THE SPORTS ADVISORS
EAST REGION
(at Greensboro, N.C.)
(10) Minnesota (22-10, 12-14-1 ATS) vs. (7) Texas (22-11, 11-18-1 ATS)
Texas won two games in the Big 12 tournament last week to secure an NCAA bid before bowing out in the semifinals with a 76-70 loss to Baylor as a 4½-point chalk on Friday. The Longhorns, paced by guard A.J. Abrams’ 16.3 ppg, were just 6-4 SU in their last 10 starts, going 2-7-1 ATS in that span. Going back farther, they are on a 5-14-1 ATS freefall in their last 20 starts.
Minnesota went 6-9 SU and 4-11 ATS in its last 14 games, yet still slipped into the NCAA tourney with an at-large bid. The Golden Gophers topped Northwestern 66-53 as a two-point favorite to open the Big Then tournament, then lost to Michigan State 64-56 as a 7½-point underdog in the quarterfinals, continuing a trend of alternating SU and ATS wins and losses over their last seven games.
Texas, making its 26th NCAA trip, went 3-1 SU (2-2 ATS) in last year’s tournament, falling to eventual runner-up Memphis in the Elite Eight. Minnesota returns to the Big Dance after a three-year hiatus, losing to Iowa State in the first round in 2005.
Texas is 5-2 SU and 3-3-1 ATS on neutral floors this year, including a 67-58 win as a two-point chalk against Villanova in the Jimmy V Classic in New York. Minnesota is 2-1 SU and ATS in neutral-site games this year, with one of the wins coming over NCAA tourney No. 1 seed Louisville in Arizona in December, a 70-64 upset victory as a nine-point ‘dog.
The Longhorns are on nothing but negative ATS streaks, including 1-5-1 overall, 3-7-1 against winning teams, 3-9-1 laying points and 1-4 against the Big Ten. The Gophers have cashed in their last four non-conference starts, but they’re also on several ATS slides, including 2-12 against the Big 12, 8-20 as an underdog, 3-8 at neutral sites and 3-7 against winning teams.
The under for Minnesota is on tears of 23-11 overall, 5-1 on neutral floors and 12-4 as a ‘dog, and the under for Texas is on rolls of 5-0 after a non-cover, 6-1 after a SU loss, 4-1 at neutral sites and 4-1 in non-conference games. However, the over has hit in four of the Longhorns’ last five NCAA tourney games.
ATS ADVANTAGE: UNDER
(15) Binghamton (23-8, 1-0 ATS) vs. (2) Duke (28-6, 16-16-1 ATS)
Duke won the ACC tournament last weekend, capping off a three-game run with a 79-69 victory over Florida State as a 6½-point chalk, its only cover of the conference tourney. The Blue Devils finished the year on an 8-1 SU run (5-4 ATS), with the only loss coming to archrival North Carolina. Duke, with Kyle Singler (16.7 ppg) leading three players averaging 15 ppg or more, won its 15 non-conference starts by an average final score of 21 ppg (82-61).
Binghamton didn’t play a lined contest this season until the final game of the America East Conference tournament, posting a 61-51 victory as a 6½-point favorite Saturday for its 11th consecutive victory. The Bearcats had only one game against a team from a major basketball conference this year, but even that was against Big East doormat Rutgers, and Binghamton won 66-56 on the road.
Duke went 6-0 SU (4-2 ATS) on neutral floors this season, beating five NCAA-bound squads
SU (3-2 ATS). Binghamton went 3-0 SU (1-0 ATS) in its three neutral-site games – all coming in the America East conference tournament. The Bearcats are making their first NCAA appearance in the program’s 63-year history, while Duke is in the Big Dance for the 33rd time, bowing out to West Virginia in the second round last year.
The Blue Devils have failed to cash in their last four NCAA Tournament starts and are just 1-8 ATS in their last eight NCAA contests (5-4 SU), all from the favorite’s role. They are on further ATS skids of 1-6 laying 13 points or more and 2-5-1 coming off a spread-cover. The Bearcats are 5-2 ATS in their last seven lined games, but that stretches back to the 2004-05 season.
The under for Duke is on several runs, including 5-2 overall, 10-2 at neutral sites, 5-1 in the NCAA Tournament, 13-5 after a SU win, 24-11 when the Blue Devils are favored and 13-6 against non-conference foes. Likewise, the under for Binghamton is on runs of 6-1 overall, 5-1 in non-conference play and 4-1 as an underdog.
