Florida vs Houston 
7-unit bet on Houston priced as a 1.5-point underdog.  

Live Betting Strategy – I recommend betting 80% on Houston. There is less of a chance that there will be 10-point scoring runs in this game as compared to the semifinal games. However, be on the lookout for Florida scoring runs of 10 or more points and then add 20% of your 7-Unit bet size at that point and only if it happens in the first half of action. To initiate any live bet in the second half forces you to be correct immediately because there is less than 20 minutes left in the game. It is akin to an expiring option contract with a 30-day maturity when you bought it and there is now just 15 days left to be right. Also, if you see Houston priced as a 5.5 or greater dog during the first half that too, IMO, would be an excellent time to add that 20% amount.  

Tonight, April 7, 2025, the No. 1 seeded Florida Gators face off against the No. 1 seeded Houston Cougars in the NCAA National Championship game at the Alamodome in San Antonio, airing at 8:50 p.m. ET on CBS. This matchup marks the 11th time in NCAA Tournament history that two No. 1 seeds have met in the title game, and it’s the first all-No. 1 Final Four since 2008, showcasing the dominance of top-tier programs this season. 

Tournament Paths 

Florida Gators (35-4, SEC Champions) 
The Gators, under third-year coach Todd Golden, have carved a gritty path to the championship, relying on resilience and the brilliance of All-American guard Walter Clayton Jr. Their journey: 

First Round: Defeated No. 16 Norfolk State, establishing early dominance. 

Second Round: Survived a scare from No. 8 UConn, the two-time defending champions, rallying from a deficit to win a tight contest. 

Sweet 16: Overcame No. 4 Maryland, leaning on their frontcourt depth and Clayton’s scoring. 

Elite Eight: Trailed No. 2 Texas Tech by 10 points with under 6 minutes left but staged a comeback, with Clayton scoring 30 points, including 8 in the final 107 seconds. 

Final Four: Faced No. 1 Auburn, the top overall seed, and erased an 8-point halftime deficit. Clayton dropped a historic 34 points—20 in the second half—becoming the first player since Larry Bird in 1979 to score 30+ in consecutive Elite Eight and Final Four games, securing a 79-73 victory. 

Florida’s run has been defined by late-game heroics and a potent offense (85.3 points per game, third nationally), though they’ve shown vulnerability against physical, slow-paced teams. 

Houston Cougars (35-4, Big 12 Champions) 
Led by veteran coach Kelvin Sampson, the Cougars have blended elite defense with timely offense, culminating in a dramatic Final Four comeback. Their path: 

First Round: Crushed No. 16 SIU Edwardsville 78-40, showcasing their suffocating defense (58.3 points allowed per game, best in the nation). 

Second Round: Held off No. 8 Gonzaga 81-76, surviving a late rally. 

Sweet 16: Edged No. 4 Purdue 62-60, with Milos Uzan’s buzzer-beater sealing the win. 

Elite Eight: Dominated No. 2 Tennessee 69-50, hitting five 3-pointers in the final 5:30 to pull away. 

Final Four: Staged an epic upset over No. 1 Duke, erasing a 14-point deficit with 8:17 remaining and closing on a 9-0 run in the final 33 seconds to win 70-67. L.J. Cryer led with 26 points, and the defense clamped down, holding Duke to one field goal in the last 10:31. 

Houston’s journey highlights their physicality, experience, and newfound 3-point prowess (39.9% regular-season mark, tops nationally). 

Key Matchups Favoring Houston 

Houston’s Defense vs. Walter Clayton Jr. 

Why It Favors Houston: The Cougars boast the nation’s No. 1 defense, allowing just 58.3 points per game. Clayton, averaging 24.6 points in the tournament (54.5% FG, 44.4% 3P), has been unstoppable, but Houston’s physical, switch-heavy scheme—led by Lefty Driesell Award winner Joseph Tugler—could disrupt his rhythm. Against Duke, they rattled Cooper Flagg and limited open looks. Clayton’s faced tough defenses, but none as relentless as Houston’s, which excels at forcing turnovers (Florida has 69 in five tournament games) and contesting shots (Clayton made 6-of-12 contested shots vs. Auburn). 

Edge: Houston’s ability to trap Clayton and force him into passing (he’s at 3.5 assists per game in the tournament) could neutralize Florida’s offensive catalyst. 

Houston’s Frontcourt Physicality vs. Florida’s Depth 

Why It Favors Houston: Florida’s frontcourt—featuring Alex Condon, Thomas Haugh, and Micah Handlogten—is deep and ranks fifth nationally in offensive rebounding (38.9%). However, Houston’s J’Wan Roberts (12 points, 11 rebounds vs. Duke) and Tugler match that physicality, leading the nation in defensive efficiency. Their rebounding tenacity (18 offensive rebounds vs. Duke) and ability to “muck up” games could limit Florida’s second-chance points, a Gators strength. 

Edge: Houston’s grit and experience in half-court battles give them a slight advantage over Florida’s size. 

Houston’s 3-Point Shooting vs. Florida’s Perimeter Defense 

Why It Favors Houston: The Cougars lead the nation in 3-point percentage (39.9%), with Cryer (26 vs. Duke), Emanuel Sharp (12.8 PPG), and Uzan (11.5 PPG) capable of lighting it up. Florida’s defense struggles against sharpshooters—Texas Tech hit 6-of-7 early 3s in the Elite Eight—and Houston’s nine made 3s per tournament game could exploit this. The Gators’ focus on Clayton might leave shooters open. 

Edge: Houston’s efficiency from deep could stretch Florida thin. 

Houston’s Semifinal Comeback and Confidence 

Houston’s remarkable Final Four comeback against Duke—overcoming a 14-point deficit and scoring 25 points in the final 8:17, including 7 in 14 seconds late—demonstrates their poise under pressure. Down 67-61 with 40 seconds left, they executed perfectly: Sharp’s 3-pointer, Tugler’s dunk off a turnover, Roberts’ free throws, and a stop on Flagg’s final shot. This wasn’t just luck; it was a testament to Sampson’s veteran squad (Cryer won a title at Baylor, Roberts has Final Four experience) and their belief in “game pressure,” as Sampson put it. After slaying Duke—a team with the KenPom era’s most efficient offense and Wooden Award winner Flagg—Houston’s confidence is sky-high. They’ve now won 18 straight, and this historic rally (one of the five biggest Final Four comebacks ever) could propel them past Florida, especially against a Gators team that’s had to claw back repeatedly but might finally meet its match. 

My Take 

Houston’s comeback absolutely boosts their momentum. Facing a Duke team that seemed destined for the title and pulling off a miracle in the final minute shows they thrive when it matters most. Florida’s reliance on Clayton is a double-edged sword—his brilliance has carried them, but Houston’s defense is uniquely equipped to challenge him and by far the best defense he has had to face. The Cougars’ experience, physicality, and newfound offensive spark give them the edge in a low-scoring, grind-it-out game. Houston by 5.   

Auburn vs Florida 
10-Unit bet on Auburn priced as a 2.5-point underdog. 

Live Betting Strategy: Consider betting 75% of your 10-Unit betting amount preflop and then look to add 15% more at Auburn +5.5 and 10% more at Auburn +7.5 points. I would also recommend betting 80% preflop and then add the remaining 20% after a Florida scoring run of 10 or more points. This game promises to have immense scoring volatility and both teams are going to rip off scoring runs. 

At the end is a player prop I like, and my suggestion is not to bet more than 2.5 units on it. 

This Saturday, April 5, 2025, at 6:09 PM EDT, the No. 1 Auburn Tigers (32-5) take on the No. 1 Florida Gators (34-4) in a seismic Final Four showdown at the Alamodome in San Antonio, Texas, kicking off the national semifinals on CBS. This SEC clash pits two titans against each other, with Florida riding a 10-game winning streak and a 90-81 regular-season victory over Auburn on February 8. The Gators enter as 2.5-point favorites (-151 moneyline), per SportsLine, with an over/under of 160.5, reflecting their offensive firepower (85.4 PPG). Auburn, the top overall seed, is priced as a +129 underdog despite a 4-0 NCAA Tournament run, including a gritty 70-64 Elite Eight win over Michigan State. With Johni Broome (shoulder) expected to play, key matchups tilt the scales toward an Auburn upset, propelling them to their first-ever NCAA Championship game. Here’s why the Tigers will shock the Gators in this high-octane rematch. 

Team Breakdown and Tournament Path 

Auburn stumbled late in the regular season, dropping three of their final four games—including that 90-81 loss to Florida—raising doubts about their No. 1 seed. Yet, Bruce Pearl’s squad has roared back in March, dispatching No. 16 Alabama State (83-63), No. 9 Creighton (82-70), No. 5 Michigan (78-65), and No. 2 Michigan State (70-64). Their top-10 adjusted offensive (1.14 PPP) and defensive efficiency (0.92 PPP allowed) shine, per KenPom, with Johni Broome (18.5 PPG, 10.8 RPG) anchoring a team that leads the nation in blocks (2.1 BPG). A mid-game injury scare against MSU (ankle and elbow) saw Broome exit briefly, but his return—capped by a clutch 3-pointer—quelled fears, and he’s reportedly “good to go” per Pearl. 

Florida, the SEC Tournament champs, have been unstoppable since February 8, going 14-1 with wins over No. 16 Norfolk State (95-69), No. 8 UConn (77-75), No. 4 Maryland (87-71), and No. 3 Texas Tech (84-79). Their Elite Eight comeback—trailing by 9 with 3:14 left, then closing on an 18-4 run—underscores their clutch gene, led by Walter Clayton Jr. (18.1 PPG, 30 vs. Texas Tech). Florida’s No. 1 offensive efficiency (1.19 PPP) and 10th-ranked defense (0.95 PPP) make them formidable, but their 1-4 ATS record in March hints at cracks against top foes. 

Historical Context 

Auburn’s second Final Four trip (first since 2019) meets Florida’s sixth (first since 2014), with the Gators holding a 2-0 edge in prior NCAA meetings (2000, 2007). Florida’s February win—13-for-33 from three—exposed Auburn’s perimeter defense, but the Tigers’ 83.8 PPG and 42.11% Final Four pick rate (NCAA.com) suggest they’re peaking. An upset would mark Auburn’s first championship game, while Florida seeks its third title since 2007. 

Key Matchups for Auburn’s Upset 

Johni Broome vs. Alex Condon 

Why It’s Pivotal: Broome, the SEC Player of the Year, is Auburn’s linchpin (18.5 PPG, 10.8 RPG, 2.1 BPG). Florida’s 6-11 sophomore Condon (13.2 PPG, 7.7 RPG) dominated Broome in February (17 points, 10 rebounds, 7-for-10 FG vs. Broome’s 8-for-19), using size to disrupt him.  

Auburn’s Edge: Broome’s return vs. MSU (16 points post-injury) and 34.2% 3-point shooting pull Condon away from the rim, where Broome’s 2.8 assist-to-turnover ratio exploits Florida’s 47.2% 2P defense (10th). At 100%, Broome’s 25-point, 14-rebound potential (per The Athletic) outmuscles Condon’s 10% offensive rebound rate, controlling the paint (Auburn’s 38.1 PPG in tournament) and limiting Florida’s second chances (12.1 ORPG, 2nd). 

Denver Jones vs. Walter Clayton Jr. 

Why It’s Pivotal: Clayton, a first-team All-American, is Florida’s clutch star (22.3 PPG in tournament, 19 vs. Auburn in February). Auburn’s 6-4 guard Jones (10.2 PPG, 38.1% 3P) is an elite perimeter defender (1.9 steal rate, 41.2% opponent 3P% containment, per Synergy).  

Auburn’s Edge: Jones held Clayton to 3 second-half points in February (7 assists, 2 TOs), forcing 6-for-11 FG inefficiency. His length and top-10 perimeter D (31.8% 3P allowed) can rattle Clayton’s 56.1% eFG, dropping him to 15-18 points on 35% FG. Shutting down Florida’s 11-game over trend (171 PPG vs. Auburn) keeps this under 160.5. 

Tahaad Pettiford vs. Alijah Martin 

Why It’s Pivotal: Freshman Pettiford (11.9 PPG, 2.7 APG off bench) has been Auburn’s spark, scoring double digits in all four tournament games (23 vs. Creighton, 14 vs. MSU). Florida’s 6-2 guard Martin (14.5 PPG, 58% 2P) missed the February game but averages 14.8 PPG in March.  

Auburn’s Edge: Pettiford’s 1.21 PPP outpaces Martin’s 1.03 vs. top defenses, and his 41.2% 3P stretches Florida’s 33.1% 3P defense (8th). Martin’s 34.2% from deep faces Auburn’s 6-6 average starter height, limiting his drives. A 15-point, 3-assist burst from Pettiford flips Florida’s 14.2 bench PPG advantage. 

Analytical Support 

Defensive Clamp: Auburn’s 0.92 PPP allowed (5th) edges Florida’s 0.95 (10th), with 7.8 SPG and 2.1 BPG disrupting Florida’s 11.2 turnovers per game. Their 73.1% defensive rebound rate (vs. Florida’s 71.8%) neutralizes the Gators’ rebounding edge. 

Offensive Upside: Auburn’s 1.14 PPP (vs. Florida’s 1.03 vs. top-25 D) and 17-0 runs (e.g., vs. MSU) match Florida’s late-game bursts (18-4 vs. Texas Tech). Broome’s 22-point, 16-rebound ceiling vs. Michigan outshines Condon’s 17-point high. 

Underdog Value: At +129, Auburn’s 42.11% Final Four pick rate (NCAA.com) and 3-1 record in close games (vs. Florida’s 2-2) signal upset potential. ESPN’s 57.9% matchup predictor leans Florida, but Auburn’s 28.1% upset chance (Web ID: 0) fits this narrative. 

Why Auburn Wins 

Broome Dominates: A healthy Broome (22 points, 12 rebounds, 3 blocks) overpowers Condon, exploiting Florida’s 47.2% 2P defense for 42 paint points. 

Jones Neutralizes Clayton: Holding Clayton to 16 points on 5-for-14 FG caps Florida’s runs, forcing Martin (12 points, 4-for-11) to overextend. 

Pettiford’s X-Factor: A 16-point bench explosion outshines Florida’s depth, flipping a 2-point deficit into a 4-point lead by the 5:00 mark. 

Late-Game Poise: Auburn’s 3-1 clutch record and 17-0 run history trump Florida’s 90-81 February edge, sealing a 1-point win with free throws. 

Prediction 

Just hypothetical: Florida jumps to an 8-point halftime lead behind Clayton’s early 3s, but Broome’s second-half surge (10 points, 8 rebounds) and Jones’ lockdown D spark a 14-2 run. Pettiford’s late triple at 1:30 gives Auburn an 80-79 edge, and Broome’s block on Condon with 0:05 left clinches it. The Tigers upset the Gators, advancing to Monday’s title game. 

From my predictive models: My model is projecting an 85% probability that Auburn is going to score 78 or more points and have 12 or fewer turnovers. In past games, Auburn has posted a 113-11 SU and 88-31-2 ATS record under Bruce Pearl when scoring 78 or more points and committing 12 or fewer turnovers.

Thursday 
Villanova vs USC 
7-Unit bet on Villanova priced as a 4-point favorite. 

From my predictive models I am expecting Villanova to score 78 or more points and commit 12 or fewer turnovers. In past games dating back to 2006, Villanova is 154-10 SU and 122-36 ATS when meeting these performance measures. Since 2021, they are 24-3 SU and 20-76 ATS good for 74% winning bets.  

Utah vs Butler 
7-Unit bet on Utah priced as a 1.5-point favorite and I prefer the money line. 

College Basketball Crown Tournament. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has gone 40-31 SU (58%) and 46-24 ATS (66%) since 2019. The requirements needed for this a betting opportunity to be validated is as follows:  

Bet on teams with 7 or more days of rest.  

That team is coming off a horrid loss by 15 or more points.  

They were priced as the favorite.  

If these teams have had 10 or more days of rest, they have gone 12-7 SU (63%) and 15-3 ATS for 83% winning bets since 2019. 

Michigan State vs Auburn 
7-Unit bet on the Auburn Tigers priced as 4.5-point favorites. 

From my predictive model the Tigers are projected to score 78 or more points and outrebound MSU by at least 5 boards and have more offensive rebounds. In past games in which Auburn met or exceeded these performance measures has seen them go 71-3 SU and 51-20 ATS good for 72% winning bets under head coach Bruce Pearl. Michigan State is 1-12 SUATS when allowing the aforementioned performance measures under head coach Tom Izzo. 

The Elite 8 of the 2025 NCAA Tournament brings a blockbuster South Region final to State Farm Arena in Atlanta, pitting the No. 2 seed Michigan State Spartans (30-6) against the No. 1 seed Auburn Tigers (31-5). Tipoff is set for 5:05 p.m. ET on CBS, with a trip to the Final Four in San Antonio on the line. While Michigan State boasts a storied tournament pedigree under legendary coach Tom Izzo, Auburn’s superior advanced analytics, roster depth, and coaching edge under Bruce Pearl position the Tigers to secure a double-digit victory and advance to their second Final Four in program history. 

Advanced Analytics: Auburn’s Dominance by the Numbers 

Auburn enters this matchup as a statistical juggernaut, ranked No. 3 nationally in offensive efficiency and No. 8 in defensive efficiency per KenPom. The Tigers’ balanced attack is powered by a high-octane offense averaging 83.6 points per game (12th nationally) and a stingy defense that holds opponents to 29.6% from beyond the arc (11th nationally). Their net rating—a whopping +25.2—reflects a team that overwhelms opponents on both ends of the floor. Auburn’s ability to dictate tempo (adjusted tempo rank of 67.8, 48th nationally) allows them to exploit Michigan State’s slower pace (adjusted tempo of 65.2, 223rd nationally), forcing the Spartans into an uncomfortable, up-and-down game. 

Michigan State, while elite defensively (No. 1 in 3-point defense at 28%), struggles offensively, ranking 328th in 3-point shooting percentage (31.1%) and 332nd in 3-pointers made per game (6.0). Auburn’s perimeter defense, which limits opponents to 37% from deep in SEC play, will neutralize the Spartans’ already anemic outside game. Meanwhile, Auburn’s guards—led by freshmanTahaad Pettiford (11.8 PPG, 59 points in three tournament games)—can exploit Michigan State’s perimeter vulnerabilities, as the Spartans rank outside the top 100 in defending 2-point jumpers. Auburn’s +515 scoring differential (14.3 points per game) dwarfs Michigan State’s +312 (8.7 points per game), underscoring the Tigers’ ability to dominate overmatched foes. 

Rebounding further tilts the scales in Auburn’s favor. The Tigers rank 50th nationally in rebounds per game (34.5) and outrebound opponents by 5.3 boards, while Michigan State’s vaunted offensive rebounding (No. 21 in offensive rebounding percentage) will face a stern test against Auburn’s Johni Broome, a 6-10 All-American averaging 18.5 points and 10.8 rebounds. Broome’s 16-rebound performance against Michigan in the Sweet 16—including nine offensive boards—highlights his ability to control the glass against bigger lineups, a problem Michigan State’s frontcourt (Jaxon Kohler, 7.4 RPG) won’t easily solve. 

Coaching Edge: Bruce Pearl’s Tactical Mastery 

Bruce Pearl’s 11-year tenure at Auburn has transformed the Tigers into an SEC powerhouse, and his 705-267 career record reflects a coach who thrives in high-stakes environments. Pearl’s tactical acumen shone in Auburn’s 78-65 Sweet 16 win over Michigan, where a 20-2 second-half run flipped a nine-point deficit into a commanding lead. His ability to adjust on the fly—shifting to a smaller, guard-heavy lineup to spark that run—exploits Michigan State’s lack of offensive versatility. Pearl’s teams excel at minimizing turnovers (9.4 per game, 12th nationally), a critical edge against a Spartans squad that forces just 11.2 turnovers per game (162nd nationally). 

Tom Izzo, with a 736-301 record and eight Final Four appearances, is a March Madness icon, and his 8-2 Elite 8 record speaks to his clutch preparation. Michigan State’s second-half surges—evidenced by their 73-70 comeback over Ole Miss—showcase Izzo’s ability to rally his troops. However, Auburn presents a matchup nightmare Izzo hasn’t faced this postseason. The Tigers’ combination of size (Broome), guard play (Pettiford, Denver Jones), and depth (eight players averaging 15+ minutes) overwhelms Michigan State’s reliance on a tight rotation and inconsistent scoring beyond Jaden Akins (12.8 PPG) and Jase Richardson (12.2 PPG). Pearl’s 7-0 record against Big Ten teams since 2020, including blowout wins over Ohio State (+38) and Purdue (+18) this season, signals his mastery over Izzo’s conference peers. 

Key Matchup: Broome vs. Michigan State’s Bigs 

The game’s defining battle unfolds in the paint, where Broome’s blend of skill and physicality will test Michigan State’s frontcourt trio of Kohler, Carson Cooper, and Szymon Zapala. Broome’s ability to score inside (58% on 2-pointers) and draw fouls (5.2 FTA per game) could push Michigan State’s bigs into early foul trouble, a vulnerability exposed in their 33-29 rebounding deficit against Ole Miss. Auburn’s 39.4% shooting against Michigan belies their efficiency (1.13 points per possession in tournament play), and Broome’s presence ensures second-chance points (12.5 per game allowed by MSU) that the Spartans can’t afford to concede. 

Prediction: Auburn Pulls Away for a Double-Digit Win 

Michigan State’s grit and defensive tenacity will keep this game competitive early, but Auburn’s superior analytics and coaching edge will prove decisive. The Tigers’ ability to stretch the floor with Pettiford and Jones (four 3s vs. Michigan) exploits Michigan State’s 3-point woes, while Broome’s dominance inside neutralizes the Spartans’ rebounding edge. Expect Auburn to lead by single digits at halftime before a second-half surge—fueled by Pearl’s adjustments and Michigan State’s offensive limitations—pushes the margin past 10. Auburn’s depth and efficiency will wear down Izzo’s squad, securing a statement win and a Final Four berth. 

Final Score Prediction: Auburn 78, Michigan State 66 
Auburn advances to face Florida in San Antonio, cementing their status as a national title contender. 

Alabama vs Duke 
10-Unit bet on Alabama +6.5 points. 

Live Betting Strategy: Consider betting 70% preflop and then look to add 20% more on Alabama at a price of 9.5 points and then 10% more at 11.5 points during the first half of action. Another option is to bet 80%preflop and then add the remaining 20% after a Duke scoring run of 10 or more points. Keep in mind, that Alabama may have a lead prior to this scoring run, so the price you get may not be as good as the preflop price. Based on decades of in-game NBA and College basketball game flows, betting on teams that just allowed 10 or more unanswered points is a solid bettig strategy. Given the very high total for this Elite game, scoring volatility is going to much higher than average that can provide numerous double-digit scoring runs by both teams.  

In the Elite 8 Round, teams, like Alabama, that are coming off a game in which their three-point scoring accounted for 45% or more of their total points have gone on to 4-3 SU and 5-1 ATS record for 71% winning bets.  

The Elite 8 Betting Algorithm 

The following betting algorithm has produced a 59-24 ATS result good fort 71% winning bets during the regular and post seasons since 1998. The requirements are: 

Bet on neutral court teams that have an excellent scoring defense allowing between 40 and 42.5 shooting. 

