{"id":1553,"date":"2009-03-06T16:53:35","date_gmt":"2009-03-06T21:53:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/2009\/03\/betting-on-march-madness-ncaa-tournament-myths\/"},"modified":"2009-03-06T16:53:35","modified_gmt":"2009-03-06T21:53:35","slug":"betting-on-march-madness-ncaa-tournament-myths","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/2009\/03\/betting-on-march-madness-ncaa-tournament-myths\/","title":{"rendered":"Betting On March Madness: NCAA Tournament Myths"},"content":{"rendered":"

For the last several years we\u2019ve touted Pete Tiernan\u2019s<\/span> Bracket
\nScience<\/a> as a valuable tool in Big Dance handicapping. While the science is
\noriented towards forecasting the March Madness bracket pool, there are sundry sports handicapping<\/a> applications.<\/o:p><\/p>\n

In fact, as our diverse range of regular clients have seen
\nus assert in our analysis\u2014the dichotomous ATS and straight up game as an
\nexample\u2014handicapping is in large part the art of isolating overvalued and
\nundervalued teams. <\/o:p><\/p>\n

The voluminous articles on Bracket Science are centered on
\nisolating characteristics of underachieving and overachieving teams in the NCAA
\nTournament. <\/o:p><\/p>\n

If there is a downside to this mechanism, the findings are
\nmore corroborating my own experiences as a handicapper than enlightening me on
\nnew angles. Rest assured that a large component of my success in the industry
\nsince the 1980s is that I am quite swayable and have made many adjustments,
\noften debunking unfound theories of my fledgling early years. <\/o:p><\/p>\n

Conversely, those who subscribe to sports betting\u2019s
\nultimate oxymoron \u201cconventional logic\u201d will have an epiphany upon reading the
\nfindings with an open mind. <\/o:p><\/p>\n

Possibly topping the lists of urban legends perpetuated by
\nhacks, talking heads, and bottom-rung handicappers alike is the pure poppycock
\nabout betting on guard oriented teams.<\/o:p><\/p>\n

As stated numerous times, a team\u2019s strength is a commodity
\nand the less prevalent the commodity, the more value the resource is. <\/o:p><\/p>\n

In a rare illustration in which \u201cconventional logic\u201d is
\nfactually based, most baseball fans understand that possessing a shortstop who<\/span> can hit 35 runs and knock in 100 is more valuable than a
\nfirst baseball who can do the same. A power hitting middle infielder is a
\nscarcity\u2014a rare commodity. <\/o:p><\/p>\n

But the same gospel truth is abandoned elsewhere in
\nsports. For example in the NBA playoffs, it\u2019s a statistical truism that scoring
\ndecreases in the NBA playoffs as defensively intensity increases. <\/span><\/o:p><\/p>\n

Yet \u201cconventional logic\u201d has Joeybagofdonuts victimized
\ninto believing that somehow when scoring goes down defensive becomes more
\nparamount. False, a quick study proves that teams most adept at scoring
\nconsistently in the half-court are beyond reproach the most victorious in
\npostseason NBA.<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The same parallel universe applies to college basketball.
\nThere are significantly more quality backcourts than frontcourts. Most teams
\nthat fail to make the NCAA, flop in the first-round, or do not even quality for
\nthe NIT are guard oriented. <\/o:p><\/p>\n

Drinking the Kool-Aid, those who perpetuate the alternate
\nreality conclude that the preponderance of high caliber guard play and the
\ndearth of dominant big men makes the more prevalent guard oriented teams the
\nmore cherished commodity. Basketball\u2019s equivalent of the power hitting first
\nbaseman has become more indispensable than the shortstop who can bat cleanup. <\/span><\/p>\n

Poppycock, balderdash; it\u2019s a pure betting urban legend. <\/o:p><\/p>\n

The goal here is neither to bootleg Tiernan\u2019s<\/span>
\nresearch nor write an advertorial on his behalf, but one would be advised to
\nconsult his work for his precise and standardized metrics for defining over and
\nunderachieving. <\/o:p><\/p>\n

His research concluded that since 1991, NCAA Tournament
\nteams get 52 percent of their points from guards. He also defines the last 24
\nyears as the modern era and divides them into three eight-year periods. Of zero
\nsurprise to us, but a revelation to countless, Tiernan<\/span>
\nconcludes, \u201cIn each eight-year period of the modern
\nera, the most frontcourt-dominant teams have overachieved,\u201d and continuing,
\n\u201cThe most guard-dominant squads have never been overperformers<\/span>
\nin any eight-year period of the 64-team era.\u201d \u201cNever\u201d he said, no way, no how. <\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n

Using statistically overwhelming numbers to document his
\nconclusions he again corroborates what we\u2019ve preached for decades, \u201cif you look
\nat the average percentage of points that tourney advancers have gotten from
\nguards in each eight-year period of the modern era, you\u2019ll find that deeper
\nadvancers tend to be more frontcourt-oriented squads.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judge for yourself<\/span> as the $20 he
\ncharges for his research is pocket change for the bettor and we be paid back
\nten-fold if utilized correctly. <\/p>\n

Debunking the guard-play myth is just one of my
\nlong-preached theories that have earned me the title of \u201cMr. March\u201d and \u201cLord
\nof the Dance\u201d that are validated by his 24-year study.<\/p>\n

Because I am seamlessly converting his brainpower into
\nspread betting applications, the devil\u2019s advocate could argue yours truly is
\nmaking some leaps of faith. I\u2019d welcome counterpoints, but among the other theorems
\nauthenticated not only by my quarter century of unprecedented winnings, but
\nalso by Tiernan\u2019s<\/span> scholarly research are:<\/p>\n

\u00b7       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Straight up winning percentage is greatly
\noverplayed in handicapping. Scoring margin is the leading indictor<\/p>\n

\u00b7       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Bench play is extremely overvalued in Big Dance
\nhandicapping. Note that the study is purely about the NCAA Tournament. We
\nassert that a deep bench is of great importance in the conference tournaments
\nbut overrated in the Big Dance<\/p>\n

\u00b7       
\n<\/span><\/span><\/span>Age and experience is
\nalso overrated<\/span>. \u201cWith each two-round advancement<\/span>
\nin the tourney, teams get increasingly younger,\u201d the study says. <\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/o:p><\/p>\n

The sportsbooks<\/a>
\nthrive because \u201cconventional logic\u201d is too often a misnomer for \u201cfolklore\u201d in
\nsports betting. Those who let facts guide their conclusions will continue to
\nprosper. <\/p>\n

The author Joe Duffy is part of Dream Team of GodsTips,
\nanchor of OffshoreInsiders.com<\/a><\/span><\/b>.
\nThe above research is only a scintilla of the data \u201cMr. March\u201d exploits en
\nroute to being the winningest all-time sports handicapper<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

For the last several years we\u2019ve touted Pete Tiernan\u2019s Bracket Science as a valuable tool in Big Dance handicapping. While the science is oriented towards forecasting the March Madness bracket pool, there are sundry sports handicapping applications. In fact, as our diverse range of regular clients have seen us assert in our analysis\u2014the dichotomous ATS … Continue reading Betting On March Madness: NCAA Tournament Myths<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1553","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sports_gambling_strategy_articles"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1553","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1553"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1553\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1553"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1553"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.joeduffy.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1553"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}