Favorable Fishing Waters in Conference Tourneys

Conference tournaments are becoming ever more popular these days. They offer a chance for schools to bring in more revenue. They also give the various TV networks – cable and over-the-air – more valuable live product to fill the increasing amount of airtime (due to the cloning of cable networks of themselves into "Deuces" and "Twos" and regional sections). It's better to have live games than more motocross or old, previously run sports-film footage. And this year, there are more conference tourneys than ever (the Pac-10 is back in the mix) over a longer period of time than ever.

For the handicapper, it's an opportunity to say "goodbye" to the worst teams and to gauge the top teams for the upcoming NCAA tourney. More importantly, it is a good time to uncover potentially profitable situations. Remembering always that it's "fundamentals first" (that is, strength, depth, and height) when it comes to basketball handicapping, here are some of the situations in terms of psychology and trends that have been positive in conference tournaments in the recent past.

Teams looking for their 20th win. Over the years, and for various (and sometimes dubious) reasons, win No. 20 has become a significant milestone for players and teams, much like hitting .300 or winning 20 games in baseball, or rushing for 1,000 yards in football. Strings of 20-win seasons are a source of pride for coaches and their programs. You can usually count on a special effort from teams going for their 20th victory.

Good teams on the NCAA "bubble." Yes, "on the bubble" is a terribly overused phrase at this time of the year by sportscasters and sportswriters. But nothing describes a team's situation more succinctly, with well-understood connotations, than does "on the bubble." From a handicapping perspective, high-quality teams that are "on the bubble" are more valuable entities than low-quality teams. Good players and good coaches tend to rise up when then have to. Weak coaches and lesser players tend to fold up.

Teams from lower-echelon conferences. Tourney action in the upper-echelon leagues such as the ACC, SEC, Big XII, and a few others can be erratic some years. That's because most of the good teams in those leagues know they're already headed for the NCAA tournament regardless of how they come out of their conference tournaments. Good teams can gain a more favorable NCAA seeding with a good conference tourney performance. But fighting for a better seeding is a concept that's more important to and better understood by coaches (because of their greater perspective and experience) than players. Their job is to play. It's the coach's job to worry about that "other stuff."

Fighting for a higher seed is usually not the case in the tournaments of the lower-middle and lower-echelon conferences (for example, the Colonial, Big West, and Sun Belt). Teams from those loops realize that their only chance to get into the NCAA tourney (even if that means a first-round loss) is to win their conference tournament. Thus, most tourney games in the lower-echelon loops are intensely fought, especially the semifinals and finals. Shooting, floor leadership, and overall competence become increasingly valuable.

Up-and-coming teams. With the many roster changes and longer schedules these days, it is possible for a team to go through several "incarnations" in the same season. Most often, it takes newcomers a while to blend in. But if the newcomers "can play," and they are well-coached, young teams that suffered some losses early in the season can be blossoming come tournament time. Quite often, a young, coming-together team is more eager for tourney play than a veteran, established team that's going through the motions.

Single-revenge favorites. What? Yes, research of the last six years shows that only a certain kind of "payback" has worked consistently against the spread in conference tourneys. Favorites that lost the most recent meeting (or the only meeting) in the regular season turn out to be well-focused in a conference tourney rematch, going 90-64-1 (58.4 percent) vs. the spread since 1996. All other revenge pointspread categories are under .500! Favorites that lost two regular-season meetings tend to struggle again in a third, going only 18-28-1 vs. the spread the last six years. Single-revenge underdogs are only 130-143-4 vs. the spread. And underdogs seeking double revenge usually have a hard time getting it, going 103-121-2 vs. the spread.

Favorites generally do better in the early rounds. In recent years, favorites tend to cover more often in the opening/prelim and quarterfinal rounds than they do in the semifinals. That makes a lot of sense, because teams are usually better rested and coaches have more preparation time in early games. Once the back-to-back games begin (usually against better-quality opposition, as well), favorites have a harder time covering.

"Home" teams also tend to do better in the early rounds. The edge of a home team (or a team playing on a court that greatly favors it) tends to diminish somewhat in later games, because opponents become more familiar with the sightlines of the floor and with tourney pressure. Even so, handicappers must always beware of home courts in the finals, where rabid fan support could be very influential.

Hoop fans, if you don't have time to follow all the teams in all the conferences, subscribe to The Gold Sheet, or pick one up at your local newsstand. We offer power ratings, key statistics, tourney notes, and insider reports. If you haven't seen The Gold Sheet and would like to receive a complimentary sample copy with no obligation, call (800) 798-GOLD (4653) and tell us you read about us in Card Player. You can look us up on the web at www.goldsheet.com.