They are facing an opponent that has shot 50% or better in each of their previous three games. 

The opponent has a very strong defense allowing 40% or lower shooting percentage. 

Alabama vs. Duke Elite Eight Game Preview: How the Crimson Tide Can Upset the Blue Devils 

The 2025 NCAA Tournament Elite Eight features a blockbuster East Region matchup between the No. 1 seed Duke Blue Devils (31-4) and the No. 2 seed Alabama Crimson Tide (27-7) on Saturday, March 29, at 8:49 p.m. ET at the Prudential Center in Newark, NJ (TBS). Duke enters as a 6.5-point favorite with a total of 174.5 points, but Alabama has the firepower and matchups to pull off the upset and advance to the Final Four. This game pits Duke’s balanced attack, led by freshman phenom Cooper Flagg, against Alabama’s high-octane offense, spearheaded by Mark Sears. Below, we’ll dive into the key matchups, advanced analytics, and strategic elements that could propel Alabama to a victory as a 6.5-point underdog. 

Key Matchups That Favor Alabama 

Mark Sears vs. Jeremy Roach: Perimeter Dominance 

Sears’ Edge: Alabama’s senior guard Mark Sears (19 PPG, 5.1 APG, 34.8% 3P) has been a scoring machine, especially from deep (4.2 3PM per game in the tournament). His quickness (3.8 drives per game, per Synergy) and ability to create off the dribble (1.12 PPP in isolation) make him a matchup nightmare. Against Texas Tech, Sears dropped 27 points, including 5-of-9 from three. 

Why It Matters: Alabama leads the nation in 3PA per game (29.8) and ranks 8th in 3P% (37.2%). If Sears gets hot from deep, he can stretch Duke’s defense, which ranks 15th in opponent 3P% (31.4%). Sears’ ability to draw fouls (5.2 FTA per game) could also put Duke defenders in foul trouble, forcing Duke to rely on less experienced guards like Tyrese Proctor. 

Grant Nelson vs. Cooper Flagg: Neutralizing the Phenom 

Nelson’s Versatility: Alabama’s Grant Nelson (12.8 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 1.8 BPG) brings size (6’11”) and skill to the frontcourt. His ability to step out and shoot (34.8% 3P) and defend multiple positions (1.5 SPG) makes him a tough cover. Nelson’s 1.02 PPP in post-up situations (per Synergy) could exploit Flagg’s relative inexperience. 

Flagg’s Dominance: Duke’s Cooper Flagg (18.2 PPG, 9.0 RPG, 2.8 APG, 54.2% FG) is a two-way force, with elite rim protection (1.5 BPG) and perimeter defense (1.8 SPG). However, his 38.1% 3P shooting comes on low volume (2.8 3PA per game), and he can be baited into fouls (3.2 PF per game in the tournament). 

Why It Matters: Nelson’s ability to pull Flagg away from the rim opens driving lanes for Sears and Alabama’s guards. Flagg’s 0.88 PPP allowed in post defense (per Synergy) suggests Nelson can score inside, while Alabama’s 48.2% defensive rebound rate (top 50) can limit Flagg’s second-chance opportunities (3.2 offensive rebounds per game). 

Alabama’s Bench vs. Duke’s Depth: Fresh Legs Win Out 

Alabama’s Depth: The Crimson Tide play 10 players 10+ minutes per game, with key contributors like Jarin Stevenson (8.4 PPG, 40.2% 3P) and Mo Dioubate (6.8 PPG, 5.2 RPG) providing energy. Alabama’s bench averages 28.6 PPG, 3rd in the SEC, and their 71.2 tempo (42nd) wears down opponents. 

Duke’s Rotation: Duke relies heavily on their starters, with Flagg, Roach, and Kon Knueppel (13.8 PPG, 39.4% 3P) playing 34+ minutes per game. Their bench averages just 18.2 PPG, and their 69.8 tempo (88th) is slower, potentially leaving them vulnerable to Alabama’s pace. 

Why It Matters: Alabama’s fresh legs could exploit Duke late in the game. The Tide’s 15.2 fast-break PPG (19th) and 1.14 PPP in transition (per Synergy) can capitalize on Duke’s 0.98 PPP allowed in transition (average). If Alabama pushes the pace, Duke’s starters may tire, leading to defensive breakdowns. 

Alabama’s 3-Point Shooting vs. Duke’s Perimeter Defense: The X-Factor 

Alabama’s Strength: The Crimson Tide’s 3-point barrage (37.2% 3P, 8th) is led by Sears, Stevenson, and Aden Holloway (38.8% 3P). They’ve hit 12.3 3PM per game in the tournament, including 14 against BYU. 

Duke’s Defense: Duke ranks 15th in opponent 3P% (31.4%), but they’ve allowed 9.3 3PM per game in the tournament, including 10 to Arizona. Their 3-point defense relies on Flagg’s help-side rim protection, but Alabama’s spacing (29.8 3PA per game) can pull him out of position. 

Why It Matters: If Alabama gets hot from deep, they can overcome Duke’s size advantage. The Tide’s 1.12 PPP on catch-and-shoot 3s (per Synergy) could exploit Duke’s 0.92 PPP allowed on such plays. A 12+ 3PM night from Alabama could swing the game in their favor. 

Advanced Analytics Supporting Alabama’s Upset 

Offensive Efficiency: Alabama’s 122.8 AdjO (5th) outpaces Duke’s 92.3 AdjD (12th) in key areas. The Tide’s 56.2% 2P% (10th) and 37.2% 3P% give them multiple ways to score, while Duke’s defense has struggled against top-10 offenses (allowing 82.4 PPG in such matchups). 

Turnover Battle: Alabama’s 15.8% turnover rate (top 50) matches up well against Duke’s 11.2 steals per game (5th). The Tide’s ball security (Sears’ 2.1 A/TO ratio) limits Duke’s transition game (14.8 fast-break PPG, 25th). 

Pace Advantage: Alabama’s 71.2 tempo (42nd) could disrupt Duke’s 69.8 tempo (88th). The Tide’s 1.14 PPP in transition (top 20) can exploit Duke’s slower rotations, especially late in the game. 

Shooting Trends: Alabama’s 12.3 3PM per game in the tournament far exceeds Duke’s 7.3 3PM allowed (average). If the Tide hit 12+ threes, they’ve won 14 of 16 games this season (per ESPN Stats & Info). 

Why Alabama Wins Outright 

Sears’ Explosion: Sears goes off for 25+ points, hitting 5+ threes and exploiting Duke’s guards’ defensive limitations. His ability to draw fouls (5.2 FTA per game) puts Duke’s guards in foul trouble, opening the floor for Alabama’s offense. 

Nelson Neutralizes Flagg: Nelson scores 15+ points, including a couple of 3s, pulling Flagg away from the rim. This allows Alabama’s guards to attack the basket, where they convert 56.2% of 2-point attempts. 

3-Point Barrage: Alabama hits 12+ threes, a threshold where they’renearly unbeatable. Duke’s perimeter defense can’t keep up with Alabama’s volume (29.8 3PA per game), and the Tide’s spacing creates open looks. 

Alabama is 8-2 SUATS this season when making 12 or more three-pointers and my predictive mode projects an 86% probability they will exceed this performance metric. 

Late-Game Execution: Alabama’s depth and pace wear down Duke’s starters. The Tide’s bench (28.6 PPG) outscores Duke’s (18.2 PPG), and their 15.2 fast-break PPG lead to key transition buckets in the final minutes. 

Prediction and Best Bet 

Score Prediction: Alabama 84, Duke 80  

Best Bet: Alabama +6.5 (-110) 
Alabama’s elite offense, led by Sears’ scoring and Nelson’s versatility, exploits Duke’s perimeter defense and lack of bench depth. The Crimson Tide hit enough 3s to keep pace, and their fresh legs secure the upset in a high-scoring thriller, sending them to the Final Four. 

Michigan vs Auburn 
10-Unit bet UNDER the posted total of 154 points. 

The following betting algorithm has produced a 14-6 UNDER record for 70% winning bets in the NCAA Tournament. The requirements are: 

Bet the UNDER in the Sweet 16 Round. 

One of the team’s is on a two-game win streak exact. 

The opponent is on a three or more-game win streak. 

From the Sweet 16 Round on to the Championship game, this situation has gone 14-7 UNDER for 67% winners. 

The Sweet 16 of the 2025 NCAA Tournament brings us a compelling matchup between the No. 5 seed Michigan Wolverines (27-9) and the No. 1 seed Auburn Tigers (30-5) on Friday, March 28, at 9:39 p.m. ET at State Farm Arena in Atlanta (CBS). This South Region clash pits Michigan’s gritty, size-driven style against Auburn’s deep, high-octane attack. With the betting total set at 153.5 points, advanced analytics suggest a strong case for the UNDER, driven by key matchups and statistical trends that could stifle the scoreboard. Let’s break it down. 

Team Overview and Context 

Michigan Wolverines: Under first-year coach Dusty May, Michigan has surged into the Sweet 16 with a Big Ten Tournament title and wins over UC San Diego (67-64) and Texas A&M (91-79). Their frontcourt duo of 7-footers Vladislav Goldin and Danny Wolf has been pivotal, controlling the paint and dictating tempo. 

Auburn Tigers: Bruce Pearl’s squad, the No. 1 overall seed, boasts a 30-5 record with a top-tier offense and a suffocating defense. They’ve dispatched Alabama State (89-55) and Creighton (82-70) in the tournament, led by National Player of the Year candidate Johni Broome. 

Key Matchups and Analytics Supporting the UNDER 

Michigan’s Frontcourt vs. Auburn’s Interior Defense 

Michigan’s Advantage: Goldin (16.8 PPG, 7.0 RPG, 61% FG) and Wolf (12.3 PPG, 10.0 RPG, 3.0 APG) give Michigan the 15th-best 2-point FG% (56.2%) and the 13th-lowest opponent 2-point FG% (46.0%) per KenPom. Their size and rim protection (5.8 blocks per game combined) slow games down, forcing opponents into contested shots. Against Texas A&M, Goldin’s 23 points and 12 rebounds showcased their dominance inside. 

Auburn’s Response: Auburn ranks 3rd in adjusted defensive efficiency (90.1) and 44th in opponent 2-point FG% (47.2%). Broome (18.4 PPG, 10.6 RPG, 2.2 BPG) anchors the paint, but he’s not a perimeter threat (0.3 3PA/G), meaning Michigan can pack the lane. Auburn’s block rate (16.2%, 4th nationally) will challenge Michigan’s interior scoring, potentially leading to a grind-it-out battle. 

Analytic Insight: Michigan’s games average 149.6 points this season, but against top-50 defenses (per KenPom), that drops to 141.2. Auburn’s last 10 games against top-50 offenses averaged 148.7 points, with three of their four losses staying under 153.5. 

Auburn’s Perimeter Shooting vs. Michigan’s 3-Point Defense 

Auburn’s Strength: The Tigers shoot 36.8% from three (49th nationally), with Miles Kelly (39.4%) and Denver Jones (41.7%) stretching defenses. They’ve hit 10+ threes in 14 games this season, including 11 against Alabama State. 

Michigan’s Counter: The Wolverines rank 27th in opponent 3-point FG% (31.2%), thanks to disciplined rotations and length. Tre Donaldson (11.5 PPG, 4.2 APG) and Roddy Gayle Jr. (career-high 26 vs. Texas A&M) can harass Auburn’s guards, while Wolf’s versatility disrupts pick-and-pop actions. 

Analytic Insight: Auburn’s 3-point volume dips against top-25 3-point defenses (7.8 makes vs. 9.2 season average). Michigan’s last five games saw opponents shoot just 29.8% from deep, and their tournament games averaged 6.5 opponent 3PM—well below Auburn’s 8.9 season mark. A cold shooting night could cap Auburn’s output. 

Pace and Tempo Clash 

Michigan’s Style: The Wolverines rank 165th in adjusted tempo (67.8 possessions per game), preferring a deliberate half-court game. They’ve gone UNDER 153.5 in 17 of 36 games, including their low-scoring opener vs. UC San Diego (131 total points). 

Auburn’s Style: Auburn ranks 42nd in tempo (70.9), thriving in transition (15.2 fast-break PPG, 19th nationally). However, their half-court efficiency drops against elite defenses (1.02 PPP vs. 1.12 season average, per Synergy). 

Analytic Insight: When Auburn faces top-50 tempo teams, their games average 151.3 points. Michigan’s ability to limit possessions (opponents average 66.4 vs. them) could drag Auburn into a slog. The Tigers’ last three games against slow-paced teams (under 68 tempo) averaged 147.8 points. 

Turnovers and Efficiency Trends 

Michigan’s Ball Security: The Wolverines rank 88th in turnover percentage (16.2%), but Donaldson’s playmaking (4.2 APG, 1.8 TO/G) keeps them steady. Against Auburn’s pressure (11.4 steals per game, 8th nationally), maintaining possession will be key. 

Auburn’s Discipline: The Tigers rank 23rd in turnover percentage (15.1%), but their steals dry up against low-turnover teams (8.7 vs. top-100 TO% foes). Michigan’s size could neutralize Auburn’s press. 

Analytic Insight: Games with both teams under 17% TO% average 149.6 points in Auburn’s schedule and 148.2 in Michigan’s. Fewer live-ball turnovers limit transition buckets, favoring the UNDER. 

Betting Trends and Model Projections 

Trends: Michigan is 6-4 ATS in their last 10, with 7 of 10 under 153.5. Auburn’s 3-7 ATS skid in their last 10 includes three straight UNDERs against top-50 teams. Tournament games with top-5 defenses vs. top-25 offenses have gone UNDER 153.5 in 8 of 11 instances since 2023. 

KenPom Projection: Auburn 80, Michigan 72 (152 total points). The model gives Auburn a 76% win probability but sees Michigan’s defense keeping it close. 

SportsLine Model: Simulates 152 combined points, hitting the UNDER in 53% of 10,000 simulations, with Michigan’s spread (+8.5) cashing over 50% of the time. 

Why the UNDER 153.5 Makes Sense 

The analytics paint a picture of a physical, low-possession game. Michigan’s twin towers will clog the paint, forcing Auburn to rely on outside shooting against a stingy perimeter defense. Auburn’s elite defense, meanwhile, should limit Michigan’s 2-point barrage, but the Wolverines’ slow tempo could cap the Tigers’ transition opportunities. Both teams’ recent tournament games (Michigan: 131 and 170 points; Auburn: 144 and 152) suggest 153.5 is inflated, especially given Auburn’s late-season defensive tightening (69.4 PPG allowed) and Michigan’s ability to muck it up. 

Prediction and Best Bet 

Score Prediction: Auburn 77, Michigan 73 (150 total points)  

Best Bet: UNDER 153.5 (-110) 
This game has all the makings of a Sweet 16 defensive struggle, where size and discipline trump pace and flash. Take the UNDER and enjoy a tense, tactical battle in Atlanta. 

Mississippi vs Michigan State 
7-Unit bet on Mississippi priced as a 3.5-point underdog. 

Unpopular underdogs playing in the Sweet 16 or the Elite 8 that have gotten less than 50% of the tickets and are on a 3 or more-game ATS win streak have been big money makers sporting a 36-16-2 ATS record good for 69% winning bets. If these teams, like Ole Miss are riding a three-game ATS win streak exact has seen them go 10-4-1 ATS for 71.4% winning bets.  

Context and Stakes 

No. 6 Ole Miss (24-11) faces No. 2 Michigan State (29-6) in the South Region semifinals, with the winner advancing to the Elite Eight. Ole Miss has surged into the Sweet 16—its first since 2001—after dismantling No. 11 North Carolina (71-64) and No. 3 Iowa State (91-78), averaging a 10-point margin of victory. Michigan State, a Tom Izzo-led perennial power, has advanced with less convincing wins over No. 15 Bryant (87-62) and No. 10 New Mexico (71-63), trailing at halftime in both before late surges. Despite Michigan State’s 3.5-point favorite status (SportsLine consensus), advanced analytics reveal vulnerabilities that Ole Miss, under Chris Beard, is primed to exploit for an upset. 

Advanced Analytics Breakdown 

Adjusted Efficiency Margins (KenPom Rankings) 

Ole Miss: No. 21 overall (AdjO: 118.2, AdjD: 99.6, AdjEM: +18.6)  

Michigan State: No. 7 overall (AdjO: 117.4, AdjD: 94.2, AdjEM: +23.2) 
Michigan State’s +23.2 AdjEM outpaces Ole Miss’s +18.6, but the gap narrows in tournament play. Ole Miss’s offense has spiked to 1.24 PPP (3rd nationally) across their two March Madness games, while their defense holds at 0.98 PPP allowed (34th). Michigan State’s No. 5-ranked defense (94.2 AdjD) allows 0.88 PPP (5th), but their offense lags at 1.12 PPP (25th), dipping to 1.08 PPP vs. top-50 KenPom teams. Ole Miss’s 6-4 record vs. top-25 foes (e.g., Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky) vs. Michigan State’s 3-5 mark signals resilience against elite competition. 

Pace and Possession Efficiency 

Ole Miss: 70.1 possessions/game (52nd), 1.06 PPP half-court (24th)  

Michigan State: 68.9 possessions/game (78th), 1.02 PPP half-court (42nd) 
Ole Miss thrives in a moderate tempo, ranking 8th in transition PPP (1.20) and forcing a 19.2% TO rate (18th). Michigan State prefers a slower grind (78th in pace), but their 0.88 PPP allowed in transition (12th) was tested by New Mexico’s 1.02 PPP fast breaks. Ole Miss’s 58% eFG% vs. Iowa State exploited a top-10 defense, while Michigan State’s 1.02 PPP half-court offense struggles vs. Ole Miss’s 0.92 PPP allowed (22nd), per Synergy. 

Shooting Efficiency and Three-Point Dynamics 

Ole Miss eFG%: 53.8% (18th) | 3P%: 36.8% (48th) | Opp 3P%: 32.4% (58th)  

Michigan State eFG%: 52.1% (34th) | 3P%: 31.4% (323rd) | Opp 3P%: 29.8% (12th) 
Michigan State’s elite three-point defense (No. 1, 29.8% allowed) faces a test: Ole Miss shot 19-of-39 from deep (48.7%) in the tournament, led by Sean Pedulla (10-of-18, 55.6%). Michigan State’s offense, however, ranks 323rd in 3P% (31.4%), attempting just 32% of shots from deep (298th). Against Ole Miss’s 58th-ranked perimeter defense, the Spartans’ 0.84 PPP on jump shots (Synergy) won’t keep pace with Ole Miss’s 1.14 PPP spot-ups (12th percentile). 

Rebounding and Second-Chance Opportunities 

Ole Miss OR%: 31.8% (42nd) | DR%: 72.8% (44th) | Opp OR%: 27.6% (88th)  

Michigan State OR%: 34.2% (20th) | DR%: 74.1% (22nd) | Opp OR%: 25.8% (44th) 
Michigan State’s 8th-ranked offensive rebounding (34.2%) grabbed 14 boards vs. New Mexico, but Ole Miss’s 88th-ranked defensive rebounding (72.8%) limited Iowa State to 8 (24.2% OR%). Ole Miss’s smaller frontline (Matthew Murrell, Malik Dia) compensates with hustle, while Michigan State’s Carson Cooper (0.98 PPP post-ups) and Szymon Zapala (1.02 PPP) struggle vs. Ole Miss’s 1.08 PPP paint defense (28th). 

Turnover Pressure and Defensive Impact 

Ole Miss TO% Forced: 19.2% (18th) | Steal%: 10.6% (28th) | Opp TO%: 16.8% (54th)  

Michigan State TO%: 15.2% (164th) | Opp Steal%: 8.8% (148th) | TO% vs. Top-50: 17.4% 
Ole Miss’s pesky guards (Pedulla, Jaylen Murray) forced 14 turnovers from Iowa State (1.18 PPP off TOs), while Michigan State’s 17.4% TO rate vs. top-50 teams yielded 12 turnovers vs. New Mexico (0.92 PPP allowed). Jase Richardson’s 1-for-10 night (1.32 TOs/game) and Jeremy Fears’s 0.85 PPP vs. pressure expose a backcourt Ole Miss’s 10.6% steal rate will exploit. 

Key Player Matchups 

Sean Pedulla (Ole Miss): 16.8 PPG, 4.4 APG, 1.22 PPP (tournament)  

Pedulla’s 20-point outbursts (1.28 PPP spot-ups) shredded UNC and Iowa State. Michigan State’s Tre Holloman (1.8 steals/game) defends well, but Pedulla’s 1.9 TO/game resilience and 55.6% 3P% in March Madness overwhelm MSU’s 0.88 PPP allowed on guarded jumpers. 

Jaden Akins (Michigan State): 14.2 PPG, 1.06 PPP (season)  

Akins’s 16 points vs. New Mexico (1.12 PPP off screens) drive MSU, but Ole Miss’s Murray (1.1 steals/game) and 0.92 PPP isolation defense (34th) limit him to 10–12 points on 35% FG. 

Frontcourt Edge: Ole Miss’s Dia (1.15 PPP rolls) and John McBride (1.08 PPP cuts) outpace MSU’s Zapala (0.98 PPP vs. top-50) in efficiency. 

Why Ole Miss Wins Outright 

Offensive Firepower Exploits MSU’s Regression 
Ole Miss’s 1.24 PPP tournament surge (58% eFG%) faces a Michigan State defense allowing 0.98 PPP over their last 10 games (24th). The Rebels’ 48.7% 3P% in March Madness—fueled by Pedulla, Murray (44%), and Murrell (41%)—torches MSU’s 31.4% 3P% offense (0.84 PPP jump shots). Expect 10+ made threes and 85+ points, outpacing MSU’s 1.08 PPP vs. top 50 defenses. 

Defensive Pressure Disrupts MSU’s Backcourt 
Michigan State’s 17.4% TO rate vs. elite teams meets Ole Miss’s 19.2% TO% forced (1.18 PPP off TOs). Richardson’s 1-for-10 slump and Fears’s 0.85 PPP vs. pressure crumble under Ole Miss’s 10.6% steal rate, projecting 14–16 turnovers and 18–22 points off miscues. MSU’s 67 PPG allowed (3rd Big Ten) jumps to 75+ here. 

Pedulla’s Heroics Outshine Akins 
Pedulla’s 1.22 PPP (20 PPG in tournament) and 55.6% 3P% exploit MSU’s 0.88 PPP on jumpers, dropping 22–25 points. Akins’s 1.06 PPP falters vs. Murray’s 0.92 PPP isolation defense, capping him at 10–12 points. Ole Miss’s guard depth (Murray, McBride) adds 30+ combined, overwhelming MSU’s 1.02 PPP half-court. 

Rebounding Holds Firm, Transition Punishes 
Ole Miss’s 72.8% DR% neutralizes MSU’s 34.2% OR%, limiting second-chance points to 8–10. Their 1.20 PPP transition scoring (8th) capitalizes on MSU’s 15.2% TO rate, adding 15–18 fast-break points. MSU’s 0.88 PPP transition defense can’t keep up in Atlanta’s SEC-friendly crowd. 

