Scott Spritzer:

Handicapping Championships

With college basketball's Final Four coming up this weekend, and the NBA playoffs just around the corner, I thought this would be a good time to discuss ways to uncover the "intangibles" that make up a champion.

You hear TV analysts talk about this all the time. Most of them are former coaches and players, though. So, they talk about guts, determination, and the kind of stuff they want to believe about themselves as people. Seriously, do you know how many championships Billy Packer or Dick Vitale won? They keep telling you Duke is championship material every year even though that hasn't really been true for some time now.

What makes a champion? Are there handicapping techniques we can use to help uncover championship material? This isn't just a trivial exercise. If you can recognize winners, you can make money by betting on them. You've probably heard that the team who wins straight up covers the game most of the time in important contests. Most of the spreads are so small they come into play less than is realized.

I'm sure you remember that the San Antonio Spurs won the NBA championship last year. Many thought they were championship material coming into the postseason. They were certainly heavy favorites to win their series against Denver, Utah, and Cleveland. Phoenix was going to be a challenge in the second round. Once they cleared that hurdle they were consensus favorites to win the trophy. San Antonio was 14-5-1 ATS in last year.5?s playoffs...even though it was already understood they were championship material!

The Florida Gators were defending national champions last year, and had everybody back who mattered. Everybody knew they were championship material heading into the postseason. Florida was 7-2 ATS in the SEC and NCAA tournaments.

This isn't a case of, "after the fact," going back and seeing how champions performed ATS. Both of these teams were known champions GOING INTO last year's postseason, and posted a combined 21-7-1 ATS record.

There is value to exploit in the lines if you're focused on the right things. In my mind, these are the keys handicappers should look for when trying to determine of a team has the right stuff to win a title.

*DEFENSE: Championships in all sports are won with defense. It's almost an inherent characteristic of elite teams. And, folks, it's just not that hard to do some research and find out who the best defenses are! Football stats are easy to find. Basketball stats are easy to find. There's so much baseball information on the internet now its unbelievable.

*TEAMWORK: This can manifest itself in different ways depending on the sport. In basketball, defense is already a team effort. It's all about rotations and positioning. In both the colleges and the pro's good defenses are telling you about the importance of teamwork. Many of these squads have offenses that work in unison too. You can study assist totals, shooting percentages, and scoring balance to get a read on this. In football, I've found that teams with the top defenses often have great overall chemistry. Sure, there are a few exceptions. You almost never see a team with a poor defense have great chemistry though. Everybody's yelling at each other, and the offensive guys start worrying about their stats. I love seeing football offenses with a lot of different guys involved. Everybody has each other's back.

*EXECUTION: It should go without saying, but top teams make fewer mistakes than everybody else. The media tends to focus on exciting plays that make the highlight reel. What really wins is the stuff that DOESN'T happen. Basketball teams who don't throw the ball away, or miss key free throws. Football teams who don't fumble the ball away, or drop a pass on third down. Baseball teams who don't make a critical error in the field with the game on the line. Don't be blurred by the hype around highlights. Dig through the data to find out who makes the fewest mistakes.

*MATURITY UNDER FIRE: You hear the word "experience" used a lot when talking about proven winners. That's certainly true. But a lot of those guys managed to win the first time because they had maturity under fire. You don't win that first time because of experience! It will help you continue to win, though. I think the best way to evaluate this from a handicapping perspective is to evaluate how teams and key players perform against top competition. Throw out results against bad teams, and look exclusively at what happens when upper division teams are playing each other. You'll find this exercise exposes pretenders very quickly, and helps you see the cream rising to the top. It works great in football, even with the smaller schedules. In basketball, you have quite a big sampling to draw conclusions from.

Don't assume that something's impossible to find just because you hear hard-to-define words like "intangible," "chemistry," or "aura." The important keys to uncovering championship material can be found in stats and boxscores. It's just not that hard to rate defenses, count up assists, count up turnovers, and look at performance records against upper division opponents. If Packer and Vitale did that with neutral court games they'd stop raving about Duke so much!

Do the work. You might find that this week's Final Four and the upcoming NBA playoffs are easier to handicap than you imagined!


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Cokin:


So much for long shots! This is going to be one of the more interesting Final Fours from a handicapping perspective as for the first time four No. 1 seeds have made it. Last year's Final Four was a classic case of experience versus youth, with experience prevailing (Florida). This year it's clearly a clash of powerhouse programs.