ATS ADVANTAGE: UNDER
EAST REGION
(at Philadelphia)
(14) American (24-7, 1-0 ATS) vs. (3) Villanova (26-7, 16-13 ATS)
Villanova earned a No. 3 seed by going on a 6-1 SU run (3-4 ATS) and reaching the Big East tournament semifinals, before losing Friday to eventual conference champ and NCAA No. 1 seed Louisville 69-55 as a 4½-point ‘dog. The Wildcats, paced by forward Dante Cunningham’s 16 points and 7.2 rebounds per game, struggled against the number late in the year, going 3-6 ATS in their last nine starts.
American didn’t play a lined game this season until last Friday’s Patriot League tournament final, a 73-57 victory over Holy Cross as a five-point underdog. The Eagles have won 13 straight games, and they did attempt to beef up their schedule, taking on Oklahoma, Georgetown and Maryland this season. But they lost all three by an average of 23 points (74.3-51.3), failing to score more than 54 points in any contests despite averaging 64.5 ppg on the season.
American had never earned an NCAA bid until last year, when it lost to Tennessee 72-57 in the opening round, though the Eagles covered as a 19-point pup. Villanova is in the Big Dance for the fifth straight year and the 29th time overall, going 2-1 SU and ATS last year, when it lost to eventual champion Kansas 72-57 as a 12-point ‘dog in the round of 16.
The Wildcats are on a 10-4 ATS run against winning teams, but they are also on ATS backslides of 1-4 as a favorite, 2-6 in the Tournament, 1-5 as a Tournament favorite and 2-5 at neutral sites (0-3 this year). The Eagles have cashed in four of their last five lined games – dating to the 2003-04 season – but they are on pointspread skids of 0-4 after a spread-cover, 1-5 as a ‘dog of 13 or more points and 4-9 against teams with a winning percentage above .600.
The under for Villanova is on stretches of 14-3-1 in non-conference play, 4-1-1 in the NCAA Tournament and 5-2 as a chalk. American’s lone lined contest went over the 116½-point posted price last week against Holy Cross, and the Eagles’ games this season totaled an average of 122.9 points.
ATS ADVANTAGE: VILLANOVA
(11) VCU (24-9, 14-15-1 ATS) vs. (6) UCLA (25-8, 16-15-1 ATS)
UCLA, far more accustomed lately to winning the Pac-10 tournament and entering the Tournament with a higher seed, instead bowed out in the semis with Friday’s 65-55 loss to archrival Southern Cal as a 6½-point chalk, ending a 5-0 SU (4-0-1 ATS) surge. It was the Bruins’ second-lowest output of the year and a departure from their five-game run, during which they averaged 77 ppg while allowing just 62.8 ppg.
Virginia Commonwealth, out of the Colonial Athletic Association, brings a five-game win streak into the NCAA Tournament, including a 3-0 SU (2-1 ATS) run to the Colonial Athletic Association conference tournament title. In the final, the Rams pounded former NCAA tourney darling George Mason 71-50 laying 3½ points, improving to 5-1 ATS in their last six starts, which comes on the heels of a 1-7 ATS slide.
UCLA, paced by senior point guard Darren Collison’s 14.8 ppg, is in the Tournament for the 43rd time and seeking its fourth consecutive trip to the Final Four. Last year, the Bruins lost to Memphis 78-63 as a two-point pup in the national semis. VCU, with star guard Eric Maynor (22.4 ppg, 6.2 apg), makes its fifth trip to the NCAA Tournament and first since 2007, when the Rams upset Duke in the opening round before losing to Pittsburgh in the second round.
Along with their current 4-1 ATS uptick, the Bruins are 16-7-1 ATS in their last 24 games on Thursday – a day they typically play throughout the Pac-10 season – but they are on ATS slides of 1-5-1 after a pointspread loss and 1-4-1 after a SU setback. The Rams are 5-11-1 ATS in their last 17 starts against teams with a win percentage above .600, but they otherwise sport positive pointspread streaks of 4-0 against winning teams, 4-1 after a SU win, 10-4 at neutral sites (4-2 this year) and 17-8-3 in non-conference action.
The over has hit in 13 of UCLA’s last 16 games and is on further rolls for the Bruins of 7-0 after both a SU and ATS loss, 8-1 on Thursday and 12-3 with UCLA favored, and the over for VCU is on streaks of 4-0 in non-conference games and 16-7-1 with the Rams a ‘dog. However, the under is on runs of 10-4 when UCLA is favored in the Tournament, 4-1 for VCU’s overall and 5-2-1 for VCU in neutral-site contests.
ATS ADVANTAGE: VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH
SOUTH REGION
(at Greensboro, N.C.)