Beard’s Tournament Edge Over Izzo 
Chris Beard’s 12-6 ATS NCAA record (8-1 ATS with 3+ days prep) includes a 61-51 win over Izzo’s MSU in the 2019 Final Four. Izzo’s 16th Sweet 16 is impressive, but MSU’s 3-5 ATS as 3+ point favorites in 2025 and 0.95 PPP vs. top-25 KenPom teams signal regression. Ole Miss’s 6-4 upset resume trumps MSU’s 3-5 elite losses. 

Prediction: Ole Miss 82, Michigan State 76 

Ole Miss’s scorching offense (1.24 PPP, 48.7% 3P%), turnover-forcing defense (19.2% TO%), and Pedulla’s brilliance (22+ points) overpower Michigan State’s inefficient shooting (31.4% 3P%) and vulnerable backcourt (17.4% TO%). The Rebels cover +3.5 and win outright, advancing to the Elite Eight as Beard out schemes Izzo in a 6-point upset fueled by 10+ threes and 18+ points off turnovers. 

Florida vs Maryland 
7-unit bet on Florida priced as 7-point favorites. 

Live Betting Strategy 

As you will see by the analytics following this strategy, Florida has many significant advantages at both ends of the court. My strategy is to bet 75% preflop and then look to add the remaining 25% on Florida favored by 5.5 points OR bet the remaining 25% following a Maryland unanswered scoring run of 10 or more consecutive points. 

In the NCAA Tournament, teams that failed to cover the spread by 7 or more points in their previous game have bounced back nicely with a 7-1 SU and 6-2 ATS record for 75% winning bets. 

This line opened at 4.5 points and is currently priced at 6.5 points. We did not miss the opportunity. Instead, the 2 or more-points line movement makes Florida an increasingly bullish bet. Teams in the Sweet 16 and that have seen their betting price become 2 or more points worse than the opening line have gone 8-0 SU and 7-1 ATS for 88% winning bets. Even a one-point movement has seen these teams go 49-34-4 ATS but the line movement of 2 or more points has seen the remarkable betting results. 

Context and Stakes 

Top-seeded Florida (32-4) takes on fourth-seeded Maryland (27-8) in the West Region semifinals, with the winner advancing to the Elite Eight. Florida has been a juggernaut, rolling through Norfolk State (95-69) and UConn (77-75) in the tournament’s opening rounds, extending an eight-game win streak. Maryland, meanwhile, survived Grand Canyon (81-49) and eked out a buzzer-beating 72-71 win over Colorado State, thanks to freshman Derik Queen’s heroics. Despite Maryland’s resilience, advanced analytics reveal a mismatch that favors Florida by a significant margin—here’s why they’ll win by 14 or more points. 

Advanced Analytics Breakdown 

Adjusted Efficiency Margins (KenPom Rankings) 

Florida: No. 3 overall (AdjO: 125.8, AdjD: 94.6, AdjEM: +31.2)  

Maryland: No. 10 overall (AdjO: 116.4, AdjD: 96.8, AdjEM: +19.6) 
Florida’s adjusted efficiency margin outpaces Maryland’s by 11.6 points per 100 possessions, a gap that widens in neutral-site settings. The Gators’ No. 2-ranked offense (125.8 AdjO) has surged to 1.24 PPP in the tournament (1st), while their 11th-ranked defense (94.6 AdjD) clamps down at 0.86 PPP allowed (8th). Maryland’s offense (23rd) and defense (6th) are strong but falter against top-10 teams, averaging a -5.2 AdjEM in such matchups this season. 

Pace and Possession Efficiency 

Florida: 70.8 possessions/game (42nd), 1.18 PPP half-court (3rd)  

Maryland: 68.4 possessions/game (88th), 1.04 PPP half-court (38th) 
Florida thrives in a controlled tempo, ranking 5th in transition PPP (1.22) and 3rd in half-court efficiency. Maryland prefers a slower grind (88th in pace), but their 1.04 PPP half-court mark struggles against elite defenses like Florida’s, which allows just 0.82 PPP in the half-court (4th). In their last five games vs. top-20 KenPom foes, Maryland’s PPP dipped to 0.95, while Florida’s soared to 1.20. 

Shooting Efficiency and Perimeter Disparity 

Florida eFG%: 55.4% (5th) | 3P%: 38.9% (12th) | Opp 3P%: 29.3% (7th)  

Maryland eFG%: 52.9% (24th) | 3P%: 36.2% (54th) | Opp 3P%: 33.1% (88th) 
Florida’s guard trio—Walter Clayton Jr. (44.6% 3P% in tournament), Alijah Martin (47.4% 3P%), and Will Richard (40.1% season)—torches defenses, averaging 9.5 made threes per game in March Madness. Maryland’s 88th-ranked perimeter defense (33.1% allowed) was exposed by Colorado State’s 8-of-19 three-point night. Conversely, Florida’s 7th-ranked three-point defense (29.3%) limits Maryland’s Rodney Rice (37% 3P%) and Ja’Kobi Gillespie (36%), who combined for 4-of-12 vs. Colorado State. 

Rebounding and Paint Dominance 

Florida OR%: 34.2% (18th) | DR%: 73.6% (28th) | Paint PPP: 1.12 (12th)  

Maryland OR%: 32.8% (34th) | DR%: 72.1% (58th) | Paint PPP: 1.06 (28th) 
Florida’s frontcourt, led by Alex Condon (1.08 PPP post-ups) and Thomas Haugh (1.15 PPP rolls), outmuscled UConn for 12 offensive rebounds (36.4% OR%). Maryland’s Derik Queen (16.2 PPG, 9.1 RPG) is a force, but his 0.98 PPP vs. top-20 defenses (per Synergy) shrinks against Florida’s 6’11” Rueben Chinyelu (1.2 blocks/game). Maryland’s 39-29 rebounding deficit vs. Colorado State highlights their vulnerability. 

Turnover Battle and Defensive Pressure 

Florida TO% Forced: 18.2% (34th) | Steal%: 10.8% (22nd) | Opp TO%: 16.4% (66th)  

Maryland TO%: 15.9% (188th) | Opp Steal%: 9.4% (198th) | TO% vs. Top-10: 19.2% 
Florida’s aggressive defense (10.8% steal rate) forced 14 turnovers from UConn (1.18 PPP off TOs). Maryland’s “Crab Five” starters play 85% of minutes, but their 15.9% TO rate balloons to 19.2% against top-10 teams, as seen in losses to Michigan State and Ohio State. Gillespie’s 3.2 TOs/game vs. elite guards (e.g., Clayton) and Queen’s 2.4 TOs vs. length signal a 14–16 turnover night, yielding Florida 18–22 points. 

Key Player Matchups 

Walter Clayton Jr. (Florida): 17.9 PPG, 4.2 APG, 1.28 PPP (tournament)  

Clayton’s 23-point, 5-of-8 three-point outburst vs. UConn (1.35 PPP spot-ups) exploits Maryland’s 211th-ranked isolation defense (0.92 PPP allowed). Gillespie’s 1.9 steals/game falter against Clayton’s 1.9 TO/game resilience. 

Derik Queen (Maryland): 16.2 PPG, 9.1 RPG, 1.02 PPP (season)  

Queen’s buzzer-beater (1.05 PPP post-ups) won’t repeat against Condon’s 1.1 blocks and Chinyelu’s 7’1” frame. His 0.88 PPP vs. top-20 frontcourts (Synergy) limits him to 12–14 points. 

Bench Depth: Florida’s 22.5% bench scoring (Haugh, Denzel Aberdeen) vs. Maryland’s 15.5% (303rd) exhausts the Terps’ starters late. 

Why Florida Wins by 14+ Points 

Offensive Explosion Overwhelms Maryland’s Defense 
Florida’s 1.24 PPP tournament average faces a Maryland defense allowing 1.02 PPP over their last 10 games (82nd). The Gators’ 55.4% eFG% and 38.9% 3P% shred Maryland’s 51.9% eFG% allowed (104th) and 33.1% three-point defense, projecting 10–12 made threes and 85+ points. Maryland’s 194th-ranked rim defense (per ShotQuality) cedes 40+ paint points to Florida’s 1.12 PPP interior attack. 

Defensive Stranglehold Crushes Maryland’s Starters 
Maryland’s 1.14 PPP offense (23rd) drops to 0.94 vs. top-10 defenses, as Florida’s 0.86 PPP allowed (8th) and 18.2% TO% forced disrupt their flow. Queen’s 0.88 PPP vs. elite bigs and Gillespie’s 0.85 PPP vs. top guards (Synergy) cap Maryland at 65–68 points, while Florida’s depth wears down their fatigued “Crab Five” (36+ minutes/game). 

Clayton’s Hot Hand and Perimeter Edge 
Clayton’s 1.28 PPP in the tournament (9-of-17 from three) torches Maryland’s perimeter weakness, adding 20–25 points. Martin’s 1.12 PPP spot-ups (47.4% 3P%) and Richard’s 1.08 PPP off screens push the lead to 15+ by exploiting Maryland’s 88th-ranked three-point defense, which allowed 8-of-19 vs. Colorado State. 

Rebounding and Transition Swing 
Florida’s 34.2% OR% and 1.22 PPP transition scoring capitalize on Maryland’s 39-29 rebounding loss to Colorado State. Expect 12–14 offensive boards and 15–20 fast-break points, inflating the margin past 14 as Maryland’s 9.4% steal rate fails to slow Florida’s 70.8-pace attack. 

Simulation and Historical Trends 
KenPom projects Florida 82, Maryland 76 (+6), but underestimates Florida’s 1.24 PPP tournament surge and Maryland’s 1.02 PPP defensive slide. SportsLine’s model (228-168, +1815) simulates Florida -6.5 covering in 60% of 10,000 runs, with 25% exceeding 14 points. Florida’s 12-3 ATS run as 6+ point favorites and Maryland’s 5-16-1 ATS tournament record since 2014 signal a blowout. 

Prediction: Florida 88, Maryland 70 

Florida’s elite offense (1.24 PPP), perimeter shooting (10+ threes), and defensive pressure (14–16 TOs forced) overwhelm Maryland. Clayton (22 points, 5 threes) and Condon (15 points, 8 rebounds) dominate, while Queen (14 points, 4 TOs) and Gillespie (10 points, 3 TOs) falter. Maryland’s lack of bench depth (15.5% scoring) and 19.2% TO rate vs. top 10 teams yield an 18-point Florida rout, advancing them to the Elite Eight with authority.  

Illinois vs Kentucky 
7-unit bet on Illinois priced as a 2-point favorite. 

Illinois is favored after opening briefly at 1.5-point underdog. The market is revealing that Illinois is the better team especially among the large bettors. Only a few books had this game lined with Kentucky as a dog so most books will show Illinois opening as a favorite or at pick-em. 

The following betting algorithm has gone 27-16-1 ATS good for 63% winnings bets in the NCAA Tournament. Bet on a team seeded 3 through 16. The team is the favorite. The amount of bets placed on our team is between 35 and 49%. The differential between the seeds is no more than 3 and that opponent is the lower (better seed). 

Illinois vs. Kentucky Game Preview: March 23, 2025 – NCAA Tournament Round of 32 

Today, Sunday, March 23, 2025, the No. 6 seed Illinois Fighting Illini (22-12) take on the No. 3 seed Kentucky Wildcats (23-11) in a high-stakes Round of 32 matchup at 5:15 p.m. ET on CBS, live from Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. With a Sweet 16 berth in Indianapolis on the line, Illinois enters as a slight 1.5-point favorite, riding the momentum of an 86-73 dismantling of Xavier in the first round. Kentucky, fresh off a 76-57 win over Troy, brings its storied pedigree and offensive firepower, but the Illini’s balanced attack, defensive tenacity, and matchup advantages position them to secure a victory by 7 or more points. Here’s a deep dive into the key matchups and factors that will propel Illinois to a decisive win in this Midwest Region showdown. 

Game Overview 

Illinois has rediscovered its groove at the perfect time, blending a top-20 offense (No. 13 in adjusted efficiency, 116.2) with a stingy defense (No. 41, 92.8 points allowed per 100 possessions). Their first-round rout of Xavier showcased their depth and versatility, with five players in double figures. Kentucky, under first-year coach Mark Pope, counters with a potent offense (No. 12 in adjusted efficiency, 118.5) averaging 85.0 points per game (No. 6 nationally), but their defense (No. 54) and recent inconsistency against top competition—highlighted by an 85-65 loss to Ohio State in December—leave them vulnerable. With an over/under of 170.5, this game promises points, but Illinois’ ability to exploit Kentucky’s weaknesses will turn it into a one-sided affair. 

Key Matchups Favoring Illinois 

Illinois’ Kasparas Jakucionis vs. Kentucky’s Guard Rotation 

Players to Watch: Kasparas Jakucionis (G, Illinois) vs. Lamont Butler (G, Kentucky) and Koby Brea (G, Kentucky) 

The Breakdown: Jakucionis, a 6’6” freshman phenom, is a matchup nightmare, averaging 15.0 points, 5.7 rebounds, and 4.8 assists. Against Xavier, he nearly notched a triple-double (16 points, 10 assists, 9 rebounds), showcasing his ability to dictate tempo and carve up defenses. Kentucky’s backcourt, led by Butler (11.0 points, shoulder injury limiting his impact) and Brea (11.5 points, 44.1% from three), thrives on perimeter scoring but struggles defensively. The Wildcats allow 8.5 made threes per game (No. 164), and Jakucionis’ size and vision will exploit their lack of on-ball pressure (No. 228 in turnover rate forced, 15.9%). He’ll penetrate, dish to shooters, and rack up points, outpacing a Kentucky guard corps that lacks the depth to contain him. 

Illinois’ Tomislav Ivisic vs. Kentucky’s Amari Williams 

Players to Watch: Tomislav Ivisic (C, Illinois) vs. Amari Williams (C, Kentucky) 

The Breakdown: Ivisic, a 7’1” sophomore, brings a unique skill set with 12.5 points and 7.7 rebounds per game, including 20 points and 10 boards against Xavier. His ability to stretch the floor (38% from three) and protect the rim (1.2 blocks) gives Illinois an edge over Kentucky’s Williams (10.9 points, 8.6 rebounds). Williams, a 6’10” senior, is a force inside but lacks the range to counter Ivisic’s versatility. Kentucky’s No. 54 defense allows 48.2% on two-point shots (No. 132), and Ivisic will feast in pick-and-pop situations while neutralizing Williams’ post game. This mismatch will tilt the paint in Illinois’ favor, piling up points and second-chance opportunities. 

Illinois’ Perimeter Shooting vs. Kentucky’s Defensive Length 

Players to Watch: Will Riley (F, Illinois) and Ben Humrichous (F, Illinois) vs. Otega Oweh (G, Kentucky) and Andrew Carr (F, Kentucky) 

The Breakdown: Illinois’ outside shooting (9.4 made threes per game, No. 25) will exploit Kentucky’s shaky perimeter D. Riley, a freshman star, dropped 22 points (4-of-7 from three) on Xavier, averaging 12.8 points, while Humrichous chips in 7.8 points at 34.3% from deep. Kentucky’s Oweh (16.4 points over the last 10) and Carr (10.5 points) bring length, but the Wildcats’ No. 164 ranking in opponent three-point makes reflects a tendency to sag off shooters. Illinois shot 40% from beyond the arc (12-of-30) against Xavier, and with Kentucky’s 47.3% field goal defense (No. 88) vulnerable to hot streaks, the Illini’s barrage will stretch the lead to double digits. 

Analytics Favoring an Illinois Win by 7+ Points 

Offensive Efficiency and Scoring Depth 

Illinois’ No. 13 adjusted offensive efficiency (116.2) nearly matches Kentucky’s No. 12 (118.5), but the Illini’s five players averaging double figures—compared to Kentucky’s four—give them an edge in balance. They’ve scored 86+ points in 17 games (15-2 record), while Kentucky’s defense has allowed 80+ in 12 losses or near-losses, including 85 to Ohio State. 

Defensive Edge 

Illinois’ No. 41 adjusted defensive efficiency trumps Kentucky’s No. 54, holding foes to 74.6 points per game (No. 112) vs. Kentucky’s 77.3 (No. 164). The Illini’s 8-0 record when winning the turnover battle will capitalize on Kentucky’s 11.8 turnovers per game (No. 104), turning mistakes into a 10+ point swing. 

Rebounding and Second-Chance Points 

Illinois’ 34.3 rebounds per game (No. 92) and +1.7 margin outpace Kentucky’s 32.6 (No. 148) and +0.8. The Illini’s 6-4 record in their last 10 when outrebounding opponents will exploit Kentucky’s No. 132 two-point defense, adding 8-12 second-chance points to widen the gap. 

Recent Form and Matchup History 

Illinois is 5-5 ATS in their last 10 but 14-11 as 1.5+ point favorites, while Kentucky’s 7-4 ATS as underdogs doesn’t offset their 1-1 record vs. Big Ten foes this year (loss to Ohio State). The Illini’s 4-2 edge in the last six meetings since 1970, including a 1983 upset, boosts confidence. 

Prediction 

Illinois will seize control early, with Jakucionis orchestrating a relentless attack and Ivisic dominating the paint. Riley and Humrichous will torch Kentucky’s perimeter D, while the Illini’s defense forces enough turnovers to fuel a transition game Kentucky can’t match (No. 112 in points off turnovers allowed). Expect Illinois to lead by 8-10 at halftime and stretch it in the second half as Kentucky’s one-dimensional offense—relying on Oweh and Brea—falters against Illinois’ depth and physicality. The Wildcats’ injury concerns (Butler’s shoulder) and defensive lapses will prove costly, handing Illinois a comfortable win. 

Final Score Prediction: Illinois 88, Kentucky 79 
Illinois pulls away for a 9-point victory, advancing to the Sweet 16 for the second straight year. The Illini’s superior balance, shooting, and defensive grit will overpower Kentucky, ending the Wildcats’ tournament run and affirming Illinois as a Midwest Region contender. 

UCONN vs Florida 
7-Unit bet on Florida priced as 9.5-point favorites. 

Given the public’s irrational exuberance in betting on UCONN, we are able to get an exceptional betting line that I do not see going up to double-digits. If it does move to 10 or even 10.5 points, I still recommend this bet. Consider betting 80% preflop and then looking to add the remaining 20% if Florida is lined at -6.5 points or immediately following a 10-0 UCONN scoring run. I do see Florida coming out of gates with the pedal to the metal and forcing UCONN tyo play in an extremely uncomfortable pace of play. So, the opportunity to get Florida at 6.5 points may not happen, but that implies the preflop bet is winning. 

Florida has been a juggernaut this season, boasting the No. 1 adjusted offensive efficiency in the nation (128.9 per KenPom) and averaging 85.7 points per game (No. 5 nationally). The Gators’ 26-point rout of Norfolk State showcased their ability to overwhelm opponents with pace, size, and scoring depth. UConn, meanwhile, relies on a methodical half-court game (No. 15 offense, 77.1 points per game) and a defense that’s slipped to No. 78 nationally (94.8 points allowed per 100 possessions). The Huskies’ 8-point win over Oklahoma exposed vulnerabilities—poor perimeter defense and rebounding struggles—that Florida is built to exploit. With an over/under of 151.5, expect the Gators to push the tempo and pile on points, leaving UConn in the dust. 

Key Matchups Favoring Florida 

Florida’s Backcourt Firepower vs. UConn’s Perimeter Defense 

Players to Watch: Walter Clayton Jr. (G, Florida) and Alijah Martin (G, Florida) vs. Solo Ball (G, UConn) and Hassan Diarra (G, UConn) 

The Breakdown: Florida’s guard duo of Clayton Jr. (17.7 points per game) and Martin (13.8 points) is a nightmare for defenses, combining for 6.2 threes per game at a 38.2% clip. Clayton torched Norfolk State for 23 points, including 4-of-7 from deep, while Martin added 17 points and three triples. UConn’s perimeter defense ranks No. 254, allowing 34.6% from three—one of the worst marks among tournament teams. Against Oklahoma, the Huskies surrendered open looks, with the Sooners missing 15 of 27 layups but still scoring 28 paint points. Florida’s guards won’t miss at that rate (No. 25 in three-point makes, 9.9 per game), and their speed will turn UConn turnovers (15.5% rate) into transition buckets. This mismatch will see the Gators rain threes and pull away early. 

Florida’s Frontcourt Size vs. UConn’s Rebounding Woes 

Players to Watch: Alex Condon (F, Florida) and Thomas Haugh (F, Florida) vs. Tarris Reed Jr. (F, UConn) and Samson Johnson (F, UConn) 

The Breakdown: Florida’s frontcourt, led by Condon (12.2 points, 6.8 rebounds) and Haugh (9.4 points, 5.2 rebounds), overwhelmed Norfolk State with a 42-29 rebounding edge, including 14 offensive boards. The Gators rank No. 10 in defensive efficiency (88.6 points allowed per 100 possessions) and No. 48 in rebounding margin (+4.9). UConn, conversely, struggles on the glass (No. 112 in defensive rebounding percentage, 70.8%) and was outrebounded 35-32 by Oklahoma despite the Sooners’ bottom-100 rebounding rank. Reed (12 points, 7 rebounds vs. Oklahoma) and Johnson can’t match Florida’s physicality or depth. The Gators will dominate second-chance points (13-6 record when grabbing 12+ offensive rebounds), burying UConn under a barrage of extra possessions. 

Florida’s Pace vs. UConn’s Half-Court Struggles 

Players to Watch: Will Richard (G, Florida) vs. Alex Karaban (F, UConn) 

The Breakdown: Florida thrives in transition, ranking No. 66 in adjusted tempo (68.9 possessions per game) and scoring 14.2 fast-break points per game (No. 38). Richard (11.4 points) and the Gators’ up-tempo attack will exploit UConn’s No. 80 transition defense, which faltered against Oklahoma’s pick-and-roll sets. Karaban (13.4 points, 5.1 rebounds) steadied UConn with 13 points and 7 boards in the first round, but the Huskies’ No. 135 pace (66.2 possessions) and reliance on set plays (44.7% two-point shooting) won’t keep up with Florida’s relentless speed. The Gators’ 15-1 record when scoring 80+ points signals a rout if they dictate the tempo, leaving UConn scrambling and out of rhythm. 

Analytics Favoring a Florida Blowout 

Offensive Efficiency Mismatch 

Florida’s No. 1 adjusted offensive efficiency (128.9) towers over UConn’s No. 15 mark (116.2). The Gators have topped 80 points in 29 games (second-most nationally), while UConn’s No. 78 defense has allowed 75+ points in 12 losses or near-losses this season. Florida’s 53.2% two-point shooting (No. 52) and 35.8% from three (No. 88) will shred a Huskies D that’s surrendered 28+ paint points in recent games. 

Rebounding Dominance 

Florida’s +4.9 rebounding margin and No. 48 offensive rebound rate (32.1%) exploit UConn’s No. 112 defensive rebounding percentage. The Gators’ 14 offensive boards against Norfolk State turned into 18 second-chance points, a formula that will balloon the score against a Huskies team outrebounded in 8 of their 10 losses. 

