Syracuse tournament results vs spread

[skurey]

I know SWC did something comparing our record based on seeding to determine whether we overachieved or underachieved in the tournament and how often. I wanted to take that a step further and see how we do vs the spread which is a better indicator of team strength. I realize in the tournament all that matters is wins or losses and no one, including myself, cares if we cover the spread as long as we win. A summary can be found at the end.

2014

1st Round: -13, won by 24 o
2nd Round: -8.5, lost by 2 u

2013

1st Round: -13, won by 47! o
2nd Round: -7.5, won by 6 u
Sweet 16: +5, won by 11 o
Elite 8: -4.5, won by 16 o
Final Four: +1.5, lost by 5 u

2012

1st Round: -15.5, won by 7 u
2nd Round: -5.5, won by 16 o
Sweet 16: -3, won by 1 u
Elite 8: +2.5, lost by 7 u

2011

1st Round: -13, won by 17 o
2nd Round: -4.5, lost by 4 u

2010

1st Round: -15.5, won by 23 o
2nd Round: -6.5, won by 22 o
Sweet 16: -6, lost by 4 u

2009

1st Round: -11, won by 15 o
2nd Round: -2.5, won by 11 o
Sweet 16: +1, lost by 13 u

2006

1st Round: +1.5, lost by 8 u (lol at us being a 5 seed that year)

2005

1st Round: -9, lost by 3 u

2004

1st Round: -2, won by 5 o
2nd Round: +3.5, won by 2 o
Sweet 16: -2.5, lost by 9 u

Totals
Overachieved: 12
Underachieved: 12
Spreads in our losses: -2.5, -9, +1.5, +1, -6, -4.5, +2.5, +1.5, -8.5
Record SU when underdog: 2-4
Record SU when favored: 13-5

Overall I'd say we do pretty well. Just the Vermont, Butler and Dayton losses really leave a bad taste.

 

[20Plus]

Oh that's it

 

[kirbivore]

I know SWC did something comparing our record based on seeding to determine whether we overachieved or underachieved in the tournament and how often. I wanted to take that a step further and see how we do vs the spread which is a better indicator of team strength. I realize in the tournament all that matters is wins or losses and no one, including myself, cares if we cover the spread as long as we win. A summary can be found at the end.

2014

1st Round: -13, won by 24 o
2nd Round: -8.5, lost by 2 u

2013

1st Round: -13, won by 47! o
2nd Round: -7.5, won by 6 u
Sweet 16: +5, won by 11 o
Elite 8: -4.5, won by 16 o
Final Four: +1.5, lost by 5 u

2012

1st Round: -15.5, won by 7 u
2nd Round: -5.5, won by 16 o
Sweet 16: -3, won by 1 u
Elite 8: +2.5, lost by 7 u

2011

1st Round: -13, won by 17 o
2nd Round: -4.5, lost by 4 u

2010

1st Round: -15.5, won by 23 o
2nd Round: -6.5, won by 22 o
Sweet 16: -6, lost by 4 u

2009

1st Round: -11, won by 15 o
2nd Round: -2.5, won by 11 o
Sweet 16: +1, lost by 13 u

2006

1st Round: +1.5, lost by 8 u (lol at us being a 5 seed that year)

2005

1st Round: -9, lost by 3 u

2004

1st Round: -2, won by 5 o
2nd Round: +3.5, won by 2 o
Sweet 16: -2.5, lost by 9 u

Totals
Overachieved: 12
Underachieved: 12
Spreads in our losses: -2.5, -9, +1.5, +1, -6, -4.5, +2.5, +1.5, -8.5
Record SU when underdog: 2-4
Record SU when favored: 13-5

Overall I'd say we do pretty well. Just the Vermont, Butler and Dayton losses really leave a bad taste.

12-12 ATS since 2004 tourney. Vegas got the desired result on SU games. As an aside on the 2006 tourney, the fact that SU tipped off as an underdog in a 5/12 matchup shows how overseeded they were that year. The committee got swayed by the magical MSG run. If they objectively looked at the body of work there's no way a team can go from wrong side of the bubble to top 20 overall in 4 days.