(9) Butler (26-5, 16-12-1 ATS) vs. (8) LSU (26-7, 13-12-1 ATS)
LSU, the SEC’s regular-season champ, limped to the finish line by going 1-3 SU and ATS in its last four starts, including a 67-57 loss to Mississippi State as a four-point chalk in the conference semifinals. The Tigers, who had won 10 in a row (6-4 ATS) prior to their current skid, have averaged 74.9 ppg while allowing 65.5 this season, but over the last five starts, they’ve been outscored by a pair of buckets per game (67.8-63.4).
Butler stumbled in the Horizon League championship, losing to Cleveland State 57-54 as a 6½-point favorite, but the Bulldogs still managed to get an at-large bid. The loss halted Butler’s four-game SU win streak, and it has now dropped three in a row against the number (all as a favorite). The Bulldogs once again bulked up their non-conference schedule, particularly in going 2-0 ATS against fellow NCAA participants Xavier and Ohio State (both on the road), beating the Musketeers 74-65 as an eight-point underdog.
Guard Marcus Thornton (20.9 ppg) leads LSU into its 19th NCAA Tournament appearance, though the Tigers missed out on the Big Dance the last two years after reaching the 2006 semifinals before losing to eventual champion Florida. Forward Matt Howard (14.3 ppg, 55.2 percent field-goal percentage) helped Butler to its third straight Tournament appearance and eighth overall. The Bulldogs lost a 76-71 overtime thriller to Tennessee in the second round last year as a 4½-point ‘dog.
The Tigers are on a bundle of ATS freefalls, including 1-7 at neutral sites, 19-39-1 as a favorite, 1-8 as a neutral-site chalk, 1-6 as an NCAA favorite and 1-4 in non-conference games. The Bulldogs have failed to cover in five of their last seven, but they are also on ATS upswings of 21-5 as an underdog, 13-3 as a neutral-site pup, 4-1 in the NCAA tourney, 4-1 against the SEC and 37-15-1 outside the Horizon League.
The under for LSU is on runs of 6-0 in the Tournament, 4-0 as a chalk in the Tournament and 9-4 outside the SEC, but the over has hit in seven of the Tigers’ last 10 neutral-site starts. Furthermore, the over for Butler is on tears of 8-3 overall, 6-1 on neutral floors, 5-1 in non-conference play and 23-9 against teams with a win percentage above .600.
ATS ADVANTAGE: BUTLER and OVER
(16) Radford (21-11, 1-0 ATS) vs. (1) North Carolina (28-4, 11-19-0 ATS)
North Carolina went 9-2 SU in its last 10 games but was just 2-9 ATS, capping a regular season that saw the Tar Heels post one of the worst pointspread records in the nation. The Tar Heels, who won the regular-season ACC title, barely edged Virginia Tech 79-76 in Friday’s ACC tournament quarterfinals as a heavy 11½-point chalk before falling in the semis to Florida State 73-70 Saturday as a nine-point favorite for their fourth consecutive ATS setback.
The Tar Heels will likely be without star guard Tyler Lawson (toe injury) today.
Radford played just one lined contest all season, in the Big South Conference final against Virginia Military Institute on March 7, winning a shootout 108-94 as a three-point favorite. The ACC isn’t unfamiliar territory for the Highlanders, who played both Wake Forest and Virginia this season, narrowly losing to the meek Cavaliers 68-66 on the road, but getting drummed 83-61 at Wake. Radford also lost 89-64 to fellow Tournament entrant West Virginia of the Big East.
North Carolina, behind star senior forward Tyler Hansbrough (21.1 ppg, 8.9 rpg), is in its 41st NCAA Tournament. Last year, the Heels bowed out in the Final Four to eventual champ Kansas, losing 84-66 as a 2½-point favorite. Radford is making just its second Tournament appearance, having last danced in 1998, when it lost to Duke in the first round.
The Tar Heels are on a string of negative ATS streaks, including 0-4 overall (all as a favorite), 0-7 against winning teams and 1-5 after an ATS loss. However, they went 4-1 SU and ATS in the NCAAs last year, and they are on further pointspread rolls of 26-6-1 after a SU loss and 40-18 in non-conference action. The Highlanders, meanwhile, have played just one lined contest this entire decade – the win and cover against VMI in the Big South tournament title tilt 12 days ago.
The over for Carolina is on stretches of 10-4 overall, 5-1 with the Tar Heels as a chalk of 13 or more points, 4-0 in the Tournament as a favorite of 13 or more and 36-16 after a SU loss. Also, Radford’s Big South title win over VMI soared over the 170½-point posted total.
ATS ADVANTAGE: NORTH CAROLINA and OVER
SOUTH REGION
(at Kansas City, Mo.)
