses playing March Madness Square Betting in Vegas, you maybe realize that there are simply betting trends based on the Seed games.   

So here is the data for you, 35 years of content in here.  

There are 5 types of games in my models: 

Pick:  No fav or dog established with the opening line and therefore there is no ATS bet; it is simply a SU bet and no analysis is done 
Push:  At the end of the game, no one wins and no one loses as the spread matches the differential of the final score
Fav Covers:   Team A is -12 and wins by 13 or more.  If you bet Team A ATS, you win. 
Fav Does Not Cover:  Team A is -12 and wins by 11 or less.  If you bet Team B ATS, you win.
Dog Wins Outright:  Team A is -12 and Team B wins by 1 or more.  If you bet Team B ATS, you win.

So I think there is actually a different and better way to look at this to oversimplify the trends but also provide a cleaner view,  the key to gambling is managing risk and therefore the key is to "not lose".  One way to better understand this is to actually apply the "Push" and look at when you lose and/or do not lose your bets.   

Here is the analysis by Game Type (Opening Line): 

So what do we learn? 

• Always bet the 1 v 16 game.  Always.  No matter if you bet the dog or the fav, you are most likely not to lose the bet, this comes from the super large 5% Push rate which honestly I believe tells me that coaches and players know spreads, no other great way to explain how it is 140 basis points greater than the next closest push rate (the 8 v 9 game).  
• Always bet the 4 seed to cover.
• Bet the Dog in the 5 v 12 game  (Note:  In the 4 games where the 12 seed was the opening line fav, they Covered 2x and Lost 2x, never has the spread mattered but as a fav no value in the ML either.   1985 Kentucky Covered 1 Over Washington; 1989 Providence Lost to Virginia; 1996 Cal Lost to Iowa State; 2009 Arizona Killed and Covered 2 v Utah (when Utah was in the MWC).
• Never bet the dog in the 6 v 11 even if the 11 is the fav
  (Note:  9 11 Seed Fav covered, 4 lost outright, spread never mattered)
• Never bet the dog in the 7 v 10 game unless the 10 is the fav, then bet the 7 seed(Note:  26 games the 10 seed was the fav on the opening line, 1 ended in a push so 25 outcomes;  The 10 seed covered 12 times, failed to cover 1 time and lost outright 13 times 
• Always Bet the Dog in the 8 v 9 game.  

I took this analysis a little further with a give and take, recency matters since the betting logic of the masses has changed over the 35 years as more people are playing and therefore more squares are moving lines HOWEVER going from 35 years to 10 years of data moves from 140 data points to only 40 data points.   

So what do we learn if we look at only the last 10 years? 

• Still Always bet the 1 v 16 game.  But play the Fav
• Bet the 2 Seed & 3 Seeds to Cover, NEVER bet the 15 seed to Cover
• Bet that Dog in the 4 v 13 game
• Still Bet the Dog in the 5 v 12 game  
• Mixed Results now on the 6 v 11 game, the dog is now playable, the fav is the 2nd worst historical bet in 10 years
• Still Never bet the dog in the 7 v 10 game unless the 10 is the fav, then bet the 7 seed
• Still Always Bet the Dog in the 8 v 9 game. 

I would never bet entirely on this data, however you can use it as you wish.  And it is interesting to discuss and debate on the reasons why the data tells us this.   If you want to discuss, find me on the March Madness in Las Vegas Facebook Group and/or Reply Here!

TJH