North Carolina, like the rest of the Final Four teams, isn't dominated by seniors but rather by juniors on down. Even more interesting is the coaching situation. North Carolina coach Roy Williams coached Kansas for 15 years. He had an emotional decision in 2000 to stay at Kansas rather than head to his alma mater (UNC), only to have another emotional new conference in 2003 announcing he was heading to Chapel Hill. And now the Jayhawks are standing in the way of another national title for him.

Williams said he felt "dirty" five years ago after telling Kansas' players he was leaving to coach North Carolina. "If I had known that I was going to feel that way, I wouldn't have left," Williams said. "Because that's the worst feeling I've ever had in my life." This will be the first meeting between the schools since he left, and it's a whopper, between (36-2) North Carolina and (35-3) Kansas.

North Carolina's win over Louisville, 83-73, was uptempo, with both schools shooting over 52%. North Carolina carries a 15-game win streak into this one, has covered 4 in a row and is 22-13 over the total. Defense may win championships, but note North Carolina is 3-1 over the total in the tourney. The Tar Heels are averaging 93 ppg in the tourney, 4 more ppg than during the season. It's clear they prefer to run, utilizing that depth and all those scoring options.

They'll be facing a Kansas team that has gone the opposite rout, at 3-1 under the total in the tourney allowing 57 ppg. For the season, the Jayhawks under Bill Self allow 38% shooting by opponents. Kansas beat (survived?) Davidson 59-57 and Self, in his fifth chance, will take a team to the Final Four. Rather than run at Davidson, Kansas decided to play like UCLA -- a choking defense. Davidson star Stephen Curry shot 36% from the field, hitting only nine of 25 attempts. Curry was four of 13 in the second half. Now it's on to the Final Four for Kansas, but keep in mind none of the Jayhawk players have ever been to a Final Four. The seniors had lost in the first round twice, and they had been beaten down by UCLA in the Elite Eight last year.

This will be the first time all season Kansas has been a dog. For the record, the last time Kansas was a dog was early last season, when they were +5 against defending champ Florida in the Las Vegas Invitational. Kansas won, 82-80 in overtime. Two years ago they were an underdog to Texas in the first round of the tourney, and won 80-68.

And speaking of underdogs, UCLA is in its third straight Final Four yet opened as a dog to Memphis. The Bruins have been a dog twice this season and went 2-0 SU/ATS. Hard to believe they were a +10 dog against Maryland back in November, but won easily, 71-59. UCLA was also a dog at Stanford and won 76-67. Like Kansas, UCLA has been a defensive demon, allowing 58 ppg for the season and just 53 ppg in four tourney contests. By the way, UCLA is 13-4 ATS the last three years as a dog.

UCLA beat Memphis, 50-45, two years ago in the NCAA West Regional final and advanced to its first of three consecutive Final Fours. Part of what happened was the Bruins' hard-core defense and some quick, disheartening scores while beating the Tigers' press. In the 50-45 loss the Tigers had only five assists on their 17 baskets. This year Memphis has five players with more than 60 assists. Both Memphis and UCLA are man-to-man defensive teams.

Memphis prefers to run right at opponents while averaging 80.3 points a game. They don't set a lot of screens and don't run a lot of screen and roll, but prefer to drive the middle and create opportunities to get high-percentage shots and rebounds. They are athletic enough to get a lot of both. Of course, they won't be able to run up and down the court on UCLA. The biggest difference between Memphis now and the 2005 meeting between these teams is Tigers' 6-4 freshman point guard Derrick Rose.

UCLA coach Ben Howland said, "Rose is a really special talent. At the end of the day Derrick Rose and UCLA's Kevin Love are the two best freshmen in the country in terms of how they performed along with Michael Beasley and O.J. Mayo. Rose is a great point guard." By the way, Memphis is a perfect 4-0 over the total.

Howland pointed out this week what helped UCLA two years ago was a quick start. "Early in the game we attacked their press, we scored a couple of quick baskets and I thought that helped us get off to a good start," he said. "We did a good job of slowing the ball down, but we didn't have to face Rose two years ago. He's a difference maker." A year ago the Bruins had 5 sophomores and 2 juniors as their leading scorers and rebounders when they lost to Florida in the Final Four. Only one UCLA starter on that team, Josh Shipp, was not a part of the Bruins' run to the championship game in 2005.