(10) Michigan (20-13, 15-11 ATS) vs. (7) Clemson (23-8, 12-13-1 ATS)
Michigan snuck into the Tournament for the first time since 1998 despite going just 6-7 SU (7-5 ATS in lined games) over its last 13 starts, getting a SU and ATS split in the Big Ten tourney with a 73-45 rout of Iowa as a five-point favorite Thursday and a 60-50 loss to Illinois as a two-point underdog Friday. Prior to the non-cover against Illinois, the Wolverines had cashed in four straight starts, including against fellow NCAA Tournament entrants Purdue, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Clemson also struggled the last couple of weeks, going 1-4 SU and ATS in its last five, punctuated by an 86-81 upset loss to Georgia Tech as an 8½-point chalk last Thursday in the ACC tournament quarterfinals. During their current slide, the Tigers have been outscored by a single point per game (78.4-77.4), going off as the favorite in all five contests. In three neutral-site starts this year, Clemson has outscored its foes by a four points per game (76-72).
Guard Manny Harris (17.1 ppg, 7.0 rpg) leads Michigan to its 17th NCAA appearance, and the Wolverines’ ended an 11-year drought in coach John Beilein’s second season. Clemson, paced by forward Trevor Booker (15.2 ppg, 9.7 rpg), is in its eighth NCAA tourney, losing to Villanova 75-69 as a six-point favorite in the first round last year.
The Wolverines are on ATS dips of 1-5-1 against ACC foes and 3-7 at neutral sites, but they also carry positive pointspread streaks of 5-1-1 outside the Big Ten and 4-1 against winning teams. The Tigers have cashed in five of their last six against the Big Ten, but along with their current 1-4 ATS skid, they are 0-4 ATS in their last four neutral-site contests.
For Michigan, the under is on rolls of 11-5-1 overall, 6-0 on neutral courts and 15-5-1 with the Wolverines as an underdog. However, the over has hit in seven of Michigan’s last eight games against ACC foes, and the over for Clemson is on streaks of 7-2 overall, 6-1 against the Big Ten, 6-2 with the Tigers favored and 7-3-1 on neutral floors.
ATS ADVANTAGE: NONE
(15) Morgan State (23-11, 3-2 ATS) vs. (2) Oklahoma (27-5, 13-13-1 ATS)
Oklahoma squandered a shot at a No. 1 seed by going 2-4 SU and 1-5 ATS in its last six games, partly due to star forward Blake Griffin trying to shake off the effects of a concussion that contributed to back-to-back SU and ATS losses at Texas and at home to Kansas. The Sooners then stubbed their toe in the Big 12 quarterfinals last Thursday, losing to archrival Oklahoma State 71-70 as a five-point chalk for their third straight non-cover.
Morgan State finished the year on a five-game win streak, with the only lined contest in that span being an 83-69 victory over Norfolk State as a 10½-point favorite to win the Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference championship game and the automatic NCAA bid. The Bears played a few power-conference programs this year, upsetting fellow tourney participant Maryland 66-65 on the road in a non-lined game for their signature win of the season.
Griffin, who averages an eye-popping 22.1 points and 14.2 rebounds, leads Oklahoma into its 26th NCAA Tournament, and the Sooners are looking to avenge last year’s 78-48 blowout loss to Louisville as a seven-point pup in the second round. Former California coach Todd Bozeman has Morgan State in its first-ever Big Dance, with Bozeman returning for the first time since leading Cal to three bids in four seasons from 1992-96.
The Sooners are on ATS declines of 0-5 against winning teams, 7-19 at neutral sites and 5-13 as a neutral-site favorite. But prior to their current 1-5 ATS hiccup – in which Griffin ostensibly missed a pair of games -- they won 13 in a row and went 7-3-1 ATS in lined games. The Bears are on ATS skids of 4-11 overall, 2-9 at neutral sites, 1-6 as a neutral-site pup and 3-9 in non-conference play.
The over for Oklahoma is on runs of 11-4-1 outside the Big 12, 11-5 after a SU loss and 9-3 with the Sooners favored, and the over has been the play in five of Morgan State’s last seven games. But the under is 7-3-1 in the Sooners’ last 11 neutral-court starts, and the under for the Bears is on stretches of 8-3 at neutral venues, 7-3 in non-conference play and 6-2 as an underdog.
ATS ADVANTAGE: OKLAHOMA
SOUTH REGION
(at Portland, Ore.)