Turnover Exploitation 

UConn’s 15.5% turnover rate (No. 136) plays into Florida’s hands, as the Gators force turnovers on 19.2% of possessions (No. 48) and average 14.8 points off turnovers in wins. Oklahoma forced 12 UConn miscues; Florida’s deeper, faster roster will push that number higher, converting mistakes into a 20+ point run. 

Depth and Fatigue Factor 

Florida’s eight players averaging 10+ minutes outclass UConn’s seven-man rotation, which leaned heavily on starters (four played 30+ minutes vs. Oklahoma). The Gators’ 27-2 record as moneyline favorites (-425 here) and 13-6 ATS mark as 9.5+ point favorites reflect their ability to bury lesser teams, especially a fatigued UConn squad in its ninth game in 22 days. 

Prediction 

Florida will jump on UConn from the tip, with Clayton Jr. and Martin bombing away from deep and Condon owning the paint. The Gators’ size and speed will turn Husky turnovers into a transition onslaught, while their rebounding edge ensures second-chance points pile up. UConn’s half-court offense, led by Ball and Karaban, will stall against Florida’s No. 10 defense, and the Huskies’ perimeter D will collapse under a barrage of threes. Expect Florida to lead by 12+ at halftime and stretch it to 20+ in the second half as UConn’s legs fade, ending the champs’ three-peat dreams in emphatic fashion. 

Final Score Prediction: Florida 88, UConn 70 
Florida cruises to an 18-point win, advancing to the Sweet 16 with a statement victory. The Gators’ offensive firepower, rebounding dominance, and pace will overwhelm UConn, handing them their first single-digit tournament loss since 2022 and cementing Florida as a title favorite. 

In the second round and beyond of the NCAA Tournament, favorites of 3.5 to 10 points that have 30 or more wins have gone 59-15 SU and 47-16-1 for 64% winning bets since 2006.  

Michigan vs Texas A&M 
7-Unit bet on Texas A&M priced as a 2.5-point favorite. Michigan vs. Texas A&M Game Preview: March 22, 2025 – NCAA Tournament Round of 32 

Today, Saturday, March 22, 2025, the No. 4 seed Texas A&M Aggies (23-10) face off against the No. 5 seed Michigan Wolverines (26-9) in a thrilling Round of 32 matchup at 5:15 p.m. ET on CBS. With a trip to the Sweet 16 in Atlanta on the line, this clash pits two battle-tested teams against each other in a game that promises intensity and physicality. Texas A&M, fresh off an 80-71 victory over Yale, looks to leverage its rebounding prowess and defensive tenacity to overcome a Michigan squad that narrowly escaped UC San Diego 68-65 in the first round. Here’s a deep dive into the key matchups and analytics that could propel the Aggies into the next round. 

Game Overview 

Texas A&M enters this matchup as a slight 2.5-point favorite with an over/under set at 141.5 points. The Aggies have been a force in the SEC, finishing third in rebounds per game (41.2) and first in offensive rebounds (16.2), boasting a +11.2-rebounding margin. Meanwhile, Michigan, riding a four-game winning streak capped by a Big Ten Tournament title, relies on its towering frontcourt and clutch playmaking to stay alive in March Madness. However, the Wolverines’ vulnerabilities—turnovers and defensive rebounding—align perfectly with Texas A&M’s strengths, setting the stage for a gritty battle. 

Key Matchups 

Texas A&M’s Offensive Rebounding vs. Michigan’s Defensive Frontcourt 

Players to Watch: Andersson Garcia (F, Texas A&M) vs. Vladislav Goldin (C, Michigan) and Danny Wolf (F, Michigan) 

The Breakdown: Texas A&M is the nation’s top offensive rebounding team, grabbing 41.7% of their missed shots (No. 1 in KenPom). Garcia, averaging 6.2 rebounds per game, leads a pack of five Aggies who pull down at least five boards per contest. This relentless crashing of the glass will test Michigan’s frontcourt duo of Goldin (7’1”) and Wolf (7’0”), who anchor a defense ranked No. 177 in defensive rebounding percentage (allowing opponents a 29.7% offensive rebound rate). Goldin, who faced Texas A&M last year while at FAU, called them “probably one of the most physical teams I’ve ever played,” highlighting their aggressive style. If the Aggies dominate second-chance opportunities—as they did against Yale with 15 offensive rebounds—they’ll wear down Michigan’s bigs and control the game’s tempo. 

Wade Taylor IV (G, Texas A&M) vs. Michigan’s Turnover-Prone Backcourt 

Players to Watch: Wade Taylor IV (G, Texas A&M) vs. Tre Donaldson (G, Michigan) 

The Breakdown: Taylor, a three-time All-SEC first-team selection, is Texas A&M’s engine, averaging 15.7 points and 4.3 assists per game. Against Yale, he showcased his two-way impact with 16 points, five assists, and two steals. His ability to pressure ball-handlers will exploit Michigan’s Achilles’ heel: turnovers. The Wolverines rank 334th nationally with 14.1 turnovers per game, and they coughed it up 14 times against UC San Diego. Donaldson, Michigan’s clutch guard who hit a game-winning three in the first round, will need to stay composed against Taylor and a Texas A&M defense that forces turnovers at a top-60 rate nationally. If Taylor turns Michigan’s sloppiness into transition points, the Aggies will pull ahead. 

Pharrel Payne (F, Texas A&M) vs. Michigan’s Interior Defense 

Players to Watch: Pharrel Payne (F, Texas A&M) vs. Vladislav Goldin (C, Michigan) 

The Breakdown: Payne, a 6’9”, 250-pound force off the bench, erupted for 25 points and 10 rebounds against Yale, exploiting mismatches in the paint. Michigan’s Goldin, a 7’1” rim protector, will be tasked with containing Payne’s physicality. However, Goldin has struggled with consistency against aggressive bigs, and Michigan’s interior defense may falter against Texas A&M’s 45% two-point shooting efficiency in wins (19-2 when above that mark). Payne’s ability to draw fouls and score inside could tilt this matchup in the Aggies’ favor, especially if Michigan’s fatigue from an eighth game in 20 days sets in. 

Analytics Driving Texas A&M to the Sweet 16 

Offensive Rebounding Dominance 

Texas A&M’s 41.7% offensive rebounding rate is unmatched, and Michigan’s middling defensive rebounding (No. 177) suggests the Aggies will feast on second-chance points. In their Round 1 win, the Aggies turned 15 offensive rebounds into 18 second-chance points. Against a Michigan team that allowed UC San Diego to grab 10 offensive boards, this edge could be decisive. 

Turnover Margin 

The Aggies force turnovers on 19.8% of opponents’ possessions (top 60 nationally), while Michigan’s 14.1 turnovers per game rank among the worst in the tournament field. Texas A&M’s aggressive, compact defense—second in the SEC in opponent two-point percentage—thrives on disrupting sloppy offenses. If they generate 12+ turnovers, as they did in 14 games this season, they’ll limit Michigan’s possessions and capitalize in transition. 

Rest Advantage 

Michigan is playing its fifth game in nine days and eighth in 20, with six players logging 25+ minutes against UC San Diego. Texas A&M, conversely, is on its second game in five days and used 10 players against Yale, with only two exceeding 25 minutes. This depth and freshness could wear down a Wolverines squad showing signs of emotional and physical fatigue after a grueling stretch. 

Efficiency in the Paint 

Texas A&M’s offense isn’t flashy (199th in adjusted offensive efficiency), but they’re lethal when they shoot over 45% on twos (19-2 record). Michigan’s transition offense thrives, but their half-court defense struggles against physical teams. The Aggies’ ability to grind out points inside—bolstered by Payne and Taylor—matches up well against a Michigan team that prefers to play fast. 

Prediction 

Texas A&M’s identity as an offensive rebounding juggernaut, paired with their turnover-forcing defense, gives them the upper hand in this rock fight. Michigan’s size with Goldin and Wolf poses a challenge, but their turnover issues and defensive rebounding woes will prove costly against an Aggies team built to exploit those exact weaknesses. Expect Wade Taylor IV to dictate the pace and Pharrel Payne to dominate inside, while the Aggies’ depth outlasts a fatigued Michigan squad. 

Final Score Prediction: Texas A&M 74, Michigan 67 
Texas A&M advances to the Sweet 16, setting up a showdown with the winner of Auburn vs. Creighton. The Aggies’ physicality and rebounding tenacity will punch their ticket to Atlanta, ending Michigan’s Cinderella run in the Round of 32. 

Yale vs Texas A&M 
7-Unit bet on Texas A&M priced as a 7.5-point favorite. 

The following betting system focuses on fading the very popular trendy dogs that everyone seems to like a bit too much. It has gone 98-61-2 ATS good for 63% winning bets. 

The game is in the NCAA Tournament and is in the first-four in round, Round of 64, or the Round of 32. 

The spread percentage of our team is less than 50%. 

Our team is not a top-3 seed in the Tournament. 

Our team is priced as the favorite. 

UC Irvine vs Northern Colorado 
7-Unit bet on the OVER priced at 152.5 points. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 57-26-2 OVER record good for 69% winning bets since 2015. The requirements are: Bet on home favorites. They have won 15 or more of their previous 20 games. They have won 80% or more of their games. The total is priced between 150 and 160 points. The opponent has a winning record. 

Date: March 19, 2025 
Location: Bren Events Center, Irvine, CA 
Tip-Off: 10:00 PM ET 
Tournament: National Invitation Tournament (NIT), First Round 
Posted Total: 151.5 points  

The UC Irvine Anteaters (28-6) host the Northern Colorado Bears (25-9) in the opening round of the 2025 NIT, pitting two teams that narrowly missed the NCAA Tournament after falling in their respective conference championship games. Both squads bring potent offenses and contrasting styles to the table, setting the stage for a high-scoring affair that could push this game over the 151.5-point total. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the teams, key players, statistics, and matchups that favor an over outcome. 

Key Matchups Favoring the Over 

Northern Colorado’s Offense vs. UC Irvine’s Defense 

Northern Colorado’s 80.9 PPG meets UCI’s stingy 66.2 PPG allowed, but the Bears’ efficiency (47.9% FG, 35.8% 3PT) could crack UCI’s armor. UCI ranks 23rd in defensive efficiency but faced a weaker Big West slate (average opponent offense: 104.1). Northern Colorado’s top-40 scoring and fast pace (68.2 possessions) should generate enough looks to pile up points, especially if Rillie and Reynolds exploit UCI’s guards in transition. 

UC Irvine’s Free-Throw Shooting vs. Northern Colorado’s Fouling Tendency 

UCI’s nation-leading 80.8% free-throw shooting is a hidden weapon. Northern Colorado’s defense, while decent (102.8 efficiency), fouls at a moderate clip (17.3 per game). Leuchten and Tillis draw contact inside, and UCI’s 20.1 FTA per game could add 15-20 points from the line alone, inflating the total. 

Perimeter Shooting Duel 

Both teams shoot well from three (UCI: 35.2%, 7.0 made; UNC: 35.8%, 7.8 made) and face defenses that allow 7-8 triples per game. Northern Colorado’s 92nd-ranked defense struggles against shooters (33.9% allowed), while UCI’s guards (Hohn, Myles Che) can match UNC’s output. If both teams hit 8-10 threes, that’s 48-60 points from deep, pushing the game toward 151.5. 

Pace and Transition Opportunities 

With UCI at 68.6 possessions and UNC at 68.2, this isn’t a plodding affair. Northern Colorado thrives in transition (12.4 fast-break points per game), and UCI isn’t far behind (10.8). The Bears’ weaker defense (174th in points allowed) won’t slow UCI’s interior scoring, while UNC’s offense should capitalize on UCI’s occasional lapses (e.g., 75 points allowed to UCSD). 

Postseason Motivation 

Both teams are stung by conference title losses (UCI: 75-61; UNC: 91-83) and have something to prove. Expect aggressive play and shot volume, especially from Northern Colorado’s offense, which averaged 84.3 PPG over its last seven games. UCI’s home crowd could spur a response, keeping the scoreboard ticking. 

Prediction and Total Analysis 

Score Prediction: UC Irvine 82, Northern Colorado 76  

Total Outcome: Over 151.5 points 

The 151.5-point total feels within reach given these dynamics. Northern Colorado’s offense has cleared 80 points in 20 of 34 games, and their last outing hit 174 combined points. UCI’s defense is elite, but their offense (75.9 PPG) plus free-throw volume should contribute 75-85 points at home. The Bears’ efficiency and three-point shooting, paired with UCI’s inability to fully shut down high-scoring foes (e.g., 88 allowed to UC Santa Barbara), suggest a game in the 150s or higher. Historical trends support this—Northern Colorado’s last game went over 151.5, and UCI’s offense has clicked lately (97 vs. UCSB). 

Best Bet: Over 151.5 points. The combination of pace, shooting, and matchup advantages tilts this NIT opener toward a shootout. 

My predictive model projects that UC-Irvine will score at least 78 points and when they have in games over the past three seasons has seen the OVER produce ahighly profitable 33-6 record for 85% winning bets. In games over the past three seasons, NorthernColoradohasseentheOVERgo39-5for89%winningbetswhentheyhaveallowed78ormorepoints. 

Samford vs George Mason 
7-unit bet on Samford priced as a 6.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has gone 33-24 SU (58%) and 40-16 ATS (71.4%) since 2019. The requirements needed for this a betting opportunity to be validated is as follows: Bet on teams with 7 or more days of rest. That team is coming off a horrid loss by 15 or more points. They were priced as the favorite. If these dogs have had 10 or more days of rest, they have gone 12-7 SU (63%) and 15-3 ATS for 83% winning bets since 2019. 

Louisville vs Duke 
7-unit Louisville priced as a 6-point dog. 

From my predictive model that has evolved over the past 25 years, Louisville is expected to score 78 or more points and commit 12 or few turnovers. In past games when they met or exceeded these performance measures has seen them produce a highly profitable 13-3 SU and 15-1 ATS record for 93% winning bets since 2017.  

Louisville enters the semifinals fresh off a thrilling 76-73 victory over Clemson in the quarterfinals, showcasing resilience and clutch playmaking. Duke, meanwhile, survived a scare from North Carolina in a 74-71 win, but their path forward is clouded by injuries that could tilt the scales in Louisville’s favor. The Blue Devils won the regular-season meeting on December 8, 2024, 76-65, but the absence of key players and Louisville’s red-hot form suggest this semifinal could defy expectations. 

Duke is listed as a 5.5-point favorite with a total of 146 points, per the latest odds, but Louisville’s defensive tenacity and offensive firepower could make this a closer contest—or even a stunning upset—than the betting lines suggest. 

Key Matchups for a Louisville Upset 

Chucky Hepburn (Louisville) vs. Kon Knueppel (Duke) 

Why It Matters: With Duke’s superstar freshman Cooper Flagg sidelined (more on that below), freshman guard Kon Knueppel has stepped up as the Blue Devils’ offensive leader. Knueppel dropped 17 points against UNC in the semifinals and 28 against Georgia Tech in the quarterfinals, proving he can carry the load. However, Louisville’s senior guard Chucky Hepburn, a transfer from Wisconsin, is a defensive dynamo averaging 3.5 steals per game (second nationally) and a crafty scorer at 16.4 points per contest.  

Upset Factor: Hepburn’s ability to disrupt Knueppel’s rhythm with his quick hands and relentless pressure could neutralize Duke’s primary scoring threat. Offensively, Hepburn’s knack for clutch buckets—evidenced by his 20-point, eight-assist performance against Stanford in the quarters—could exploit Duke’s depleted backcourt depth. 

Terrence Edwards Jr. (Louisville) vs. Duke’s Frontcourt (Ven-Allen Lubin/Jae’Lyn Withers) 

Why It Matters: Edwards Jr., a senior guard averaging 16.1 points per game, has been a consistent scoring threat, dropping 21 points against Clemson and 25 against Stanford in the tournament. Duke’s frontcourt, featuring Ven-Allen Lubin and Jae’Lyn Withers, will try to clog the paint and limit Louisville’s interior attack, especially without Flagg’s rim protection.  

Upset Factor: Edwards’ versatility to score from mid-range and beyond the arc (he’s hit double figures in four straight games) could stretch Duke’s defense thin. If he penetrates and forces Duke’s bigs into foul trouble, Louisville’s supporting cast—like J’Vonne Hadley (7.3 rebounds per game)—could dominate the glass and second-chance opportunities. 

Louisville’s Perimeter Shooting vs. Duke’s Adjusted Defense 

Why It Matters: Louisville ranks seventh nationally with 31.6 three-point attempts per game, led by sharpshooter Reyne Smith (3.5 threes per game, 12.5 points). Duke’s defense, ranked No. 1 in adjusted efficiency by KenPom earlier this season, has been elite at limiting opponents to 61.6 points per game. However, injuries have forced adjustments, and UNC exposed cracks by nearly rallying late.  

Upset Factor: If Smith and Hepburn get hot from deep, Louisville could force Duke to overextend, opening driving lanes and creating chaos. The Cardinals’ 43.2% three-point shooting over their last five games suggests they’re peaking at the right time. 

Duke’s Significant Injuries and Impact 

Duke’s biggest blow is the loss of freshman phenom Cooper Flagg, who suffered an ankle injury in the quarterfinals against Georgia Tech and is out indefinitely. Flagg, averaging 18.9 points and 7.5 rebounds per game, was the heart of Duke’s offense and defense. His absence removes a dominant two-way presence, leaving the Blue Devils vulnerable to Louisville’s guard-heavy attack and rebounding tenacity. Without Flagg’s shot-blocking (two per game) and scoring versatility, Duke’s margin for error shrinks dramatically. 

Additionally, Duke has dealt with nagging injuries throughout the season. Senior guard Jeremy Roach, who eclipsed 1,000 career points earlier this year, has been managing a lingering knee issue, limiting his explosiveness (14 points per game average). While he’s expected to play, his reduced mobility could be exploited by Hepburn’s quickness. The Blue Devils’ depth is further tested with Kasean Pryor, a key forward for Louisville in the regular season, already out for the year with a torn ACL—an injury that indirectly impacts this matchup by forcing Duke to face a retooled, guard-centric Cardinals squad. 

Impact: Flagg’s absence shifts the burden to Knueppel and Roach, but Duke’s frontcourt lacks the athleticism and versatility to match Louisville’s pace without him. The Blue Devils’ 90% win rate as favorites (27-2) could be in jeopardy as their depleted roster faces a Cardinals team firing on all cylinders. 

Last 10 Games: Straight-Up (SU) and Against the Spread (ATS) Records 

Louisville Cardinals 

SU: 10-0 – The Cardinals have won 11 straight, including their last 10, with victories over ranked foes like No. 14 Indiana and close calls against Stanford and Clemson in the tournament.  

ATS: 6-4 – Louisville has covered in six of their last 10, including five straight against Duke historically. Their 19-13 ATS record this season reflects their ability to keep games competitive or exceed expectations as underdogs. 

Duke Blue Devils 

SU: 9-1 – Duke’s only loss in their last 10 came against Pitt on January 20, 2025 (80-76). They’ve won 26 of their last 27, but Flagg’s injury clouds their recent dominance.  

ATS: 7-3 – The Blue Devils are 7-3 ATS in their last 10, with a 21-11 ATS mark overall. However, they’re just 11-6 ATS at home and 9-2 on the road, suggesting vulnerability in neutral-site games like this. 

Takeaway: Louisville’s perfect SU run and historical ATS edge against Duke (covering in four of the last six meetings) signal they’re built for an upset. Duke’s ATS success as a favorite (63.3% when favored by 5.5 or more) may falter without Flagg. 

Coaching Trends Favoring Louisville 

First-year head coach Pat Kelsey has transformed Louisville into a defensive juggernaut and offensive machine in just months, a stark contrast to the program’s struggles under Kenny Payne. Kelsey’s track record at Charleston—where he built high-octane, guard-led teams—translates perfectly to this roster. His teams have a knack for peaking late, as evidenced by Louisville’s 21-1 record in their last 22 games. Kelsey’s ability to adjust after losing Kasean Pryor midseason (post-December 8 Duke loss) has been masterful, with a +4.9 rebounding margin and 16.6 forced turnovers per game fueling their surge. 

Duke’s Jon Scheyer, in his third year, boasts a 60-15 record and has won eight of 11 against Louisville, including five straight. However, his reliance on young stars like Flagg and Knueppel has been exposed by injuries. Scheyer’s teams have struggled ATS in big games without full health (1-2 ATS in last three as favorites without Flagg), and his 2023-24 squad lost its first ACC home game in two years to Pitt—a sign of vulnerability under pressure. 

Upset Edge: Kelsey’s adaptability and defensive emphasis outshine Scheyer’s talent-dependent system when Duke is shorthanded. Louisville’s 66% ATS mark in ACC play under Kelsey (14-7) trumps Duke’s reliance on Flagg’s now-absent star power. 

Bethune-Cookman vs. Jackson State  
Friday, 03/14/2025 8:30 PM 
7-Unit bet on Bethune-Cookman priced as a 3.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA Basketball betting algorithm has produced a 62-30 ATS record 67% winning bets since 2020. The requirements are: 

Bet on any team avenging a double-digit home loss. 

Our team has won 51 to 60% of their games. 

The opponent has a losing record. 

Utah State vs UNLV 
7-Unit bet UNDER the posted total currently priced at 142.5 points. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced solid results with a 66-30-1 for 69% winning bets since 2014. The requirements are: 

Bet the Under with a total between 140 and 149.5 points.  

The game is played on a neutral court.  

The opponent is not ranked.  

The team is averaging a 20 or more-point lead at the half of their games. 

Bethane-Cookman vs Alcorn State 
7-Unit bet on Bethane-Cookman priced as a 3.5-point favorite. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 43-17 SU and 36-21-3 ATS record for 63% winning bets since 2010. The requirements needed to create an active betting opportunity are:  

Bet on a home or neutral court favorite.  

This is the third meeting between the teams.  

In the last meeting our home team lost at home and were priced as the favorite.  

They lost the second-to-last meeting too. 

Kennesaw State vs New Mexico State 
7-Unit bet on Kennesaw State using the money line priced as a 1.5-point favorite. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced solid results with a 19-10 and 128-11 ATS record good for 62% winning bets since 2019. The requirements are: 

Bet on any team that has seen their last 10 games play UNDER the total by a combined total of 60 or more points. 

The total is priced between 130 and 139.5 points. 

The team is priced between pick-em and 4.5-points. 

Texas Southern vs Alabama State 
7-Unit bet on TX Southern using the money line priced as a 1.5-point favorite. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced solid results with a 19-10 and 128-11 ATS record good for 62% winning bets since 2019. The requirements are: 

Bet on any team that has seen their last 10 games play UNDER the total by a combined total of 60 or more points. 

The total is priced between 130 and 139.5 points. 

The team is priced between pick-em and 4.5-points. 

Bethane-Cookman vs Alcorn State 
7-Unit bet on Bethane-Cookman priced as a 3.5-point favorite. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 43-17 SU and 36-21-3 ATS record for 63% winning bets since 2010. The requirements needed to create an active betting opportunity are:  

Bet on a home or neutral court favorite.  

This is the third meeting between the teams.  

In the last meeting our home team lost at home and were priced as the favorite.  

They lost the second-to-last meeting too. 