Experience prevailed then, with Florida winning it all. This Final Four offers an interesting contrast in experience, as well: UCLA and North Carolina have been this far over the last few years. After two straight Elite Eight heartbreaks, the Memphis Tigers are finally advancing to the Final Four, along with Kansas, as the Jayhawk players have never been to a Final Four. You can.5?t measure experience, patience or clutch play statistically, but they can be important handicapping factors as the games get bigger. We'll see if experience, defense, or both are difference-makers this weekend.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Feist


It's a great weekend for sports fans with the Final Four and the culmination of the college basketball season next Monday in San Antonio for the national championship. It's clear that it's not the teams the start the season hot, but the ones that get hot when it really matters: March and April!

Many things happen over the course of a long season. Some teams play great basketball in December and January, only to break down from injuries or run out of steam down the stretch. South Florida is a good example, winning 10 of 11 games in midseason. Overrated (and overvalued), the Bulls then lost 10 in a row (2-8 ATS). A year ago Clemson started 17-0, then failed to even make the Big Dance after a 4-10 SU, 5-9 ATS run. A similar thing happened to Kansas three years ago. The Jayhawks started 20-1, only to go 3-6 straight up and 1-8 against the spread the last nine games. They never made it to the Final Four because of a 64-63 loss to Bucknell as a 13.5-point favorite.

Other times an easy early season schedule, youth, bad coaching, untimely injuries, bad luck, poor team chemistry or a combination of these can cut down a potentially great team. Youth and a loss of its best players certainly fell defending champion Florida this season, settling for the NIT. No. 2 seed Georgetown took itself out of the tournament, blowing a 46-29 lead by trying to stall against Davidson with far too much time left.

A year ago Wisconsin was a No. 2 seed, but suffered a key late season loss in 6-11 Brian Butch, their leading rebounder and third-leading scorer. They weren't the same group, getting smacked by Ohio State in the Big 10 tourney and an upset loss to UNLV in the Big Dance.

It's very easy for sports bettors to look into trends to try and predict the future. Trends can be helpful if there are reasons to support it. For example, from a betting perspective, what stands out about the last six Finals Fours?

2007: ----- LINE
Georgetown 60 -- 1
Ohio State 67 -- 130

U.C.L.A. 66 -- 131
Florida 76 -- 3

2006:
George Mason 58 - 132
Florida 73 -- -6

L.S.U. 45 -- -2
U.C.L.A. 59 -- 123


2005:
Louisville 57 -- 144
Illiniois 72 -- -3

Michigan St. 71 -- 153
North Carolina 87 -- -2


2004:
Georgia Tech 67 -- 139
Oklahoma St. 65 -- -4

UConn 79 -- -2
Duke 78 -- 144


2003:
Marquette 61 -- -4.5
Kansas 94 -- 153.5

Syracuse 95 -- 153
Texas 84 -- -3


2002:
Indiana 73 -- 134
Oklahoma 64 -- 6.5

Maryland 97 -- 168
Kansas 88 -- -1.5


What stands out is that it has been the day of the dog the last six years. The underdog is 8-3 against the number, with seven dogs winning straight up, including Ohio State last season. In addition, the games have gone 7-5 "over" the total, although the "under" is 3-1 the last two years. You can even make an argument that this would be the right time of the college hoops' season to take a shot with the dog on the money-line. However, this is where one needs patience, because trends can also be a fool's paradise. The last three years the favorites are 4-2 ATS. So if you had used that dog strategy the last two years you would have gone 2-4. If you go back to the previous three Final Fours before that survey, 1999-01, we find Duke topping Maryland 95-84, Arizona blowing out Michigan State 80-61, Michigan State beating Wisconsin 53-41, Florida topping North Carolina 71-59, UConn beating Ohio State 64-58 and Duke surviving Michigan State 68-62. What stands out is that the favorite won and covered in five of six, for a hefty 5-1 spread record. Even looking at totals, a similar pattern emerges. The last six years the "over" has gone 7-5 in the Final Four. The three years before that the "under" prevailed at a 5-1 clip. That's just 10-8 under the last nine years. All of a sudden, those who look solely at trends as the key to the sports betting kingdom are stuck at close to a .500 winning percentage ATS. For the record, going back the last 13 years, there have been 15 "unders" and 11 "overs" in the Final Four, with 14 dogs covering while 12 favorites have gotten the money. Again, trends are worth examining, but there has to be reasons behind them if you're serious about putting down hard earned money on a side. Perhaps the most significant stat that stands out is that 11 of the 14 dogs that covered ended up winning the game outright, which shows how competitive and relatively evenly matched the games become when teams get this far in the season.