(13) Akron (23-12, 16-13-1 ATS) vs. (4) Gonzaga (26-5, 15-13 ATS)
Gonzaga comes into the Big Dance riding a nine-game winning streak (5-3-1), culminating with an 83-58 rout of St. Mary’s as a 7 ½-point chalk in the West Coast Conference title game March 9. The Bulldogs, who went undefeated in the WCC campaign, have lost just once in their last 19 starts – a 68-50 home setback laying four points to NCAA No. 2 seed Memphis. Gonzaga is 6-1 SU (5-2 ATS) at neutral sites this year, including three consecutive SU and ATS wins over fellow Tournament participants Oklahoma State, Maryland and Tennessee, and they went to overtime with Connecticut before losing 88-83 as a three-point chalk in Seattle.
Akron swept through the Mid-American Conference tourney with a 4-0 SU mark (3-1 ATS), capped by a 65-53 win over Buffalo as a two-point chalk in Saturday’s final. The run to the championship came after the Zips ended the regular season by losing four of its last seven (2-4-1 ATS). In the Zips’ only other game this season against a team the caliber of Gonzaga, they lost to NCAA Tournament No. 1 seed Pittsburgh 86-67, barely covering as a 20-point road pup.
Gonzaga is now a perennial Tournament participant, making its 12th appearance behind a balanced offense led by forward Josh Heytvelt’s 14.9 ppg. Last year, the Zags went won-and-down in the Tournament, tumbling to Davidson and Stephen Curry 82-76 as a one-point ‘dog, losing SU and ATS in the first round for the second straight year. Akron hasn’t been in this event since 1986, its only other appearance, which ended with a first-round loss to Michigan.
The Bulldogs are just 2-6 ATS in their last eight NCAA Tournament starts and are on further ATS downfalls of 1-5 in non-conference action and 4-9 against winning teams, but they’re also riding ATS upticks of 5-1 overall and 5-2 at neutral sites. The Zips are on pointspread rolls of 5-2 against winning teams, 7-3 after a spread-cover and 14-5 as a pup of seven to 12½ points.
The under is on runs of 5-2 for Gonzaga at neutral sites and 8-3 for Akron in non-conference affairs. However, the over for the Zags is on streaks of 6-2 overall and 4-1 in the Tournament, and the over has hit in six of the Zips’ last eight neutral-site starts.
ATS ADVANTAGE: GONZAGA
(12) Western Kentucky (24-8, 16-12-1 ATS) vs. (5) Illinois (24-9, 15-12-1 ATS)
Western Kentucky earned a second consecutive trip to the NCAA Tournament thanks to an 11-1 SU tear (9-3 ATS), including a current 7-0 SU and 6-1 ATS surge. The Hilltoppers grabbed the Sun Belt Conference tournament title by topping South Alabama 64-56 as a five-point chalk in the March 10 final. Western Kentucky also faced some solid non-conference competition this season, having posted a stunning 68-54 beatdown of NCAA Tournament top seed Louisville as an overwhelming 19½-point neutral-site dog in November.
Illinois skids into the Big Dance on a 1-3 SU and ATS slide, losing to Purdue 66-56 as a three-point ‘dog in the Big Ten semifinals Saturday. The Fighting Illini have averaged just 59.4 ppg in their last five starts – more than five points below their season average of 64.6 – and they’ve allowed 59 ppg in that span. Defense has been key all year for Illinois, which rates third in the country by yielding just 56.6 ppg.
These two previously met in the 2003 NCAA Tournament, with Illinois getting a 65-60 first-round win, but Western Kentucky covering as a 10-point pup.
Western Kentucky, behind guard A.J. Slaughter’s 15.8 ppg, is in the Big Dance for the 21st time in school history. Last year, the Hilltoppers posted a pair of wins, including a thrilling 101-99 overtime victory over Drake as a four-point ‘dog in the first round. UCLA ended the Hilltoppers’ run in the Sweet 16, winning 88-78, though WKU cashed as a 12½-point underdog. Illinois nabbed its 28th NCAA bid, though it missed last year’s tourney and lost to Virginia Tech in the first round in 2007. The Illini could be without starting guard Chester Frazier due to a hand injury that kept him out of last week’s Big Ten tournament.
The Hilltoppers are on a bundle of ATS rolls, including 5-0 overall, 4-0 in the Tournament, 16-5 on neutral floors, 5-1 as a neutral-site pup, 19-7-1 against winning teams and 40-17-1 outside the Sun Belt Conference. Likewise, the Illini are on ATS upswings of 5-1 at neutral sites, 5-0 giving points on a neutral court, 11-5 as a favorite in this event and 6-2 in non-conference play.
The under for Western Kentucky is on stretches of 4-0 overall and 4-1 at neutral sites, and the under for Illinois is on sprees of 12-5 overall, 13-3 in the Tournament, 4-1 on a neutral court and 19-7 when favored.