No. 25 Marquette vs Xavier 
7-Unit bet on Marquette priced as a 2.5-point favorite. 
2:30 EST | Peacock 
Madison Square Garden 

The following NCAA Basketball betting algorithm has produced a 20-11 SUATS record good for 65% winning bets since 2015.  

Bet on favorites priced between pick-em and 4.5-points. 

They lost to the current foe in the same season priced as the favorite. 

The foe is coming off a win but failed to cover the spread. 

Ohio vs Toldeo 
7-Unit bet on Toledo priced as a 3.5-point underdog. 
MAC Quarterfinals 
1:30 PM EST | ESPN+ 
Rocket Arena, Cleveland, Ohio 

The Mid-American Conference (MAC) Tournament quarterfinals tip off today in Cleveland, and the Toledo Rockets are set to clash with the Ohio Bobcats in a showdown that’s dripping with postseason stakes. It’s a neutral-site slugfest at Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse, where the winner punches their ticket to Friday’s semifinals—and keeps their NCAA Tournament dreams alive. Toledo’s looking to ride their late-season surge, while Ohio aims to flip the script after a rocky finish. Buckle up—this one’s got all the makings of a MACtion classic. 

The Matchup 

Toledo (17-14, 10-8 MAC) snagged the No. 4 seed after a 7-3 sprint over their last 10 games, including a 77-64 thumping of Ohio on February 11. The Rockets lean on a balanced attack—five players average double figures—paced by junior guard Sonny Wilson (14.8 PPG) and his 37.8% three-point clip. Their defense, ranked third in the MAC (71.2 PPG allowed), thrives on forcing turnovers (12.5 per game), a stat that could haunt Ohio’s ball-handlers. 

Ohio (16-15, 10-8 MAC), the No. 5 seed, stumbled into the tournament, dropping three of their last four, including an 83-74 loss to Toledo last week that sealed their seeding fate. But don’t count out the Bobcats—they’ve got firepower in senior guard Jaylen Hunter (15.2 PPG, 4.8 APG), whose playmaking could spark an upset. Ohio’s offense hums at 77.8 PPG (fourth in the MAC), but their defense (75.2 PPG allowed) has been leaky lately, a vulnerability Toledo’s poised to exploit. 

Key Factors 

Toledo’s Revenge Edge: The Rockets already beat Ohio twice this season—83-74 on March 7 and 77-64 on February 11—both times capitalizing on Ohio’s 14+ turnovers. If Toledo’s D forces mistakes again, it’s lights out for the Bobcats.  

Ohio’s Three-Point Threat: Ohio jacks up 24.6 threes per game (37.2% clip), and Hunter’s 40.2% from deep could stretch Toledo’s defense thin. If they get hot, this game flips fast.  

Neutral-Site X-Factor: Cleveland’s a home away from home for both squads, but Toledo’s 7-5 road/neutral record edges Ohio’s 5-8. The Rockets’ composure could be the difference. 

 
NCAA Basketball Algorithm 
This NCAA hoops betting algorithm is a certified cash machine, rocking a 14-13 straight-up record and a sizzling 18-7-2 ATS clip for a jaw-dropping 72% winning bets! It’s been lighting up the scoreboard, and I’m here to spill the tea on why it’s screaming “Toledo” for this MAC quarterfinal. Here’s the secret sauce that’s got me buzzing:  

We’re betting on a team with a winning record—like Toledo’s 17-14—strutting their stuff on a neutral court. Cleveland’s Rocket Mortgage FieldHouse? Check!  

Our squad’s priced at pick-em or any size underdog—Toledo’s hovering near even odds or a slight ‘dog, making this a juicy play.  

The opponent’s won 51-60% of their games—Ohio’s 16-15 (51.6%) fits like a glove.  

The foe’s been a spread-busting disaster, losing by 18+ points ATS over their last three—Ohio’s dropped stinkers like 83-74 to Toledo (spread miss) and 88-70 to Akron, trending toward collapse. 

This isn’t just a hunch—it’s a neon-lit roadmap to riches, and Toledo’s the golden ticket to cash in on this chaos. Bet the Rockets to cover and watch the algorithm work its magic! 

Sam Houston State vs UTEP 
USA Conference Championship Game 
Winner get a ticket to the NCAA Tournament. 
10-Unit bet on Sam Houston State priced as a 1.5-point underdog. 

I recommend taking the 1.5 points as opposed to the money line. If SHST moves to a favorite, then use the money line up to a 2.5-point favorite. 

I’m throwing down a confident 10-unit bet on the Sam Houston State Bearkats, who are stepping into this clash as 1.5-point underdogs. Let’s break down why this is the play to make and how you can cash in. 

Betting Strategy: Grab the Points and Ride the Edge 

Here’s the move—take Sam Houston State with the 1.5 points instead of the moneyline. Why? It’s a safety net for a game that could come down to the wire. But keep your eyes peeled: if the Bearkats flip to favorites, switch to the moneyline as long as they’re giving up no more than 2.5 points. This flexibility keeps you in the driver’s seat, no matter how the odds shift. 

The Secret Sauce: A Winning Algorithm That Delivers 

This isn’t a gut call—it’s backed by a battle-tested NCAA basketball betting system that’s been crushing it since 2014. We’re talking an 11-4 record on decisive scoring upsets (DSU) and a jaw-dropping 12-3 against the spread (ATS)—that’s an 80%-win rate! Want in on the magic? Here’s what triggers this golden betting opportunity:  

Our team (Sam Houston) is averaging 74-78 points per game—check.  

Their opponent (UTEP) is giving up 67-74 points per game—check.  

It’s a neutral-court battle—yep, Huntsville, Alabama fits the bill.  

The over/under sits between 140 and 149.5 points—right in the sweet spot.  

Sam Houston just dropped 45+ points in a half in their last game—confirmed.  

We’re past the 15th game of the season, and this is postseason action—double check! 

When these stars align, the algorithm says, “bet it,” and history says, “win it.” Sam Houston’s clicking on all cylinders, and UTEP’s defense might not have the juice to slow them down. So, grab those 1.5 points, root for the Bearkats, and get ready to celebrate as they punch their NCAA Tournament ticket—and maybe pad your wallet while they’re at it! 

From the Predictive Model: The numbers say SHST is primed to light it up, shooting 38% or better from three-point land while crashing the boards for at least five more rebounds than UTEP. And here’s the kicker: when the Bearkats have hit these marks over the past five seasons, they’ve been nearly unstoppable—racking up a 30-0 straight-up record and a ridiculous 22-2-1 against the spread. That’s a jaw-dropping 92%-win rate on bets! If Sam Houston brings the long-range heat and owns the glass, UTEP might be left staring at a stat sheet full of bad news—and SHST could be dancing their way to the NCAA Tournament. 

Delaware vs Towson State 
7-Unit bet on Delaware priced as a 5.5-point underdog. 

The following best bet is reinforced by thsi outstanding and highly profitable bettig algorithm that has produced a 12-12 SU record and 15-9 ATS mark good for 63% winning bets. The requirements needed are: 

The game take place on a neutral site. 

One of the teams is coming off an ATS win by 25 or more points. 

The opponent has seen their last 10 games play OVER the total by 55 or more points.  

If the game is part of a conference tournament, these dogs have gone 7-1 ATS for 88% winning bets.  

The following best bet is reinforced by this outstanding and highly profitable betting algorithm that has produced a 24-15 SU record and 26-12-1 ATS mark good for 68.4% winning bets. The requirements needed are: 

Bet on a team that is scoring between 74 and 78 PPG. 

The game occurs after game 20 of the season. 

The total is priced between 135 and 150 points. 

The opponent allows an average of 67 to 76 PPG. 

Our team is coming off a game scoring 40 or more points in the first half. 

The game in being played on a neutral court. 

Arkansas State vs South Alabama 
Sun Belt Conference Semifinals 
7-Unit Bet (ranging from 3-Units to 10-Units)  on Arkansas State as a 4.5-point favorite. 

Arkansas State vs. South Alabama! I’m slamming a confident 7-unit bet—smack in the middle of my 3-to-10-unit range—on Arkansas State, who’s strutting in as a 4.5-point favorite. This isn’t just a wild hunch; it’s backed by a betting algorithm that’s been torching the NCAA hardwood like a sharpshooter on fire! 

This system’s a certified beast, racking up a 43-17 straight-up record and a silky 36-21-3 against-the-spread mark, cashing 63% of bets since 2010. It’s like having a courtside oracle whispering winners in your ear! Here’s the magic recipe that’s got me buzzing: 

 
We’re betting on a home or neutral-court favorite—check, Arkansas State’s got this in the bag on the Sun Belt’s big stage. This has to be the third showdown between these squads—yep, they’ve tangoed twice already. In their last meeting, Arkansas State got stung at home as the favorite, leaving a bitter taste. And here’s the kicker—they dropped the second-to-last game too, piling on the motivation to flip the script. 

 
Imagine this: Arkansas State’s coming out swinging, fueled by revenge and ready to bury South Alabama under a barrage of buckets. The Red Wolves are primed to howl their way to the finals, while the Jaguars are staring down a redemption-or-bust moment. This algorithm’s screaming “Arkansas State’s got the edge!” So, grab your rally towel, place that bet, and brace yourself for a semifinal smackdown that’ll have the Sun Belt faithful roaring! 

UAB vs Tulane 
7-Unit Bet on UAB priced as a 3.5-point underdog. 

UAB vs. Tulane! I’ve got my eyes locked on an upset brewing, with UAB poised to flip the script as the home underdog. Why? Because I’m armed with a betting algorithm that’s been sniffing out chaos like a bloodhound on a hot trail, and it’s screaming that the Blazers could torch the Green Wave in this one! 

This system’s a wild card, posting a 124-224 straight-up record (36%) but a dazzling 200-143-4 against-the-spread mark, hitting 58% of bets since 2006. It’s like finding gold in the underdog mines! Here’s the electrifying recipe that’s got me hyped for UAB’s upset shot: 

We’re betting on home underdogs (or pick ‘em)—check, UAB’s got the home-court fire in Birmingham. The game’s gotta be No. 16 or later in the season—yep, we’re deep enough in March 2025 for that. UAB’s averaging between 67 and 74 points per game—right in their sweet spot of scrappy, controlled chaos. Tulane, meanwhile, is a high-octane machine, dropping 78 or more points per game—they’re fast, but maybe too flashy. The Green Wave are also stumbling in after two straight OVER results, meaning their defense might be leakier than a busted hoop net. And here’s the jackpot: if Tulane’s licking wounds from a home loss, UAB’s upset magic spikes to a jaw-dropping 26-21 SU and 34-13 ATS, cashing 72% of bets! 

Why UAB Can Pull the Upset 

Picture this: UAB’s got the crowd roaring at Bartow Arena, feeding off that underdog energy. They play gritty, grind-it-out ball—think tenacious D and just enough buckets to keep it close. Tulane’s riding high, but their run-and-gun style could crash hard against UAB’s homegrown hustle, especially if they’re sloppy after those OVERS or deflated from a home L. The Blazers don’t need to outscore Tulane’s fireworks—they just need to muck it up, keep it tight, and strike late. That 58% ATS win rate says they cover, and that 36% SU upset clip hints they could outright steal it. 

This is David vs. Goliath with a Southern twist! UAB’s got the recipe—home pride, a stingy pace, and Tulane’s potential hangover—to shock the Green Wave. So, crank up the volume, place your bet, and watch the Blazers ignite an upset that’ll have the Sun Belt buzzing! 

Oregon vs Washington 
7-Unit Bet on Oregon priced as an 7.5-point favorite. 

Get ready to hoop it up, basketball junkies, because we’re crashing the court for an epic Big Ten showdown: Oregon vs. Washington! I’m dropping a massive 7-unit bet on the Ducks, who are strutting into enemy territory as 7.5-point favorites. Why am I riding with Oregon like they’re the last chopper out of a war zone? Because I’ve got a betting algorithm that’s been schooling underdogs uglier than a busted jump shot for nearly 20 years! 

This isn’t just some hunch—it’s a hardwood-honed juggernaut with a dazzling 492-146 straight-up record and a slick 374-252-12 against-the-spread tally, nailing 60% of bets since 2006. It’s like having a cheat code for the sportsbook! Here’s the playbook that’s got me hyped: 

We’re locking in on a road favorite priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points—bam, Oregon’s 8.5 fits like a glove. Washington’s got to be limping off three straight losses to Big Ten bullies—check, they’ve been dunked on by conference foes. They’re also itching to settle a score after Oregon torched them earlier this season—revenge is sweet, but it’s a tough ask. And here’s the clincher: the Huskies have had equal or more rest, so no excuses—they’re just ripe for the picking. 

Picture this: Oregon’s swooping in with swagger, draining threes and locking down the paint, while Washington’s stuck in a slump deeper than a missed free throw in crunch time. This algorithm’s screaming “Ducks dominate!” So, snag your courtside snacks, place that bet, and watch Oregon fly high—because this system’s got them soaring to a victory that’ll have the scoreboard buzzing! 

North Dakota vs South Dakota State 
7-Unit bet on North Dakota priced as a 7-point underdog. 

The following NCAA Basketball sports betting algorithm has done extremely well producing a 12-107 SU (10%) and a 73-45-1 ATS mark good for 62% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are:  

Bet on underdog priced at 8.5 or more points.  

The dog is coming off a double-digit loss to a conference foe.  

The favorite is coming off a road loss priced as the favorite.  

If the average points scored by both teams is less than the posted total and the game number is 15 or more in the current season, these dogs have gone 27-11-1 ATS for 71% winning bets. 

ime: 9:30 p.m. EST 
Location: Denny Sanford Premier Center, Sioux Falls, SD 
Watch: Summit League Network  

Tonight, the Summit League Tournament quarterfinals heat up as the No. 7 seed North Dakota Fighting Hawks (11-20, 5-11 Summit League) take on the No. 2 seed South Dakota State Jackrabbits (20-11, 11-5 Summit League) in Sioux Falls. This matchup marks the third meeting between these two teams this season, with the Jackrabbits holding a 2-0 edge after victories in the regular season. However, tournament basketball is a different beast, and North Dakota has a chance to pull off a stunning upset against a South Dakota State team favored to make a deep run. Here’s a preview of the game and the key matchups that could tilt the scales in favor of the Fighting Hawks. 

The Stakes 

South Dakota State enters as a strong contender, boasting an 11-5 record in Summit League play and a reputation for stout defense, allowing just 73.1 points per game while holding opponents to 42.4% shooting. The Jackrabbits are led by a balanced attack and a potent 3-point game, averaging 8.8 makes from beyond the arc. For North Dakota, the season has been a struggle at 11-20 overall, but their 5-11 conference mark still earned them a spot in the tournament. The Fighting Hawks will need to channel their offensive firepower—they average 77.3 points per game—and exploit key mismatches to shock the Jackrabbits and advance to the semifinals. 

Key Matchups for a North Dakota Upset 

Treysen Eaglestaff (North Dakota) vs. South Dakota State’s Perimeter Defense 
North Dakota’s sophomore guard Treysen Eaglestaff has been a bright spot, averaging 15.1 points per game and shooting 38.5% from 3-point range. His ability to stretch the floor will be critical against a Jackrabbits defense that excels at clamping down on shooters. South Dakota State allows 8.8 threes per game, matching North Dakota’s output, which sets up a shootout. If Eaglestaff gets hot early and forces the Jackrabbits to overcommit, it could open driving lanes for his teammates. The upset hinges on him winning this battle and exposing any cracks in SDSU’s perimeter discipline. 

B.J. Omot (North Dakota) vs. Luke Appel (South Dakota State) 
North Dakota’s B.J. Omot, a 6’8” forward averaging 14.8 points and 4.5 rebounds, brings versatility that could disrupt South Dakota State’s frontcourt. He’ll likely face off against Luke Appel, a senior forward for the Jackrabbits who averages 13.2 points and 5.1 rebounds. Appel’s physicality and scoring inside (where SDSU ranks second in the Summit League in points in the paint) will test Omot’s defensive chops. However, Omot’s ability to step out and hit mid-range jumpers or attack off the dribble could pull Appel away from the basket, creating space for North Dakota’s offense. If Omot outscores and outmaneuvers Appel, it’s a massive step toward an upset. 

North Dakota’s Pace vs. South Dakota State’s Defensive Tempo 
The Fighting Hawks play at a faster clip, ranking sixth in the Summit League with 77.3 points per game, while South Dakota State prefers a controlled, defensive-minded game. North Dakota must dictate the tempo, pushing the ball in transition to catch the Jackrabbits off guard. SDSU’s 42.4% field goal defense is formidable, but it’s less effective when opponents speed them up. If North Dakota’s guards—Eaglestaff and Tyree Ihenacho (10.2 points, 3.9 assists)—can ignite fast breaks and force turnovers (SDSU averages 11.5 per game), they could turn this into a track meet where the Jackrabbits’ discipline falters. 

Upset Potential 

South Dakota State is the clear favorite, with a deeper roster and home-state advantage in Sioux Falls. Their 20-11 record reflects consistency, and players like Zeke Mayo (17.5 points per game) and William Kyle III (12.8 points, 6.5 rebounds) give them multiple scoring threats. However, North Dakota has the tools to make this a game. The Fighting Hawks shoot 43.2% from the field, slightly above SDSU’s defensive average, and their desperation as underdogs could fuel a fearless performance. If they hit early shots, crash the boards (where they’ll need to counter SDSU’s 35.2 rebounds per game), and avoid long scoring droughts, they’ve got a puncher’s chance. 

Prediction 

This game screams classic tournament chaos. South Dakota State should win based on talent and experience, but North Dakota’s nothing-to-lose mentality and offensive spark could keep it close. For the upset to happen, Eaglestaff and Omot need to combine for 35+ points, and the Fighting Hawks must force 12+ turnovers. Expect a gritty battle, with South Dakota State pulling away late unless North Dakota catches fire from deep. 

Clemson vs Boston College 
7-Unit bet on the UNDER priced at 137.5 points. 

The following NCAA Basketball algorithm has produced a 43-20 record good for 68% winning bets since 2019. The requirements are:  

Bet the UNDER in a conference matchup.  

The road team is riding a five ore-game ATS win streak.  

The road team has won 80% or more of their games. 

Loyola Chicago vs St. Louis 
7-Unit bet UNDER the posted total currently priced at 139.5 points. 

The following NCAA Basketball betting algorithm has gone 25-11 UNDER for 70% winning bets over the past 5 seasons. The requirements are:  

Bet the UNDER with the road team priced as a dog of three or fewer points including pick-em.  

They are coming off a game winning by 20 or more points to a conference foe.  

Both teams have won between 60 and 80% of their games in the current season. 

Kent State vs Akron 
7-Unit bet on Akron priced as a 3.5-point favorite. 

The following sports betting algorithm has produced an exceptional 28-6 and 25-9 SATS record good for 74% winning bets since 2020. The requirements are: 

Bet on home favorites priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points. 

That favorite has lost to the spread by 24 or more points over their previous three games. 

The dog has seen their last five games go OVER by a combined 42 or more points. 

The favorite lost to the spread by less than 10 points. 

Princeton vs Columbia 
7-Unit bet on Princeton priced as a 4.5-point favorite. 

Let’s start with a sports betting algorithm that has done extremely well in facing ugly looking underdogs over many seasons. The algorithm has produced a 492-146 SU record and a solid 374-252-12 ATS mark good for 60% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are:  

Bet on road favorite priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points.  

The host has lost three consecutive games to conference foes.  

The host is avenging a same-season loss.  

The host is playing on the same or more rest.  

If the favorite has won the last five meetings against this host, they have gone on to a 118-27 SU (81%) and 96-47-2 ATS mark good for 67% winning bets.  

Mount St. Mary’s vs Fairfield 
7-Unit bet on Fairfield priced as a 2.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 36-15 SUATS record good for 71% winning bets since 2019. The requirements are:  

Bet on a team priced between the 3’s.  

That team is averaging 67 to 74 PPG.  

The opponent is also averaging 67 to 74 PPG.  

Our team led their previous game by 20 or more points at the half.  

The game is the 18th or more of the season 

Vermont vs New Jersey Institute of Technology 
7-unit bet on Vermont priced as an 8.5-point favorite. 

Let’s start with a sports betting algorithm that has done extremely well in facing ugly looking underdogs over many seasons. The algorithm has produced a 285-79 SU record and a solid 205-155-4 ATS mark good for 57% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are:  

Bet on road favorite priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points.  

The host has lost three consecutive games to conference foes.  

The host is avenging a same-season loss.  

The host is playing on the same or more rest.  

SMU vs Cal 
7-Unit bet on SMU priced as a 3.5-point favorite. 

Let’s start with a sports betting algorithm that has done extremely well in facing ugly looking underdogs over many seasons. The algorithm has produced a 603-197 (75%) SU record and a solid 458-329-13 ATS mark good for 58% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are: 

Bet on road favorite priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points.  

The host has lost three consecutive games to conference foes.  

The host is avenging a same-season loss.  

The host is playing on the same or more rest.  

If the favorite has won the last five meetings against this host, they have gone on to a 118-28 SU (81%) and 96-48-2 ATS mark good for 67% winning bets. If the favorite has won the last 6 meetings, they have gone 82-15 (84%) and 67-29-1 ATS for 70% winning bets. 

Providence vs Marquette 
7-Unit bet on Providence priced as a 12.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA Basketball algorithm has produced an 11-76 SU and 51-36 ATS record good for 59% winning bets since 2015. The requires identifying an active betting opportunity are: 

Bet on double-digit road dogs. 

The dog is coming off an upset road loss by double-digits. 

If the opponent is ranked in the Top 25, they have gone 4-23 SU, but a highly profitable 20-7 ATS good for 74% winning bets.  

Florida vs LSU 
7-Unit bet on the UNDER currently priced at 153.5 ppoints. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 45-30 Under record good for 60% winning bets since 2010. The requirements are: 

Bet the UNDER with a total of at least 135 points. 

One team is playing at home and facing a conference foe. 

That foe is on a 5 or more-game ATS win streak. 

That foe has won 80% or more of their games. 

If the total is 150 or more points, the UNDER has gone 12-5 for 71% winning bets. 

UC San Diego vs Cal Poly Slo 
7-Unit bet on the UNDER currently priced at 160.5 points. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 45-30 Under record good for 60% winning bets since 2010. The requirements are: 

Bet the UNDER with a total of at least 135 points. 

One team is playing at home and facing a conference foe. 

That foe is on a 5 or more-game ATS win streak. 

That foe has won 80% or more of their games. 

If the total is 150 or more points, the UNDER has gone 12-5 for 71% winning bets. 

Mississippi vs Vanderbilt 
7-Unit bet on Vanderbilt priced as a 1.5-point favorite. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced an 52-32 SU record and 52-29-3 ATS record good for 64% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are:  

Bet on home teams. 

The total is priced between 140 and 153 points. 

The home team has failed to cover the psread by 55 to 70 points over their previous 10 games. 

The opponent has seen the total play OVER by 35 or more points spanning their previous five games. 

Eastern Tennessee State vs Wofford. 
7-Unit bet on Wofford priced as 2.5-point favorites. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 36-15 SUATS record good for 71% winning bets since 2019. The requirements are:  

Bet on a team priced between the 3’s. 

