|
🚨 Beware of Bubble Teams and Their "Big Wins" 🚨
|
|
Every year, NCAA Tournament debates center on "Who did they beat?" But should big wins really be the deciding factor for bubble teams?
|
|
The Selection Committee tends to reward teams with high-profile wins over top competition. However, history suggests that teams with plenty of big wins, yet still seeded 6th or worse, often underperform in the tournament.
|
|
📊 Bubble Teams With Big Wins Underperform
|
|
For this analysis, we define "big wins" as victories over Top 50 RPI teams (pre-2018) or Quad 1 opponents (NET era). Looking at every team seeded 6 or worse since 2011 (when the field expanded to 68 teams), the data reveals a clear pattern:
|
- Bubble teams (10-seed or worse) with 6+ big wins averaged just 0.3 tournament wins and lost 75% of their first games.
- Similar teams with 1 or fewer big wins? They averaged 1.0 wins, had a winning record in play-in games, and 20% reached the Sweet 16.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bubble teams with fewer quality wins outperformed, while those with more big wins often underwhelmed.
|
|
The evidence piles up even more when comparing these "big win teams" to their counterparts on the 8 and 9 seed lines:
|
- 8-9 seeds with 3 or fewer big wins won their first-round games 59% of the time and knocked off a No. 1 seed more often than expected.
- 8-9 seeds with lots of big wins? Just one (out of 19) even made it past the second round.
|
|
|
|
🔥 Which Teams Make Deep Runs?
|
|
Looking at NCAA Tournament history since 2011, the lower seeds that make deep runs tend to come from two key groups:
|
|
Top Mid-Majors with Limited Opportunities
|
These teams may not have had many chances for big wins during the regular season, but they proved their strength in March:
- Florida Atlantic (2023) – Final Four
- Loyola-Chicago (2018) – Final Four
- VCU (2011) – Final Four
- Butler (2011) – Final Four
- Wichita State (2013) – Final Four
|
|
Underrated Teams From "Weaker" Power Conferences
|
These teams either came from power conferences that had down years or lost key games early but got hot at the right time:
- NC State (2024) – Final Four
- North Carolina (2022) – National Championship Game
- Miami (2022) – Elite Eight
- UCLA (2021) – Final Four
- Oregon State (2021) – Elite Eight
|
|
🤔 Why Does This Happen?
|
There are several theories for this—here are the most practical conclusions:
- Strength of schedule bias: Many "big wins" come in early-season non-conference games, where results are limited and teams were often very different than in March.
- Flawed profiles: Bubble teams with several big wins also tend to have many losses and inconsistencies. They are often over-seeded based on early-season success.
- Under-the-radar threats: Teams with fewer opportunities for big wins (like mid-majors) might actually be better than we realize.
|
|
🧠 The Sneaky-Good Betting Angle?
|
|
Teams seeded 6 or worse with 6+ big wins have gone 21-41 ATS (33%) in their first tournament game since 2011 (excluding matchups against each other).
|
|
🏀 Teams That Fit the Trend
|
|
While we’ll need to wait for official matchups to fully apply this strategy—mainly to avoid teams facing each other—several teams already stand out based on their big win profiles and projected seeding.
|
Teams With a High Number of Big Wins (Potential Fades):
- UCLA – Projected 6-seed, 9 big wins
- Baylor – Projected 11-seed, 6 big wins
- Oregon – Projected 6-seed, 8 big wins
- Ohio State – Projected 12-seed, 6 big wins
Several other teams from the SEC, Big Ten and Big 12 are right on the cutline and could be above that by Selection Sunday.
|
Teams With Fewer Big Wins (Potential Value):
These teams have fewer marquee wins, often due to fewer opportunities, making them potential undervalued plays:
- Utah State – Projected 9-seed
- UC San Diego – Projected 11-seed
- Gonzaga – Projected 9-seed
- Drake – Projected 11-seed
- Saint Mary's – Projected 6-seed
- North Carolina – on the bubble
- Xavier – on the bubble
|
|
🔍 Key Takeaway
|
|
Big wins don’t always translate to March success. When filling out your bracket or looking for value plays, beware of teams propped up by a handful of marquee victories. Instead, don’t rule out teams just because they "haven’t proven anything"—recent history suggests they might be the ones built for a run.
|