ATS ADVANTAGE: WESTERN KENTUCKY and UNDER
WEST REGION
(at Kansas City, Mo.)
(15) Cal State-Northridge (17-13, 16-10 ATS) vs. (2) Memphis (31-3, 22-11 ATS)
Memphis, which sports the nation’s longest active winning streak at 25 games, rumbled to a 3-0 SU and 2-1 ATS mark in capturing its third straight Conference USA tourney title, winning all three games by at least 20 points. The Tigers, with the nation’s fourth-ranked defense (56.9 ppg), stuffed Tulsa 64-39 in the finale as a 14½-point chalk and have now held nine of their last 12 opponents to 50 points or less, including a 68-50 road rout of NCAA No. 4 seed Gonzaga as a four-point underdog.
Cal State-Northridge has won five of its last six games (4-2 ATS), going 2-0 SU and ATS in the Big West tournament, culminating with a 71-66 overtime win over Pacific as a 1½-point pup in Saturday’s title game. The Matadors went 0-4 SU and 2-2 ATS in their toughest non-conference games, losing to both UCLA and Stanford by 18 points and suffering double-digit losses to San Diego State and New Mexico, all on the road.
Memphis, led by freshman guard Tyreke Evans (16.9 ppg), is in its 22nd NCAA Tournament and looking to get back to the title game, where it lost last year to Kansas. Coincidentally, Northridge’s last (and only) Big Dance appearance also ended with a loss to Kansas, in the first round in 2001.
The Tigers are on a plethora of positive pointspread streaks, including 18-6 overall, 5-0 in non-conference play, 11-2 against winning teams, 9-4 after an ATS win and 10-3 as a chalk of 13 or more points. The Matadors are on a 3-7 ATS skid as a pup of 13 or more, but they are on positive ATS runs of 4-1 overall, 4-1 against winning teams, 4-1 outside the Big West and 7-2 after a SU win.
The over is on a 6-1 roll for Memphis in NCAA Tournament play, but the “under” trends take over from there for a stout Tigers’ defense that leads the country in field-goals defense (36.1 percent). The under is on tears for the Tigers of 19-7 overall, 4-0 on neutral courts, 5-1 outside Conference USA, 22-8 after a SU win and 20-8 as a favorite, and the under for Northridge is on streaks of 5-1 at neutral sites and 5-2 with the Matadors catching points at a neutral venue.
ATS ADVANTAGE: MEMPHIS and UNDER
(10) Maryland (20-13, 15-10-2 ATS) vs. (7) California (22-10, 16-13)
Maryland secured its berth in this event by making a run in the ACC tournament last weekend, beating North Carolina State in the opener, upsetting Wake Forest 75-64 as a six-point underdog in the quarterfinals, then giving Duke a good battle in a 67-61 loss as a nine-point ‘dog in Saturday’s semifinals. Prior to that the conference tourney, the Terrapins were on a 2-4 SU and ATS skid, though one of the wins was an 88-85 upset of North Carolina as a 12-point ‘dog.
California stumbles into the NCAA tourney on a 1-3 SU and ATS dip, getting pounded at Arizona State in its regular-season finale 83-66 as a seven-point underdog, then losing to Southern Cal 79-75 as a two-point pup in the Pac-10 tourney opener last Thursday. Since a four-game SU and ATS run in the first three weeks of February, the Golden Bears have gone 2-4 SU and 1-5 ATS.
Coach Gary Williams has Maryland in its 23rd NCAA Tournament, led by guard Greivis Vasquez (17.2 ppg, 4.8 apg). The Terps missed the party last season after tumbling to Butler in the second round in 2007. Cal is in its 15th NCAA tourney, returning after a two-year hiatus and a first-round exit against North Carolina State in 2006. Guard Jerome Randle leads the Bears at 18.4 ppg, shooting 46.7 percent from 3-point range for coach Mike Montgomery, who previously guided Stanford to numerous NCAA bids.
The Terrapins have cashed in just one of their last four NCAA Tournament starts, but they still sport positive pointspread streaks of 9-4 overall, 4-0 at neutral sites, 5-1 after a SU loss, 4-1 against winning teams and 7-3-2 outside the ACC. The Golden Bears, meanwhile, are on a 4-0 ATS run outside the Pac-10 and are 4-1 ATS in their last five as a neutral-site chalk, but they are in pointspread ruts of 1-5 overall, 1-4 on neutral courts, 1-4 against winning teams, 2-7 after a non-cover and 2-5 following a SU loss.