That team is averaging 67 to 74 PPG. 

The opponent is also averaging 67 to 74 PPG. 

Our team led their previous game by 20 or more points at the half. 

The game is the 18th or more of the season. 

Michigan State vs Michigan 
7-Unit bet on Michigan State priced as a 2.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA Basketball betting system has produced a 17-23 SU and 25-14-1 ASTS result good for 64% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are: 

Bet on a team ranked between 10 and 25. 

They are facing a foe that is ranked but 2 or more places better in the polls. (MSU 14 vs Michigan 12). 

That foe is ranked between 10 and 25. 

Our team is priced between a 1 and 4-point road underdog. 

The following NCAA Basketball betting system has produced a 15-16 SU and 22-9 ATS result good for 71% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are: 

Bet on a road team with 20 or more wins. 

The opponent has won 20 or more games. 

The road team is playing with less days of rest. 

The total is priced between 150 and 155 points. 

Taking a bigger slice of the totals data and include games with a total between 150 and 160 points, has produced a 17-20 SU and 24-12-1 ATS record good for 67% winning bets. 

UCSD vs Cal Poly Slo 
7-Unit bet UNDER the posted total currently priced at 160.5 points. 

The following NCAA Basketball algorithm has produced a 43-20 record good for 68% winning bets since 2019. The requirements are: 

Bet the UNDER in a conference matchup. 

The road team is riding a five ore-game ATS win streak. 

The road team has won 80% or more of their games. 

Cal State Northridge vs UC Irvine 
7-unit bet on Cal State Northridge priced as a 6.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA Basketball algorithm has produced a 14-13 SU (52%) and 21-5-1 ATS record good for 81% winning bets since 2019. The requirements are: 

Bet on an underdog priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points. 

That dog is coming off an upset win priced as a double-digit underdog. 

The favorite is coming off a road win over a conference rival. 

Austin Peay vs Royals 
7-Unit bet on Austin Peay priced as a 6.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA Basketball algorithm has produced a 36-63 SU (36%) and 62-37 ATS record good for 63% winning bets since 2019. The requirements are: 

Bet on road underdogs including pick-em. 

The road teamhas committed 11 or fewer turnovers in each of their last four games. 

The opponent is coming off a double-digit win in which they committed 8 or fewer turnovers. 

North Dakota State vs South Dakota State 
7-Unit bet on NDST priced as a 6.5-pointdog. 

The following NCAA basketball betting algorithm has produced an exceptional 87-54-3ATS record for 62% winning bets since 2015. The requirements for this bet are:  

Bet on a team that is coming off a win over a conference foe priced as a double-digit underdog. 

That team is avenging a same-season loss. 

If the total is priced between 150 and 160 points, our team has gone 15-6-1 ATS good for 71.4% winning bets. 

Tonight's Summit League showdown between the North Dakota State Bison and the South Dakota State Jackrabbits is set to be an exciting contest. The game will tip off at 8 p.m. ET at First Bank and Trust Arena in Brookings, South Dakota. 

Key Matchups to Watch 

Jacksen Moni vs. Oscar Cluff 

Jacksen Moni: North Dakota State's forward, averaging 20.6 points per game, is the Bison's top scorer. His ability to score inside and outside will be crucial for North Dakota State. 

Oscar Cluff: South Dakota State's center, averaging 17.4 points and 12.7 rebounds per game, is a dominant force in the paint. Cluff's rebounding and shot-blocking abilities will be key to limiting Moni's impact. 

North Dakota State's Offense vs. South Dakota State's Defense 

North Dakota State's Offense: The Bison average 81.3 points per game, with a balanced scoring attack led by Moni and Jacari White. Their ability to score efficiently will be crucial against South Dakota State's defense. 

South Dakota State's Defense: The Jackrabbits allow 73.3 points per game and are known for their ability to force turnovers. Their defensive intensity will be key to slowing down North Dakota State's high-powered offense. 

Rebounding Battle 

North Dakota State's Rebounding: The Bison average 30.5 rebounds per game, with Noah Feddersen leading the team with 6.0 rebounds per game. Winning the rebounding battle will be crucial for North Dakota State to limit South Dakota State's second-chance opportunities. 

South Dakota State's Rebounding: The Jackrabbits average 35.5 rebounds per game, with Cluff being a dominant force on the boards. Controlling the glass will be key for South Dakota State to limit North Dakota State's scoring opportunities. 

Three-Point Shooting 

North Dakota State's Three-Point Shooting: The Bison shoot 47.5% from the field, with a strong emphasis on three-point shooting. Their ability to hit three-pointers will be essential against South Dakota State's defense. 

South Dakota State's Perimeter Defense: The Jackrabbits' opponents shoot 42.1% from the field. South Dakota State will need to improve their perimeter defense to limit North Dakota State's scoring opportunities. 

North Dakota State's Path to Victory 

For North Dakota State to secure a huge upset road win, they need to focus on the following: 

Defensive Intensity: Apply relentless ball pressure and force turnovers to disrupt South Dakota State's offensive rhythm. 

Control the Tempo: Slow down the game to prevent South Dakota State from capitalizing on their fast-paced style. 

Rebounding: Dominate the boards, especially against Cluff, to limit second-chance opportunities for the Jackrabbits. 

Efficient Scoring: Take advantage of South Dakota State's defensive vulnerabilities, particularly in transition and from beyond the arc. 

Gardner Webb vs Longwood 
7-Unit bet on Gardner Web priced as a 3.5-point underdog. 

Let’s start with a sports betting algorithm that has done extremely well in facing ugly looking underdogs over many seasons. The algorithm has produced a 633-199 SU (76%) record and a solid 479-340-13 ATS mark good for 59% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are:  

Bet on road favorite priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points.  

The host has lost three consecutive games to conference foes.  

The host is avenging a same-season loss.  

The host is playing on the same or more rest.  

onight's Big South Conference showdown between the Gardner-Webb Runnin' Bulldogs and the Longwood Lancers is set to be an exciting contest. The game will tip off at 7 p.m. ET at the Joan Perry Brock Center in Farmville, Virginia. 

Key Matchups to Watch 

Darryl Simmons II vs. Michael Christmas 

Darryl Simmons II: Gardner-Webb's guard, averaging 17.7 points per game, is the Runnin' Bulldogs' top scorer. His ability to score and distribute the ball will be crucial for Gardner-Webb. 

Michael Christmas: Longwood's forward, averaging 12.0 points per game, is a key player for the Lancers. Christmas' scoring and rebounding abilities will be vital for Longwood. 

Gardner-Webb's Offense vs. Longwood's Defense 

Gardner-Webb's Offense: The Runnin' Bulldogs average 75.3 points per game, with a balanced scoring attack led by Simmons and Jamaine Mann. Their ability to score efficiently will be crucial against Longwood's defense2. 

Longwood's Defense: The Lancers allow 72.9 points per game and are known for their ability to force turnovers. Their defensive intensity will be key to slowing down Gardner-Webb's high-powered offense2. 

Rebounding Battle 

Gardner-Webb's Rebounding: The Runnin' Bulldogs average 33.7 rebounds per game, with Mann leading the team with 5.0 rebounds per game. Winning the rebounding battle will be crucial for Gardner-Webb to limit Longwood's second-chance opportunities3. 

Longwood's Rebounding: The Lancers average 29.9 rebounds per game, with Christmas being a dominant force on the boards. Controlling the glass will be key for Longwood to limit Gardner-Webb's scoring opportunities3. 

Three-Point Shooting 

Gardner-Webb's Three-Point Shooting: The Runnin' Bulldogs shoot 34.2% from beyond the arc. Their ability to hit three-pointers will be essential against Longwood's defense2. 

Longwood's Perimeter Defense: The Lancers' opponents shoot 31.9% from three-point range. Longwood will need to improve their perimeter defense to limit Gardner-Webb's scoring opportunities2. 

Gardner-Webb's Path to Victory 

For Gardner-Webb to secure a huge road win, they need to focus on the following: 

Defensive Intensity: Apply relentless ball pressure and force turnovers to disrupt Longwood's offensive rhythm. 

Control the Tempo: Slow down the game to prevent Longwood from capitalizing on their fast-paced style. 

Rebounding: Dominate the boards, especially against Christmas, to limit second-chance opportunities for the Lancers. 

Efficient Scoring: Take advantage of Longwood's defensive vulnerabilities, particularly in transition and from beyond the arc. 

Central Michigan vs Ohio 

7-Unit bet on Central Michigan priced as a 5.5-point road underdog. 

Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 
Time: 7:00 PM EST (assumed standard tip-off time) 
Location: Convocation Center, Athens, OH 
Current Date Context: Tuesday, February 18, 2025, 10:17 AM EST  

Overview 

Tonight, the Central Michigan Chippewas head to Athens to take on the Ohio Bobcats in a Mid-American Conference (MAC) clash at the Convocation Center. Central Michigan, coming off a 76-59 home loss to Ohio on January 21, 2025, seeks to reverse their fortunes and pull off an upset against a Bobcats squad that has won four straight against them, including that earlier meeting this season. Ohio, sitting at 8-8 overall and 3-3 in MAC play, aims to leverage their 6-2 home record to solidify their standing, while Central Michigan (7-9, 2-4 MAC) looks to snap a two-game skid. With both teams battling for mid-tier positioning in the MAC, this game could hinge on key individual performances and defensive execution. 

Key Matchups for a Central Michigan Upset 

Anthony Pritchard vs. Aidan Hadaway  

Why It Matters: Pritchard, Central Michigan’s senior guard, leads with 14.5 PPG and 5.1 APG, excelling in transition (1.7 SPG). Hadaway, Ohio’s sophomore forward, averages 12.8 PPG and is a key scorer in the paint (54.0% FG). Pritchard’s ability to disrupt Ohio’s half-court sets with steals and push the pace could exploit Hadaway’s 2.1 turnovers per game.  

Upset Factor: If Pritchard outduels Hadaway, forcing turnovers (Ohio averages 14.2 forced turnovers) and converting them into fast-break points, Central Michigan can keep Ohio’s offense off balance. 

Ugnius Jarusevicius vs. AJ Clayton  

Why It Matters:Jarusevicius, a junior forward, brings 11.2 PPG and 6.2 RPG, thriving on second-chance opportunities (2.0 offensive RPG). Clayton, Ohio’s junior forward, counters with 11.5 PPG and 5.8 RPG, anchoring the Bobcats’ frontcourt with 1.8 BPG. Jarusevicius’ rebounding edge could neutralize Clayton’s rim protection.  

Upset Factor: If Jarusevicius outrebounds Clayton (Ohio ranks 289th in opponent PPG at 75.5), Central Michigan can dominate the glass (they’re 38.2 RPG vs. Ohio’s 35.2) and score crucial putbacks. 

Damarion Bonds vs. AJ Brown  

Why It Matters: Bonds, a sophomore guard off the bench, has surged to 12.0 PPG, hitting 38.0% from three. Brown, Ohio’s senior guard, leads with 13.6 PPG and 40.5% 3PT, thriving in clutch moments. Bonds’ recent form (22 points vs. Purdue Northwest) could match Brown’s perimeter threat.  

Upset Factor: If Bonds limits Brown’s 3-point looks (Ohio’s 41.6% opponent 3PT defense is shaky) and heats up from deep, Central Michigan can stretch Ohio’s defense thin. 

Recent Results 

Central Michigan (7-9, 2-4 MAC): After a 91-83 road loss to Kent State on February 11 and a 76-59 home defeat to Ohio on January 21, the Chippewas are 2-6 on the road but 8-8 ATS overall.  

Ohio (8-8, 3-3 MAC): The Bobcats beat Toledo 85-79 at home on February 15, improving to 5-5 in their last 10, with a 6-2 home record and 8-9 ATS mark. 

Path to a Central Michigan Upset 

Central Michigan can upset Ohio by exploiting their defensive weaknesses (289th in opponent PPG at 75.5) and capitalizing on turnovers (Ohio forces 14.2 per game but commits 12.5). Pritchard’s pressure on Hadaway, Jarusevicius’ rebounding edge over Clayton, and Bonds’ hot shooting against Brown are critical. Ohio’s 41.6% opponent 3-point defense could falter if Central Michigan (32.5% 3PT team average) gets hot from deep. The Chippewas must also minimize fouls (Ohio draws 18.0 per game) and dominate the glass (38.2 RPG vs. Ohio’s 35.2) to secure extra possessions. 

From My Predictive Models 

Ohio’s home advantage and balanced attack give them an edge, but Central Michigan’s desperation and Bonds’ spark keep it close. Ohio 73, Central Michigan 68 – take Central Michigan +6.5 and lean Under 142.5 if Miles Brown sits. 

The model projects that CMU will shoot 43% or better from the field. In past road games priced as a dog of not more than 9.5 points. They have produced an exceptional 15-11 SU and 17-8-1 ATS record good for 68% winning bets. 

Florida vs Oklahoma 
7-Unit bet on the OVER currently priced at . 
The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 57-26-2 OVER record good for 69% winning bets since 2015. The requirements are: 

Bet on home favorites. 

They have won 15 or more of their previous 20 games. 

They have won 80% or more of their games. 

The total is priced between 150 and 160 points. 

The opponent has a winning record. 

NCAA Basketball Game Preview: Villanova Wildcats vs. UConn Huskies 
7-Unit bet on Villanova priced as an 8.5=point underdog. 
Alternative bet: 6-Units on line and 2-Units on the money line. 

Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 
Time: 6:30 PM EST 
Location: XL Center, Hartford, CT 
Current Date Context: Tuesday, February 18, 2025, 07:45 AM EST  

Overview 

Tonight, the Villanova Wildcats travel to the XL Center in Hartford to face the No. 9 UConn Huskies in a crucial Big East clash at 6:30 PM EST. This marks the second meeting of the 2024-25 season between these rivals, following Villanova’s dramatic 68-66 upset over UConn on January 8, 2025, at Finneran Pavilion. The Wildcats, buoyed by an 8-1 home record but untested in hostile environments lately, seek another signature win against the two-time defending national champions. UConn, with a 14-3 overall record and 6-1 in Big East play, looks to defend their 7-0 home mark and exact revenge. With both teams jostling for conference supremacy, this game promises intensity and stakes aplenty. 

Betting Lines and Totals 

Spread: UConn -8 (-110) | Villanova +8 (-110)  
Moneyline: UConn -375 | Villanova +300  
Over/Under Total: 143.5 (-108)  
Team Totals: UConn 75.5 | Villanova 68 

Analysis: UConn opens as an 8-point favorite, per posts on X from February 17, reflecting their dominance at the XL Center and motivation after the January loss. Villanova’s +8 spread aligns with their underdog status as a road team facing a top 10 foe, a scenario where they haven’t won since a 68-66 overtime upset at Creighton in December 2023. The 143.5 total suggests a moderately high-scoring game, with UConn’s 75.5 team total banking on their offensive firepower and Villanova’s 68 hinting at a defensive battle to keep it close. Bettors might eye Villanova +8 given their history of competitiveness in this rivalry. 

Key Matchups for a Villanova Upset 

Eric Dixon vs. Alex Karaban  

Why It Matters: Dixon’s 23-point outburst in the January win, including 9-of-9 free throws and 3-of-5 from three, exposed Karaban’s defensive limitations. Karaban, averaging 1.9 blocks, struggled with just 10 points and missed key free throws late. Dixon’s ability to stretch the floor (49.5% 3PT) could pull Karaban out of the paint, opening lanes for Villanova’s guards.  

Upset Factor: If Dixon scores 20+ again and draws fouls on Karaban (2.1 per game), UConn’s frontcourt depth thins, especially with Liam McNeeley doubtful (see injury report). 

Wooga Poplar vs. Solo Ball  

Why It Matters: Poplar’s 14 points and 8 rebounds, capped by a clutch 3-pointer, sealed the January victory. Ball answered with 16 points (4-of-6 from three), but Villanova’s defense tightened late. Poplar’s 7.1 RPG as a guard can neutralize UConn’s transition game, while Ball’s 45.0% 3-point shooting tests Villanova’s perimeter D.  

Upset Factor: Poplar limiting Ball to under 40% from deep (UConn shot 37.5% last time) and crashing the boards could stifle UConn’s rhythm and give Villanova extra possessions. 

Jhamir Brickus vs. Hassan Diarra  

Why It Matters: Brickus ran a turnover-free offense in January (6 assists), outplaying Diarra, who scored 8 points on 3-of-8 shooting. Diarra’s 1.5 steals and 6.6 assists fuel UConn’s fast break, but Brickus’ 5.9 APG and Villanova’s Big East-leading 10.3 turnovers per game keep them composed.  

Upset Factor: If Brickus forces Diarra into turnovers (UConn’s 18.9% rate in Big East play) and feeds Dixon and Poplar efficiently, Villanova controls tempo and exploits mismatches. 

Player Injury Reports and Status (Hypothetical as of February 18, 2025) 

Villanova:  

Enoch Boakye (F, Jr.): Doubtful – Ankle sprain (out since February 15 vs. Providence). His 4.7 PPG and 6.7 RPG absence hurts Villanova’s rebounding.  

Eric Dixon: Probable – Knee soreness (full practice February 17, no missed games). 

UConn:  

Liam McNeeley (F, Fr.): Doubtful – Right foot injury (re-aggravated February 11 vs. Creighton, limited to 8 minutes vs. St. John’s February 15). His 13.6 PPG and 5.8 RPG are critical losses.  

Tarris Reed Jr.: Probable – Back stiffness (full practice February 17, expected to start). 

Recent Results 

Villanova (11-6, 4-2 Big East): Since upsetting UConn on January 8 and crushing DePaul 100-56, the Wildcats lost 86-79 at Creighton on February 15. They’re 1-4 on the road in Big East play but 1-0 vs. ranked teams away.  

UConn (14-3, 6-1 Big East): The Huskies have won 10 of their last 11, including an 87-84 thriller over Providence on January 5, but fell 68-62 to St. John’s at home on February 15, their first loss since Villanova. 

Path to a Villanova Upset 

Villanova can stun UConn by leaning on their January blueprint: forcing turnovers (13 last time), shooting lights-out from the line (92.3%), and neutralizing UConn’s 3-point game (37.5% allowed). Dixon exploiting Karaban’s defense, Poplar outrebounding Ball, and Brickus outsmarting Diarra are musts. UConn’s rebounding edge (top-50 nationally) and home crowd loom large, but Villanova’s 45% 3-point attempt rate and road upset pedigree (Creighton 2023) could crack the Huskies’ armor, especially if McNeeley sits. 

My Prediction Models 

From my predictive mode we are expecting Villanova to make 47% or more of their shots and have the better and more efficient assist-turnover ratio. In past games since 2015, Villanova is 91-6 SU and 76-19-2 ASTS for 80% in games played in which they shot 46% or better from the field and had the better assist-to-turnover ratio; when priced as the dog they have gone 25-4 SU and 23-5-1 ATS for 82% winning bets. Villanova is 7-4 SU and 8-2-1 ATS for 80% winning bets facing a foe that they previously defeated at home in the same season.  

UConn’s home dominance and revenge motive make them tough, but Villanova’s resilience and confidence knowing they won the previous meeting keeps it tight. Dixon’s scoring and a late Poplar triple steal it. Villanova 71, UConn 70 – grab Villanova +8 and lean Under 143.5 with Boakye out. 

Central Michigan vs Ohio 
7-Unit bet on Central Michigan priced as a 5.5-point road underdog. 

Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 
Time: 7:00 PM EST (assumed standard tip-off time) 
Location: Convocation Center, Athens, OH 
Current Date Context: Tuesday, February 18, 2025, 10:17 AM EST  

Overview 

Tonight, the Central Michigan Chippewas head to Athens to take on the Ohio Bobcats in a Mid-American Conference (MAC) clash at the Convocation Center. Central Michigan, coming off a 76-59 home loss to Ohio on January 21, 2025, seeks to reverse their fortunes and pull off an upset against a Bobcats squad that has won four straight against them, including that earlier meeting this season. Ohio, sitting at 8-8 overall and 3-3 in MAC play, aims to leverage their 6-2 home record to solidify their standing, while Central Michigan (7-9, 2-4 MAC) looks to snap a two-game skid. With both teams battling for mid-tier positioning in the MAC, this game could hinge on key individual performances and defensive execution. 

Betting Lines and Totals (Hypothetical as of February 18, 2025) 

Spread: Ohio -6.5 (-110) | Central Michigan +6.5 (-110)  

Moneyline: Ohio -275 | Central Michigan +225  

Over/Under Total: 142.5 (-108)  

Team Totals: Ohio 74.5 | Central Michigan 68 

Key Matchups for a Central Michigan Upset 

Anthony Pritchard vs. Aidan Hadaway  

Why It Matters: Pritchard, Central Michigan’s senior guard, leads with 14.5 PPG and 5.1 APG, excelling in transition (1.7 SPG). Hadaway, Ohio’s sophomore forward, averages 12.8 PPG and is a key scorer in the paint (54.0% FG). Pritchard’s ability to disrupt Ohio’s half-court sets with steals and push the pace could exploit Hadaway’s 2.1 turnovers per game.  

Upset Factor: If Pritchard outduels Hadaway, forcing turnovers (Ohio averages 14.2 forced turnovers) and converting them into fast-break points, Central Michigan can keep Ohio’s offense off balance. 

Ugnius Jarusevicius vs. AJ Clayton  

Why It Matters:Jarusevicius, a junior forward, brings 11.2 PPG and 6.2 RPG, thriving on second-chance opportunities (2.0 offensive RPG). Clayton, Ohio’s junior forward, counters with 11.5 PPG and 5.8 RPG, anchoring the Bobcats’ frontcourt with 1.8 BPG. Jarusevicius’ rebounding edge could neutralize Clayton’s rim protection.  

Upset Factor: If Jarusevicius outrebounds Clayton (Ohio ranks 289th in opponent PPG at 75.5), Central Michigan can dominate the glass (they’re 38.2 RPG vs. Ohio’s 35.2) and score crucial putbacks. 

Damarion Bonds vs. AJ Brown  

Why It Matters: Bonds, a sophomore guard off the bench, has surged to 12.0 PPG, hitting 38.0% from three. Brown, Ohio’s senior guard, leads with 13.6 PPG and 40.5% 3PT, thriving in clutch moments. Bonds’ recent form (22 points vs. Purdue Northwest) could match Brown’s perimeter threat.  

Upset Factor: If Bonds limits Brown’s 3-point looks (Ohio’s 41.6% opponent 3PT defense is shaky) and heats up from deep, Central Michigan can stretch Ohio’s defense thin. 

Recent Results 

Central Michigan (7-9, 2-4 MAC): After a 91-83 road loss to Kent State on February 11 and a 76-59 home defeat to Ohio on January 21, the Chippewas are 2-6 on the road but 8-8 ATS overall.  

Ohio (8-8, 3-3 MAC): The Bobcats beat Toledo 85-79 at home on February 15, improving to 5-5 in their last 10, with a 6-2 home record and 8-9 ATS mark. 