The under for Maryland is on hot streaks of 6-1 overall, 5-0 both with the Terrapins as an underdog and with the Terps as a neutral-site pup, 7-1 on neutral courts, 5-1 in the NCAA Tournament and 6-2 in non-conference action. On the flip side, the over for Cal is on tears of 4-1 overall, 6-0 on neutral floors, 6-2 when the Bears are a neutral-site favorite and 16-5 both following a SU loss and following a pointspread setback.
ATS ADVANTAGE: MARYLAND
WEST REGION
(at Philadelphia)
(9) Texas A&M (23-9, 15-9 ATS) vs. (8) BYU (25-7, 15-14 ATS)
BYU had a five-game winning streak snapped in the semifinals of the Mountain West Conference tournament Friday, falling to San Diego State 64-62 as a 2½-point favorite in Las Vegas. Although the Cougars have won nine of their last 11 overall, they’ve followed up a nine-game spread-covering streak by going 0-3 ATS in their last three.
Texas A&M closed the regular season with a flourish, following up a 3-7 start to Big 12 play by winning its last six in a row. However, the Aggies went one-and-done in the Big 12 tournament, blowing a 21-point second-half lead to Texas Tech and losing 88-83 as a 6½-point favorite. Despite that non-cover, Texas A&M enters the NCAA Tournament on a 10-3 ATS run.
This is a rematch of an opening-round Tournament game last year, when ninth-seeded Texas A&M edged the eighth-seeded Cougars 67-62 as a one-point favorite. BYU is in its 23rd NCAA Tournament, but is just 11-26 SU all-time, including 0-2 SU and ATS under coach Dave Rose. The Aggies, who followed up last year’s BYU win with a heartbreaking two-point loss to eventual Final-Four entrant UCLA in the second round, are 7-9 SU all-time in the Big Dance.
In addition to their 10-3 ATS streak overall, the Aggies are on a plethora of positive pointspread runs, including 17-5 at neutral sites, 7-3 in non-conference play, 6-1 in the NCAA Tournament, 4-1 on Thursday, 6-0 as an underdog, 10-1 as a neutral-site ‘dog, 19-7 after a SU defeat and 53-26 against teams with a winning record.
BYU is on ATS runs of 7-3 as a favorite, 7-1 versus winning teams and 10-3-1 after a SU loss, but the Cougars have failed to cash in four of their last five Tournament contests and are also on ATS slides of 1-4 at neutral sites, 5-11 on Thursday and 1-6 after a non-cover.
For BYU, the over is on streaks of 4-1 in the Tournament, 5-0 in non-conference play, 11-5 at neutral sites and 17-5 on Thursday, while the Aggies have topped the total in their last four overall. However, the under is on stretches of 5-2 for A&M in the Tournament, 13-6 for A&M as an underdog, 4-1 for A&M on Thursday and 5-1 for the Cougars overall.
ATS ADVANTAGE: TEXAS A&M
(16) Chattanooga (18-16, 13-17 ATS) vs. (1) Connecticut (27-4, 11-14 ATS)
UConn has been idle since last Thursday’s thrilling 127-117 six-overtime loss to Syracuse in the Big East tournament quarterfinals, failing as a 5½-point favorite. The Huskies split their final six games, including a 70-60 loss at Pittsburgh to close the regular season, and they enter the Big Dance for the 29th time in school history on a 2-7 ATS slump.
Chattanooga lost its final three regular-season contests, but swept three games in the Southern Conference tournament on its home court to reach the Big Dance for the 10th time in school history, the last coming in 2005. In the Southern Conference championship game, the Mocs trashed College of Charleston 80-69 as a 2½-point home underdog. Chattanooga followed up six-game ATS slide by cashing in its last two.
Since winning the 2004 national championship, the Huskies have failed to cover in 13 consecutive postseason games (0-6 ATS in the Big East tournament; 0-7 ATS in the NCAA Tournament). That includes a 70-69 overtime loss to 13th-seeded San Diego as an 11½-point favorite in the opening round of last year’s Big Dance. Furthermore, UConn carries negative ATS streaks of 6-15 in non-conference play, 7-19 at neutral sites, 1-5 as a favorite, 2-8 when laying 13 points or more, 5-17 when favored at neutral venues and 0-5 on Thursday.
Chattanooga is 7-15 ATS in its last 22 as an underdog and 2-6 ATS in its last eight non-league contests.
The over is on stretches of 5-1 for Chattanooga overall, 7-3 for Chattanooga as an underdog, 11-5-1 for Chattanooga after a SU win, 19-7 for UConn at neutral sites and 4-0 for UConn in the NCAA Tournament. However, the under is 14-6 in the Huskies’ last 20 overall.