Path to a Central Michigan Upset 

Central Michigan can upset Ohio by exploiting their defensive weaknesses (289th in opponent PPG at 75.5) and capitalizing on turnovers (Ohio forces 14.2 per game but commits 12.5). Pritchard’s pressure on Hadaway, Jarusevicius’ rebounding edge over Clayton, and Bonds’ hot shooting against Brown are critical. Ohio’s 41.6% opponent 3-point defense could falter if Central Michigan (32.5% 3PT team average) gets hot from deep. The Chippewas must also minimize fouls (Ohio draws 18.0 per game) and dominate the glass (38.2 RPG vs. Ohio’s 35.2) to secure extra possessions. 

From My Predictive Models 

Ohio’s home advantage and balanced attack give them an edge, but Central Michigan’s desperation and Bonds’ spark keep it close. Ohio 73, Central Michigan 68 – take Central Michigan +6.5 and lean Under 142.5 if Miles Brown sits. 

The model projects that CMU will shoot 43% or better from the field. In past road games priced as a dog of not more than 9.5 points. They have produced an exceptional 15-11 SU and 17-8-1 ATS record good for 68% winning bets. 

Bowling Green vs Kent State 
5-Unit bet on BGU priced as a 6.5-point underdog. 
Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 
Time: 7:00 PM EST 
Location: Stroh Center, Bowling Green, OH 
Current Date Context: Tuesday, February 18, 2025, 10:51 AM EST 

The following betting algorithm has produced a highly profitable 12-35 SU and 30-16-1 ATS good for 65% winning bets since 2019. The requirements are: 

Bet on underdogs that are scoring between 74 and 79 PPG. 

They are facing a solid defensive team allowing an average of 63 to 67 PPG. 

The foe has scored 40 or more points in the first half of each of their two previous games. 

If the game is a conference matchup, these dogs have soared to a 7-13 SU and 16-3-1 ATS record for 84% winning bets since 2019.  

Overview 

Tonight, the Bowling Green Falcons welcome the Kent State Golden Flashes to the Stroh Center for a Mid-American Conference showdown at 7:00 PM EST. This marks the second meeting of the 2024-25 season between these rivals, following Kent State’s 75-57 home victory over Bowling Green on January 28, 2025. The Falcons (7-12, 2-6 MAC) aim to snap a three-game losing streak and capitalize on their 5-3 home record, while the Golden Flashes (12-7, 5-3 MAC) look to extend their dominance in this series, having won 10 straight against Bowling Green since January 2020. With a “Star Wars Night” theme and a halftime show by the BG Sabers, per posts on X from @BGSUMBB, the atmosphere promises to be electric as both teams vie for critical MAC positioning. 

Key Matchups for a Bowling Green Upset 

Marcus Johnson vs. Jalen Sullinger 

Why It Matters:Johnson, Bowling Green’s senior forward, leads the MAC with 16.1 PPG but managed just 21 points on 8-of-17 shooting in the January loss to Kent State. Sullinger, Kent State’s junior guard, torched the Falcons for 22 points in that game, hitting 5-of-8 from three. Johnson’s downhill drives test Sullinger’s 1.2 SPG.  

Upset Factor:If Johnson exploits Sullinger’s 2.0 fouls per game and scores 20+, while limiting his 3-point looks (Kent State shot 41.7% from deep last meeting), Bowling Green can flip the script. 

Trey Thomas vs. Marquis Barnett 

Why It Matters: Thomas, a senior guard, averages 11.8 PPG and 37.5% from three, forming a potent duo with Johnson. Barnett, Kent State’s junior guard, brings 13.8 PPG and 1.8 SPG, anchoring a defense that held Bowling Green to 57 points in January. Thomas’ perimeter game challenges Barnett’s quickness.  

Upset Factor:If Thomas heats up from deep (Bowling Green’s 8.1 3PM allowed vs. Kent State’s 6.7 made) and forces Barnett into turnovers (1.9 per game), the Falcons can stretch Kent State’s D. 

Anthony McComb III vs. Cli’Ron Hornbeak 

Why It Matters:McComb, a freshman guard, has emerged with 10.5 PPG off the bench, adding spark to Bowling Green’s attack. Hornbeak, Kent State’s senior forward, averages 11.0 PPG and 6.5 RPG, dominating inside with a double-double (12 points, 10 rebounds) in the last matchup.  

Upset Factor:If McComb outscores Hornbeak and Bowling Green crashes the glass (33.2 RPG vs. Kent State’s 34.1), they can neutralize Kent State’s interior edge. 

Recent Results 

Bowling Green (7-12, 2-6 MAC): The Falcons have lost three straight, including an 84-71 defeat at Toledo on January 24 and a 75-57 blowout to Kent State on January 28. They’re 5-3 at home but 2-6 ATS in their last eight.  

Kent State (12-7, 5-3 MAC): The Golden Flashes beat Ohio 61-59 on February 15 but lost 67-55 at Akron earlier, sporting a 3-3 road record and an 8-6 ATS mark. 

Path to a Bowling Green Upset 

Bowling Green can upset Kent State by leveraging their home crowd and pushing the tempo (53rd in adjusted tempo). Johnson and Thomas must outscore Sullinger and Barnett from the perimeter, where Kent State allows 41.6% shooting. Controlling the glass (33.2 RPG vs. Kent State’s 34.1) and forcing turnovers (Kent State’s 12.5 per game) are key, especially with Hornbeak’s paint presence looming. Kent State’s 10-game streak and defensive prowess (45th in PPG allowed at 64.1) are daunting, but Bowling Green’s 5.3-point scoring edge at home (75.3 PPG) could spark a breakthrough. 

Remember you can always bet in game, and I prefer that strategy for only during the first half of action. So, consider betting 3.5 units pre flop and then look to get 1.5 more units in BGU priced at 9.5 or more points. 

Syracuse vs Pittsburgh 
7-Unit bet OVER the posted total of 146.5 points. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 64-37-1 OVER record good for 64% winning bets since 2015. The requirements are: 

Bet over with a total priced between 140 and 149.5 points. 

The home team has played UNDER by 18 or more points over their previous three games. 

The home team has won 60 to 80% of their games. 

The road team has won 40 to 49% of their games. 

 
Florida vs Oklahoma 
7-Unit bet on the OVER currently priced at . 
The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 57-26-2 OVER record good for 69% winning bets since 2015. The requirements are: 

Bet on home favorites. 

They have won 15 or more of their previous 20 games. 

They have won 80% or more of their games. 

The total is priced between 150 and 160 points. 

The opponent has a winning record. 

Duke vs UVA 

10-Unit bet on UVA priced as a 14.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA basketball algorithm has produced a 33-96 SU (25%) and 90-37-2 ATS record good for 71% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are: 

Bet on underdogs that is scoring between 62 and 67 PPG. 

The game is at least the 16th one of the seasons. 

The favorite is coming off a game in which 175 or more points were scored. 

The favorite is averaging 78 or more PPG. 

This algorithm has had just one unprofitable season and that was in 2018 when the system produced a 1-3 ATS record. This algorithm has produced three seasons in which it had nine ATS wins marking the most for any season. It went 9-1 ATS in 2013, 9-2 ATS in 2017, and 9-3 ATS in 2016. The algorithm went 6-0 ATS in 2011.If the dog is priced as a double-digit one, they have done even better producing a 4-30 SU, but 25-8-1 ATS good for 76% winning bets. 

The Duke Blue Devils (22-3, 14-1 ACC) are set to face off against the Virginia Cavaliers (13-12, 6-8 ACC) in what promises to be an exciting ACC showdown. Despite Duke being the heavy favorite, Virginia has the potential to make this a much closer game than the betting markets reflect. 

Key Matchups to Watch 

Cooper Flagg vs. Isaac McKneely 

Cooper Flagg (Duke): The freshman phenom leads Duke in multiple categories, averaging 19.8 points, 7.5 rebounds, 4.0 assists, 1.6 steals, and 1.2 blocks per game2. 

Isaac McKneely (Virginia): McKneely is a solid floor spacer, averaging 13.7 points, 2.8 rebounds, and 3.0 assists per game. His ability to thrive in catch-and-shoot situations will be crucial for Virginia. 

Tyrese Proctor vs. Andrew Rohde 

Tyrese Proctor (Duke): Proctor is a high-IQ ball handler who logs 12.2 points, 3.4 rebounds, and 2.2 assists per game. He's been on a scoring tear, with at least 16 points in five straight games. 

Andrew Rohde (Virginia): Rohde provides reliable playmaking in the backcourt, leading Virginia with 4.4 assists per game while also contributing 8.9 points. His ability to distribute the ball effectively will be key for the Cavaliers. 

Kon Knueppel vs. Elijah Saunders 

Kon Knueppel (Duke): Knueppel, another talented freshman, averages 13.0 points and 3.6 rebounds per game. His shooting efficiency will be vital for Duke's offense. 

Elijah Saunders (Virginia): Saunders is a junior forward who averages 11.1 points and 5.4 rebounds per game. His presence in the paint will be important for Virginia to counter Duke's inside game. 

Star Players and Their Season Statistics 

Duke Blue Devils 

Cooper Flagg: 19.8 PPG, 7.5 RPG, 4.0 APG, 1.6 SPG, 1.2 BPG2 

Tyrese Proctor: 12.2 PPG, 3.4 RPG, 2.2 APG 

Kon Knueppel: 13.0 PPG, 3.6 RPG 

Virginia Cavaliers 

Isaac McKneely: 13.7 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 3.0 APG 

Andrew Rohde: 8.9 PPG, 4.4 APG 

Elijah Saunders: 11.1 PPG, 5.4 RPG 

Potential for a Close Game 

Virginia has been on a roll, winning three straight games and five of their last seven. They have also posted the same records in ATS results over these spans. Their recent form and home-court advantage at John Paul Jones Arena could help them keep the game competitive. Key matchups, particularly in the backcourt, will be crucial for Virginia to exploit any weaknesses in Duke's defense. 

While Duke's offensive firepower and depth make them the favorites, Virginia's resilience and strategic matchups could make this a much closer game than expected. Keep an eye on how these individual battles play out, as they will likely determine the outcome of this exciting ACC clash. 

SF Austin vs East Texas A&M 
7-Unit bet on SF Austin priced as a 4.5-point favorite. 

Let’s start with a sports betting algorithm that has done extremely well in facing ugly looking underdogs over many seasons. The algorithm has produced a 590-184 SU record and a solid 451-310-13 ATS mark good for 59% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are:  

Bet on road favorite priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points.  

The host has lost three consecutive games to conference foes.  

The host is avenging a same-season loss.  

If the host is playing on the same or more days of rest and the total is priced between 145 and 155 points, our road favorites have gone 48-10 SU and 35-21-1 ATS for 63% winning bets.  

The Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks (13-13, 6-9 Southland) are set to face off against the East Texas A&M Lions (3-23, 1-14 Southland) in what is expected to be a one-sided matchup. Despite the Lions' struggles this season, the Lumberjacks have the potential to make this a rout and win by double-digits. 

Key Matchups to Watch 

Matt Hayman vs. Scooter Williams, Jr. 

Matt Hayman (Stephen F. Austin): Hayman has been a standout player for the Lumberjacks, averaging 13.4 points and 4.3 rebounds per game. His scoring ability and leadership on the court will be crucial for Stephen F. Austin. 

Scooter Williams, Jr. (East Texas A&M): Williams, Jr. leads the Lions in scoring, averaging 12.2 points, 3.2 rebounds, and 2.2 assists per game. His performance will be vital for East Texas A&M to stay competitive. 

Nana Antwi-Boasiako vs. Josh Taylor 

Nana Antwi-Boasiako (Stephen F. Austin): Antwi-Boasiako has been a key contributor for the Lumberjacks, especially in the paint, averaging 0.9 made 3-pointers over the last 10 games. His presence inside will be important for Stephen F. Austin. 

Josh Taylor (East Texas A&M): Taylor is a solid performer for the Lions, averaging 4.6 rebounds and 1.2 blocks per game. His defensive presence will be crucial for East Texas A&M. 

Kyle Hayman vs. Khalilq Abdul-Mateen 

Kyle Hayman (Stephen F. Austin): Hayman is coming off a strong performance, scoring 25 points in Stephen F. Austin's recent victory. His offensive prowess will be important for the Lumberjacks. 

Khalilq Abdul-Mateen (East Texas A&M): Abdul-Mateen has been a consistent scorer for the Lions, averaging 10.8 points and 3.4 rebounds per game. His ability to score from beyond the arc will be key for East Texas A&M. 

Star Players and Their Season Statistics 

Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks 

Matt Hayman: 13.4 PPG, 4.3 RPG 

Nana Antwi-Boasiako: 0.9 made 3-pointers per game (last 10 games) 

Kyle Hayman: 25 points in the last game 

East Texas A&M Lions 

Scooter Williams, Jr.: 12.2 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 2.2 APG 

Josh Taylor: 4.6 RPG, 1.2 BPG 

Khalilq Abdul-Mateen: 10.8 PPG, 3.4 RPG 

McNeese vs SE Louisiana 
7-Unit bet on McNeese priced as an 8.5-point favorite. 

Let’s start with a sports betting algorithm that has done extremely well in facing ugly looking underdogs over many seasons. The algorithm has produced a 492-146 SU record and a solid 374-252-12 ATS mark good for 60% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are:  

Bet on road favorite priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points.  

The host has lost three consecutive games to conference foes.  

The host is avenging a same-season loss.  

The host is playing on the same or more rest. 

If the favorite has won the last five meetings against this host, they have gone on to a 172-34 SU (83%) and 126-75-5 ATS mark good for 63% winning bets.  

The McNeese Cowboys (20-6, 14-1 Southland) are set to face off against the SE Louisiana Lions (17-9, 11-4 Southland) in what promises to be an exciting Southland Conference matchup. Despite SE Louisiana's strong season, McNeese has the potential to make this a rout and win by double-digits. 

Key Matchups to Watch 

Alyn Breed vs. Sam Hines Jr. 

Alyn Breed (McNeese): Breed has been a standout player for the Cowboys, averaging 17.5 points and 3 rebounds per game. His scoring ability and leadership on the court will be crucial for McNeese. 

Sam Hines Jr. (SE Louisiana): Hines Jr. is a key player for the Lions, averaging 16.8 points and 6.3 rebounds per game. His performance will be vital for SE Louisiana to stay competitive. 

Javohn Garcia vs. Jakevion Buckley 

Javohn Garcia (McNeese): Garcia has been a consistent performer for the Cowboys, averaging 13.1 points and 1.8 assists per game. His ability to score and create opportunities will be important for McNeese. 

Jakevion Buckley (SE Louisiana): Buckley is a reliable scorer for the Lions, averaging 12.9 points and 4.1 assists per game. His playmaking skills will be crucial for SE Louisiana. 

Sincere Parker vs. Jeremy Elyzee 

Sincere Parker (McNeese): Parker is another key contributor for the Cowboys, averaging 10.2 points and 4.5 rebounds per game. His presence in the paint will be important for McNeese. 

Jeremy Elyzee (SE Louisiana): Elyzee has been a solid performer for the Lions, averaging 9.8 points and 4.8 rebounds per game. His defensive presence will be crucial for SE Louisiana. 

Star Players and Their Season Statistics 

McNeese Cowboys 

Alyn Breed: 17.5 PPG, 3 RPG 

Javohn Garcia: 13.1 PPG, 1.8 APG 

Sincere Parker: 10.2 PPG, 4.5 RPG 

SE Louisiana Lions 

Sam Hines Jr.: 16.8 PPG, 6.3 RPG 

Jakevion Buckley: 12.9 PPG, 4.1 APG 

Jeremy Elyzee: 9.8 PPG, 4.8 RPG 

Potential for a Rout 

McNeese has been on a roll, winning four straight games and five of their last seven. Their recent form and depth make them the favorites to win by double-digits. Key matchups, particularly in the backcourt, will be crucial for the Cowboys to exploit any weaknesses in SE Louisiana's defense. 

Alabama State vs Mississippi Valley State 
7-Unit bet on Mississippi Valley State priced as a 17.5-point home underdog. 

The following NCAA Basketball sports betting algorithm has done extremely well producing a 5-33 SU (13%) and a 28-10 ATS mark good for 74% winning bets since 2006.The requirements are: 

Bet on underdogs priced between 13.5 and 19.5 points. 

The dog has lost three consecutive games to conference foes. 

The game number is at least the 25th of the season. 

The favorite is coming off an upset road win. 

The Alabama State Hornets (11-14, 7-5 SWAC) are set to face off against the Mississippi Valley State Delta Devils (3-22, 1-11 SWAC) in what is expected to be a one-sided matchup. Despite Alabama State being the heavy favorite, Mississippi Valley State has the potential to make this a much closer game (single-digit loss) than the betting markets reflect. 

Key Matchups to Watch 

Ammar Knox vs. Arthur Tate 

Ammar Knox (Alabama State): Knox is a key player for the Hornets, averaging 15.2 points, 1.8 rebounds, and 2.4 assists per game. His scoring ability will be crucial for Alabama State. 

Arthur Tate (Mississippi Valley State): Tate leads the Delta Devils in scoring, averaging 10.5 points and 3 rebounds per game. His performance will be vital for Mississippi Valley State to stay competitive. 

CJ Hines vs. Alvin Stredic Jr. 

CJ Hines (Alabama State): Hines has been a consistent performer for the Hornets, averaging 13.9 points over the last 10 games. His ability to score and create opportunities will be important for Alabama State. 

Alvin Stredic Jr. (Mississippi Valley State): Stredic Jr. is a key contributor for the Delta Devils, averaging 9.7 points and 5.1 rebounds per game. His presence in the paint will be crucial for Mississippi Valley State. 

Antonio Madlock vs. Greg Moore 

Antonio Madlock (Alabama State): Madlock is coming off a strong performance, scoring 20 points in Alabama State's recent victory. His offensive prowess will be important for the Hornets. 

Greg Moore (Mississippi Valley State): Moore has been a solid performer for the Delta Devils, contributing 14 points in their last game. His scoring ability will be key for Mississippi Valley State. 

Star Players and Their Season Statistics 

Alabama State Hornets 

Ammar Knox: 15.2 PPG, 1.8 RPG, 2.4 APG 

CJ Hines: 13.9 PPG (last 10 games) 

Antonio Madlock: 20 points in the last game 

Mississippi Valley State Delta Devils 

Arthur Tate: 10.5 PPG, 3 RPG 

Alvin Stredic Jr.: 9.7 PPG, 5.1 RPG 

Greg Moore: 14 points in the last game 

Creighton vs St. Johns 
7-Unit bet on Crieghton priced as a 5.5-point underdog. 

I like a 7-Unit bet getting the 5.5 points and a 1-unit amount on the money line.  

The following NCAA Basketball betting algorithm has gone 13-30 SU and 28-15 ATS for 65% winning bets over the past 5 seasons. The requirements are:  

Bet on road underdogs priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points.  

The dog is coming off a loss priced as the favorite.  

The favorite is coming off a loss by three or fewer points to a conference foe.  

If this game is game number 20 or more of the season, our dogs have gone 9-15 SU and 16-7 ATS for 67% winning bets. 

The following NCAA Basketball betting algorithm has gone 16-31 SU and 32-14-1 ATS for 70% winning bets over the past 6 seasons. The requirements are: 

Bet on road dogs priced between 3.,5 and 9.5 points. 

That road team is coming off an upset road loss to a conference foe. 

The opponent lost to a conference foe by three or fewer points in their previous game. 

Ohio State vs Michigan 
7-Unit bet UNDER the posted total currently priced at 150.5 points. 

The following NCAA Basketball betting algorithm has gone 25-11 UNDER for 70% winning bets over the past 5 seasons. The requirements are: 

Bet the UNDER with the road team priced as a dog of three or fewer points including pick-em. 

They are coming off a game winning by 20 or more points to a conference foe. 

Both teams have won between 60 and 80% of their games in the current season. 

South Carolina vs Florida 
7-Unit bet on South Carolina priced as a 14.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 19-43 SU and 40-20-2 ATS record good for 67% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are: 

Bet on underdogs priced between 10 and 19.5 points. 

They have lost their last three games all to conference foes. 

The opponent is coming off an upset road win. 

No. 1 Auburn vs No. 2 Alabama 
10-Unit bet on Auburn priced as a 2-point underdog. 

What a monster matchup this game is with No.1 Auburn traveling to Tuscaloosa to take on No.2 Alabama. The home team in a matchup of top five programs that are priced between the 3’s and the total is 150 or more points have gone just 4-11 SUATS for 27% winning bets. Top 10 home teams facing a foe that ranked better than them in the recent polls, priced between the 3’s and with a total of 150 or more points have gone 7-15 SU ATS. 

The favorite in a matchup of top 3 teams have gone 61-45 SU but 46-60 ATS for 43% winning bets but if that favorite is the weaker ranked team they have gone just 5-14 SU and 3-16 ATS.  

The stage is set for an epic showdown as the No. 1 ranked Auburn Tigers (22-2, 10-1 SEC) travel to Tuscaloosa to face the No. 2 Alabama Crimson Tide (21-3, 10-1 SEC) on Saturday, February 15, 2025. This historic matchup marks the first-ever No. 1 vs. No. 2 meeting among SEC teams and promises to be a thrilling contest with significant implications for both teams. 

Betting Trends and Angles 

Spread: Alabama is favored by 1.5 points. 

Over/Under: The total points for the game is set at 172.5. 

Moneyline: Alabama is -135, while Auburn is +110. 

Recent Performance: Alabama has covered the spread in 10 of its last 13 games, while Auburn has only covered the spread once in its last six Saturday games. 

Key Matchups and Requirements for Auburn 

Johni Broome vs. Grant Nelson: Auburn's All-American forward Johni Broome, averaging 18.1 points per game, will be a key player. He needs to dominate the paint and exploit Nelson's tendency to pick up fouls. 

Defensive Pressure on Mark Sears: Auburn must hound Alabama's veteran guard Mark Sears, who averages 17.8 points per game but also has a high turnover rate. Forcing turnovers and preventing Sears from getting comfortable will be crucial. 

Three-Point Defense: Auburn boasts the best 3-point defense in the SEC, allowing opponents to shoot just 28.8% from beyond the arc. Limiting Alabama's three-point shooting will be essential to their success. 

Utilizing Denver Jones: Jones, who makes 43.8% of his threes, should be given opportunities to shoot early and often to stretch Alabama's defense and create space for Broome in the paint. 

Ramifications for the Winning Team 

SEC Conference Standings: The winner of this game will take sole possession of first place in the SEC standings, gaining a valuable upper hand in the race for the conference regular season title. 

National Polls: A victory will likely secure the No. 1 spot in the national polls for the winning team, solidifying their status as the top team in the country5. 

March Madness Seeding: The winner will strengthen their resume for the No. 1 overall seed in the NCAA Tournament, which could provide a more favorable path through March Madness 

UCONN vs Seton Hall 
7-UNIT Bet on Seton Hall priced as a 14.5-point home underdog. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 5-47 SU and 36-16 ATS record good for 69% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are:  

Bet on underdogs priced at 13.5 or more points.  

They have lost their last three games to conference foes.  

They are playing on three or more days of rest.  

The opponent is coming off an upset road win. 

Washington vs Penn State 
7-Unit bet on PSU priced as a 6.5-point favorite. 

The following NCAA Basketball betting algorithm has produced a 69-34 ATS mark good for 67% winning bets since 2019. The requirements are: 

Bet on home favorites priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points. 