ATS ADVANTAGE: CHATTANOOGA and OVER
WEST REGION
(at Portland, Ore.)
(12) Northern Iowa (23-10, 16-13 ATS) vs. (5) Purdue (25-9, 14-16 ATS)
Purdue lost three of its last four games to end the regular season, but it caught fire in the Big Ten tournament in Indianapolis, winning three games in as many days over Penn State (79-65), Illinois (66-56) and Ohio State (65-61) to claim its first league tournament title. The Boilermakers cashed in the first two games in Indianapolis, but failed as a six-point chalk in the title game when the Buckeyes drained a meaningless three-pointer at the buzzer. They’re 5-8 ATS in their last 13.
Northern Iowa returns to the Big Dance for the first time since 2006 and does so riding a five-game SU winning streak while going 5-1 ATS in its last six. The Panthers have been idle since taking down Illinois State 60-57 in overtime as a three-point underdog in the Missouri Valley Conference championship game. During its five-game winning run, Northern Iowa has won four contests by a total of 16 points, with the streak being book-ended by overtime victories.
Purdue advanced to the second round of last year’s Big Dance with an 11-point rout of Baylor, but lost to Xavier 85-78 as a 2½-point underdog. The Panthers’ last Big Dance appearance ended in a five-point, first-round loss to Georgetown.
The Panthers’ 5-1 overall ATS run is aided by additional pointspread streaks of 50-24 as an underdog, 12-5 as a neutral-site pup, 8-2-1 on Thursday, 7-2 against the Big Ten, 11-5 after a SU victory and 5-0 against teams with a winning record. However, NIU is 2-10 ATS in its last 12 non-conference outings.
Purdue is in ATS ruts of 2-5 in non-conference play, 0-6 versus Missouri Valley Conference foes and 1-4 after a SU victory, but the Boilermakers have cashed in five of their last six as a favorite of 7 to 12½ points.
The over is on runs of 5-1 for Northern Iowa overall, 7-2 for Purdue at neutral sites, 6-1-1 for Purdue in the Tournament, 4-0 for Purdue against the Missouri Valley, 5-2 for Purdue as a favorite and 6-0 for Purdue on Thursday. However, the under is 4-1 in the Boilermakers’ last five non-conference games, 17-4 in the Panthers’ last 21 at neutral sites and 31-15-1 in the Panthers’ last 47 an underdog.
ATS ADVANTAGE: NORTHERN IOWA
(13) Mississippi State (23-12, 18-10-1 ATS) vs. (4) Washington (25-8, 17-11-2 ATS)
Washington ended the regular season on an 8-1 SU run to claim its first Pac-10 tournament title since 1953. However, after manhandling Stanford in the quarterfinals of the conference tournament (85-73), the Huskies got bounced by Arizona State 75-65 as a one-point underdog in Friday’s semifinals. They’ve followed up a 5-0 ATS run by going 1-3-1 ATS in their last five lined contests.
Mississippi State is coming off last weekend’s thrilling four-game, four-day run to the SEC tournament championship – its first since 2002 – capped off by Sunday’s 64-61 upset victory over Tennessee as a 5½-point underdog, Going back to the regular season, the Bulldogs have won and covered six consecutive games, with four of those wins coming by nine points or more.
Washington is in its 14th NCAA Tournament but its first since 2006, when it lost to UConn in the Sweet 16. Meanwhile, the Bulldogs are in the Big Dance for the 10th time in school history, and the sixth time in the last eight years. Last year, they beat Oregon in the opening round before suffering a tough 77-74 loss to eventual runner-up Memphis, cashing as a 9½-point underdog.
Other than a 4-9 ATS mark in its last 13 games on Thursday, Mississippi State is on a slew of positive pointspread runs, including 6-0 overall, 4-0 at neutral sites, 6-0 as an underdog, 5-1 as a neutral-site ‘dog, 4-0 in the NCAA Tournament and 5-0 against winning teams. Washington has failed to cover in five of its last seven at neutral venues, but is otherwise on pointspread upticks of 4-1 in the Tournament, 5-1 in non-conference play, 5-0 versus teams from the SEC and 7-0 after a SU loss.
For the Huskies, the “over” is on runs of 17-5 overall, 5-0 at neutral sites, 9-0 on Thursday, 5-2 in the Tournament and 14-2 as a favorite. Mississippi State sports “over” streaks of 5-1 in the Tournament, 4-0 in non-league action and 17-6-1 after a pointspread cover.
ATS ADVANTAGE: OVER
<!-- / message -->
ffice
>
laceName>
^^