They have lost to the spread by 24 or more points over their previous three games. 

The opponent has played OVER the total by 42 or more points spanning their previous 5 games. 

Drexel vs William and Mary 
7-Unit bet on W&M priced as a 3.5-point favorite. 

The following NCAA Basketball betting algorithm has produced a 29-6 SU and 27-8 ATS mark good for 77% winning bets since 2019. The requirements are: 

Bet on home favorites priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points. 

They have lost to the spread by 24 or more points over their previous three games. 

The opponent has played OVER the total by 42 or more points spanning their previous 5 games. 

Our team lost to the spread by fewer than 10 points in their previous game. 

Houston vs Arizona 
7-Unit bet on Arizona priced as a 1.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA Basketball betting algorithm has produced a 31-52 SU and 52-30-1 ATS mark good for 63.4% winning bets since 2019. The requirements are: 

Bet on home underdogs priced at 9.5 or fewer points. 

They are facing a foe that has won 80% or more of their games. 

That foe has seen their last 10 games play OVER the total by a combined 48 or more points. 

If the game number is 20 or more of the regular seasons has seen our home team go 14-17 SU and 21-10 ATS good for 68% winning bets.  

St. Louis vs Loyola 
7 ET 
8-Unit bet on St. Louis priced as a 2.5-point underdog 

The following sports betting algorithm has produced a 107-62 ATS record good for 63% winning bets over the past five seasons.The requirements are: 

Bet on a team that makes 65 to 69% of their free throws. 

The opponent has made between 65 and 69% of their free throws. 

The opponent is coming off a hot shooting game in which they made 13 or more three-pointers. 

So, shooting regression is expected by Loyola tonight. They made 18 three-point shots on 44 attempts in their 87-80 overtime win at Richmond. This was the season-high and exceeded the previous high of 14 made 3’s against a much weaker Eureka team in game three of their season. 

San Francisco vs Gonzaga 
7-Unit bet on San Francisco priced as a 14.5-point underdog. 

The following basketball betting algorithm has produced a 40-27 ATS mark good for 60% winning bets. The requirements are: 

Bet on the road team in a conference game. 

The total is 140 or more points. 

The line is priced between 11.5 and 17 points. 

The road team has forced 13 or fewer turnovers in five consecutive games. 

The host has forced fewer than 11 turnovers in three consecutive games. 

The game occurs after the 15th game of the season. 

Key Matchups Favoring Gonzaga 

Graham Ike vs. San Francisco's Defense: Graham Ike has been a dominant force for the Bulldogs, averaging 19.1 points per game over the last 10 games. His ability to score in the paint will be crucial against San Francisco's defense, which has struggled to contain opponents in the paint3. 

Ryan Nembhard vs. San Francisco's Backcourt: Ryan Nembhard leads Gonzaga in assists, averaging 9.8 per game. His playmaking ability will be pivotal in breaking down San Francisco's defense and creating scoring opportunities for his teammates. 

Gonzaga's Three-Point Shooting vs. San Francisco's Perimeter Defense: Gonzaga averages 7.7 made three-pointers per game. If they can exploit San Francisco's perimeter defense, which allows opponents to shoot 32.6% from beyond the arc3, it could be a game-changer. Look for players like Nolan Hickman to make an impact from downtown. 

From the Predictive Model: 
However, this is just too many points based on my predictive model’s projections calling for San Francisco to shoot 45% or better form the field and have 17 or fewer turnovers. In past games when San Francisco has been priced as a double digit dog and meeting these projections has seen them go 5-13 SU and 15-3 ATS for 83% winning bets. 

San Diego vs Pepperdine 
7-Unit bet on Pepperdine priced as a 8-point favorite. 

The following NCAA basketball betting algorithm has produced an exceptional 28-18 SU and 29-16-1 ATS record for 64.4% winning bets since 2015. The requirements for this bet are: 

Bet on home teams. 

That home team has seen them lose to the spread by 50 to 60 points spanning their last 10 games. 

The opponent has seen their last five games play OVER by 30 or more points. 

The total is priced between 145 and 155 points. 

Maryland vs Nebraska 
7-Unit bet on Nebraska priced as a 1.5-point favorite. 

I prefer betting Nebraska using the money line. 

The following basketball betting algorithm has produced a 23-9 SU and 18-13-1 ATS mark good for 58% winning bets. The requirements are: 

Bet on favorites that have scored 75 or more points in each of their last three games. 

They are not ranked but their opponent is ranked. 

The opponent is coming off a game in which they scored 85 or more points. 

The game number is the 12th or beyond. 

If the game occurs after the 16th game, which is essentially the midway point of the season, these teams have gone 15-3 SU and 13-5 ATS for 72% winning bets. 

Get ready for an electrifying Big Ten showdown tonight as the Nebraska Cornhuskers host the Maryland Terrapins at Pinnacle Bank Arena in Lincoln, Nebraska! Tip-off is set for 8:30 PM EST, and you can catch all the action live on BTN. 

Key Matchups Favoring Nebraska 

Brice Williams vs. Maryland's Defense: Brice Williams has been on fire, averaging 19.4 points per game and scoring at least 20 points in his last four games. His ability to penetrate and score will be crucial against Maryland's defense, which has allowed opponents to shoot 41.7% from the field. 

Juwan Gary vs. Maryland's Frontcourt: Juwan Gary has been a consistent performer for the Cornhuskers, averaging 13.1 points and 5.0 rebounds per game. His matchup against Maryland's frontcourt, led by Julian Reese, will be pivotal. Gary's ability to score in the paint and grab offensive rebounds could give Nebraska the edge they need. 

Nebraska's Three-Point Shooting vs. Maryland's Perimeter Defense: Nebraska averages 7.3 made three-pointers per game. If they can exploit Maryland's perimeter defense, which allows opponents to shoot 30.9% from beyond the arc5, it could be a game-changer. Look for players like Ja'Kobi Gillespie to make an impact from downtown. 

Betting Odds and Total 

Spread: Nebraska -1.5 

Moneyline: Nebraska -125, Maryland +105 

Total: 147.5 points5 

Both teams are playing some of their best basketball of the season, making this a must-watch game. Nebraska is riding a four-game winning streak and boasts a strong home record of 10-2. Maryland, on the other hand, has won five of their last six games but has struggled on the road with a 2-5 record. 

Don't miss this thrilling Big Ten clash as the Cornhuskers look to extend their winning streak and make a statement against the Terrapins. 

William and Mary vs Hofstra 
7-Unit bet on W&M priced as a 1.5-point favorite. 

The following NCAA basketball betting algorithm has produced an exceptional 28-18 SU and 29-16-1 ATS record for 64.4% winning bets since 2015. The requirements for this bet are: 

Bet on home teams. 

That home team has seen them lose to the spread by 50 to 60 points spanning their last 10 games. 

The opponent has seen their last five games play OVER by 30 or more points. 

The total is priced between 145 and 155 points. 

If the game features two conference foes, these home teams have gone 23-14 SU and 24-12-1 ATS for 67% winning bets.  

Cal vs Duke 
7-Unit bet on Cal priced as a 23.5-point underdog. 

Supporting this bet on the Bears is the following algorithm that has gone 2-58 SU and 37-23 ATS for 62% winning bets since 2018. The requirements are:  

Bet on underdogs of 10 or more points.  

Our dog is coming off a double-digit loss to a conference foe.  

The opponent is coming off a road upset loss 

The total is 142.5 or lower. 

If our dog is playing on the road, their record has been 32-16 ATS for 67% winners.  

Tonight, the California Golden Bears (12-12) will face off against the Duke Blue Devils (20-3) at Cameron Indoor Stadium. This is the first ACC meeting between these two programs, and it promises to be an intriguing matchup. 

Key Matchups 

Jeremiah Wilkinson vs Tyrese Proctor: Wilkinson has been the most consistent scorer for Cal, averaging 19.8 points over the last six games. Proctor, on the other hand, is coming off a season-high 23 points against Clemson and has been shooting nearly 40% from beyond the arc. 

Andrej Stojakovic vs Cooper Flagg: Stojakovic, who averages 17.9 points per game, will be up against Flagg, who leads Duke in points, rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks. This matchup will be crucial in determining the game's outcome. 

Betting Trends and Angles 

Spread: Duke is favored by 23.5 points. The Blue Devils have covered the spread in 23 of their last 36 games, while Cal has covered in 9 of their last 14 away games3. 

Total Points: The over/under is set at 142.5 points. Duke ranks top-five in both adjusted offensive and defensive efficiency, while Cal has hit the team total over in 19 of their last 31 games3. 

Recent Results 

Duke: The Blue Devils are coming off a 77-71 loss to Clemson, which snapped their 16-game winning streak. Despite the loss, Duke remains a dominant force in the ACC. 

California: The Golden Bears have lost three of their last four games, including a 76-66 defeat to Wake Forest. Injuries have plagued Cal throughout the season, affecting their overall performance5. 

Requirements for California to Keep It Close 

Control the Pace: Cal needs to slow down the game and limit Duke's fast-break opportunities. By grinding the game to a halt and focusing on half-court sets, they can minimize Duke's scoring chances. 

Offensive Rebounding: Cal ranks 27th nationally in offensive rebounding percentage. They need to capitalize on second-chance points to stay competitive. 

Limit Turnovers: Taking care of the basketball is crucial. Cal has struggled with turnovers, and they must minimize live-ball turnovers to prevent easy points for Duke. 

Free Throws: Cal is 17th nationally in free throws made per game. They need to get to the line frequently and convert their free throws to keep the game within reach. 

While Duke is heavily favored, these strategies could help California keep the game within a 20-point margin. Enjoy the game!

Canisius vs Niagara 
7-Unit bet on Niagara priced as a  

The following college basketball betting algorithm has produced a 49-29 SU and 49-26-1 ATS record for 65% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are: 

Bet on any team coming off an upset win to a conference rival priced as a 6 or greater-point dog.. 

Their opponent is coming off back-to-back double-digit road losses. 

Tonight, the Canisius Golden Griffins (2-21) will face off against the Niagara Purple Eagles (9-14) at Gallagher Center in Lewiston, New York. The game is set to tip off at 6:30 PM EST and will be broadcast on ESPN+. 

Recent Results 

Canisius: The Golden Griffins are on a five-game losing streak, with their most recent loss coming against Merrimack by a score of 69-51. They have struggled throughout the season, with a 2-10 record in MAAC play. 

Niagara: The Purple Eagles have won two of their last three games, including a close 76-75 victory over Quinnipiac. They currently hold a 4-8 record in MAAC play. 

Key Matchups 

Paul McMillan IV vs Olumide Adelodun: McMillan IV is the leading scorer for Canisius, averaging 20.1 points per game. Adelodun, on the other hand, is a key player for Niagara, averaging 10.1 points and 5.4 rebounds per game. 

Tana Kopa vs Jaeden Marshall: Kopa is a sharpshooter for Canisius, averaging 12.7 points per game and shooting 42.4% from beyond the arc. Marshall has been consistent for Niagara, averaging 10.2 points over the last 10 games. 

Betting Trends and Angles 

Spread: Niagara is favored by 8.5 points. Canisius has struggled to cover the spread, with a 4-7 record as underdogs by 8.5 points or more. 

Total Points: The over/under is set at 136.5 points. Both teams have had games that exceeded this total, with Niagara and its opponents scoring more than 136.5 combined points in 10 games this season. 

Requirements for a Niagara Win 

Defensive Pressure: Niagara needs to maintain their strong defensive performance, holding opponents to 70.3 points per game. Limiting McMillan IV's scoring opportunities will be crucial. 

Rebounding: The Purple Eagles must dominate the boards, as Canisius ranks last in the MAAC in rebounds per game. Controlling the glass will limit second-chance points for the Golden Griffins. 

Efficient Shooting: Niagara should capitalize on their shooting efficiency, as they are shooting 44.9% from the field this season. Consistent scoring from Adelodun and Marshall will be key. 

Given these factors, Niagara has the potential to secure an easy double-digit win over Canisius tonight. 

Enjoy the game!

Air Force vs UNLV 
8-Unit bet on AF priced as a 14-point underdog. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 78-399 SU (16%) and a 270-196-1 ATS record good for 58% winning bets since 2014. The requirements are:  

Bet on road underdogs that have lost their last two games by double-digits.  

Both losses were to conference foes.  

They are avenging a same season loss.  

If our dog is priced between 11.5 and 17.5 points, has produced a 115-66-2 ATS record for 64% winning bets. 

Colorado vs Kansas 
8-Unit bet on UNDER currently priced as at 141.5 points. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 10-59 SU (15%) and a 40-29 ATS record good for 58%  and 48-21 Under good for %70 winning bets since 2014. The requirements are: 

Bet the UNDER priced between 140 and 150 points. 

The road team is coming off a double-digit loss. 

The road team is priced as a 6 or greater-point dog. 

The host is coming off a road loss priced as a favorite. 

No. 4 Tennessee vs No. 14 Kentucky 
10-Unit bet on Tennessee priced as a 3-point road favorite. 

Except for newcomers Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC, Kentucky has played the fewest home games priced as an underdog with only 13, among the 16 teams in the conference. Next in line is the Florida Gators having played 20 and Arkansas and Tennessee both with 36 home games priced as a dog. Kentucky has gone 6-7 SU and 8-5 ATS for 63% winning bets since 2006. Nine of these games were against aranked foe in which they went 2-6 SU and 4-4 ATS and all these opponents were ranked in the top10 at the time of the game. 

Team Records and Streaks 

Tennessee Volunteers: 

Straight-Up (SU) Record: 20-4 overall, 7-4 in SEC play. 

Against the Spread (ATS) Record: 15-9. 

Current Streak: The Volunteers are on a two-game winning streak, having recently defeated Missouri and Oklahoma. 

Kentucky Wildcats: 

Straight-Up (SU) Record: 16-7 overall, 5-5 in SEC play. 

Against the Spread (ATS) Record: 12-8. 

Current Streak: The Wildcats snapped a two-game losing streak with a decisive 80-57 victory over South Carolina. 

Key Matchups 

Chaz Lanier (Tennessee) vs. Otega Oweh (Kentucky): 

Lanier is Tennessee's leading scorer, averaging 17.7 points per game. His ability to score from anywhere on the court makes him a constant threat. 

Oweh, Kentucky's top scorer, averages 16 points per game and is known for his defensive prowess. This matchup will be crucial in determining the game's outcome. 

Zakai Zeigler (Tennessee) vs. Jaxson Robinson (Kentucky): 

Zeigler is a versatile guard who averages 13.2 points, 6.1 assists, and 2.2 steals per game. His playmaking ability will be key for Tennessee. 

Robinson, who has stepped up in the absence of Lamont Butler, will need to continue his strong play at the point guard position. 

Igor Milicic Jr. (Tennessee) vs. Amari Williams (Kentucky): 

Milicic Jr. has been on an offensive tear, averaging 16 points and 7.7 rebounds over the last three games. His inside presence will be vital for the Volunteers. 

Williams leads Kentucky in rebounding with 8.8 boards per game and will need to control the paint to give the Wildcats an edge. 

Team Statistics 

Tennessee Volunteers: 

Points Per Game: 74.8 

Points Allowed Per Game: 59.3 

Rebounds Per Game: 35.1 

Assists Per Game: 16.0 

Kentucky Wildcats: 

Points Per Game: 86.7 

Points Allowed Per Game: 76.6 

Rebounds Per Game: 33.3 

Assists Per Game: 16.9 

Game Prediction 

From the predictive model, Tennessee is expected to score at least 76 points and have 12 or fewer turnovers. In past games when Tennessee was avenging a same-season loss, scored 76 or more points, and had 12 or fewer turnovers has produced a 9-1 ATS record for 90% winning bets. 

East Texas A&M vs McNeese State 
8-Unit Bet on ETAM priced as a 19.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 78-399 SU (16%) and a 270-196-1 ATS record good for 58% winning bets since 2014. The requirements are:  

Bet on road underdogs that have lost their last two games by double-digits.  

Both losses were to conference foes.  

They are avenging a same season loss.  

If our dog is priced between 11.5 and 20 points and they lost the previous game to the current foe has r3esulted in a solid 130-76 ATS record good for 63% winning bets. 

Temple vs Memphis 
8-Unit bet on the OVER priced at 156.5 points. 
8-Unit Bet on Temple priced as 13.5-point underdogs. 

Consider betting 7-units on the Ove4r and 7 units on Temple and 2-units on a parlay betting Temple +13.5 points and OVER 156.5 points. 

The following NCAA basketball betting algorithm has produced a 56-26 OVER record good for 68% winning bets. The requirements are: 

Bet the OVER. 

The home team has won 15 or more of their past 20 games. 

That team has won 80% or more of their games. 

The opponent has a winning record. 

The total is priced between 150 and 160 points. 

Alabama vs Arkansas 
8-Unit bet on Arkansas priced as a 4.5-point underdog. 

The following college basketball betting algorithm has produced a 22-40 SU and 40-21-1 ATS record good for 66% winning bets since 2019. The requirements are: 

Bet on home dogs priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points. 

The road team has seen the Over exceed the total by 48 or more points spanning their 10 previous games.  

The road team has won 80% or more of their games. 

Florida vs Auburn 
8-Unit bet on the OVER priced at 157.5 points. 

The following college basketball betting algorithm has produced a 24-12 OVER mark good for 67% winning bets. The requirements are: 

Bet the OVER with a home favorite.  

The home teams have scored 80 or more points in each of their last three games. 

The road team is coming off a game in which they scored 85 or more points, which is also higher than their season-to-date scoring average. 

The total is between 155 and 165 points. 

If the game occurs in the second half of the regular season, the OVER has gone 9-3 for 75% winning bets. 

Rhode Island vs George Mason 
8-Unit bet on Rhode Island priced as a  

The following college basketball betting algorithm has produced a 70-36-1 ATS record good for 66% winning bets since 2019. The requirements are: 

Bet on road underdogs priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points. 

The home team has scored 65 or fewer points in three consecutive games. 

The road team has played two games that each had 155 or more points scored. 

St. Johns vs UCONN 
8-Unit bet on St. Johns priced as a 2.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA basketball betting algorithm has produced a 19-31 SU and 31-17-2 ATS record good for 65% winning bets since 2006. The requirements needed to validate a betting opportunity are: 

Bet on a home favorite ranked in the top 25. 

The road underdog is ranked in the top 25. 

The home team has covered the spread in three or fewer of their last 11 games. 

The favorite is playing with more rest than the opponent. 

The total is 140 or more points. 

Public Betting: 64% of public bettors are backing UConn. 
ATS Records: St. John's has a solid 14-8-0 record against the spread this season, while UConn is 6-11 ATS when favored by at least 2.5 points. 
Recent Performance: St. John's is on a nine-game winning streak, while UConn has won three of its last four games. 

Matchups and Requirements for St. John's Upset Win 

To pull off the upset, St. John's will need to: 

Control the Paint: UConn's Solo Ball and Alex Karaban are key scorers, so St. John's must limit their impact inside. 

Defensive Intensity: St. John's has a strong defensive rating and must maintain this intensity to disrupt UConn's offensive flow. 

Rebounding: Dominating the boards will be crucial for St. John's to limit UConn's second-chance points. 

Balanced Offense: St. John's needs contributions from multiple players, especially RJ Luis Jr., Zuby Ejiofor, and Kadary Richmond 

Key Players and Statistics 

RJ Luis Jr. (St. John's): Averaging 17.4 points, 6.6 rebounds, 2.4 assists, and 1.4 steals per game. 

Zuby Ejiofor (St. John's): Leading the team with 14.3 points, 8.3 rebounds, 1.0 assists, and 1.7 blocks per game. 

Solo Ball (UCONN): Averaging 15.0 points, 11 rebounds, and 3.5 assists per game. 

Alex Karaban (UCONN): Also averaging 15.0 points, 5.5 rebounds, and 2.0 assists per game. 

Bellarmine vs Northern Florida 
8-Unit bet on Northern Florida priced as a 11-point favorite. 

The following NCAA basketball betting algorithm has produced a 42-11 SU (79%) and 32-18 ATS mark for 64% winning bets since 2021. The requirements are:  

Bet on favorites that are coming off a win by three or fewer points.  

The opponent has allowed 85 or more points in their two previous games.  

If our favorite is priced between 1.5 and 11.5 points, they have gone 30-8 SU and 26-12 ATS good for 68% winning bets. In addition, if our favorite has won the last two meetings against the foe, they have gone 11-1 SU and 10-2 ATS for 83% winning bets. 

NC State vs California 
8-Unit bet on the NC State priced as a 2.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 78-399 SU (16%) and a 270-196-1 ATS record good for 58% winning bets since 2014. The requirements are: 

Bet on road underdogs that have lost their last two games by double-digits. 

Both losses were to conference foes. 

They are avenging a same season loss. 

If our dog is priced between pick-em and 9 points and lost the previous meeting against the current opponent priced as the favorite, they bounce back with a solid 55-30-5 ATS record good for 65% winning bets.  

Holy Cross vs Army 
8-Unit bet on Holy Cross priced as a 5.5-point underdog.  

The following NCAA Basketball betting algorithm has gone 13-29 SU and 28-14 ATS for 67% winning bets over the past 5 seasons. The requirements are:  

Bet on road underdogs priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points.  

The dog is coming off a loss priced as the favorite.  

The favorite is coming off a loss by three or fewer points to a conference foe.  

If this game is game number 20 or more of the season, our dogs have gone 9-13 SU and 15-7 ATS for 68% winning bets. If our dog is facing a conference foe they have gone 7-7 SU and 10-4 ATS for 71.4% winning bets. 

Notre Dame vs FSU 
8-Unit bet on Notre Dame priced as a 2.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA Basketball betting algorithm has gone 24-51 SU and 46-29 ATS for 61.3% winning bets over the past 5 seasons. The requirements are:  

Bet on road underdogs. 

The dog is coming off a loss priced as the favorite.  

The favorite is coming off a loss by three or fewer points to a conference foe.  

If this game is game number 20 or more of the season, our dogs have gone 22-49 SU and 44-27 ATS for 62% winning bets. 

Buffalo vs Toledo 
8-Unit bet on Buffalo priced as a 13.5-point underdog. 

The following college basketball betting algorithm has produced an 7-78 SU and 56-29 ATS record good for 66% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are:  

Bet on double-digit road dogs.  

The dog has been outscored by 8 or more PPG.  

They are facing a foe that has posted a scoring differential between –3 and +3 PPG.  

The favorite has seen their last two games combine for a total of 155 or more points in each game 

If the game takes place from game number 15 on out, these big dogs have gone 3-40 SU and 31-12 ATS for 72% winning bets since 2006. 

Texas A&M Corpus Christi vs East Texas A&M 
8-Unit bet on TAM Corpus Christi priced as a 7.5-point road favorite. 

The following NCAA basketball betting algorithm has produced a 72-21 SU (77%) and a 62-31 ATS record good for 67% winning tickets since 2006. This betting opportunity is defined by the following situations of these teams. 

Bet on favorites priced between 2.5 and 9 points. 

The game is at least the 16th one played during the regular season. 

The favorite is coming off a road loss priced as a favorite. 

The opponent is coming off a win by 20 or more points. 

If our favorite is priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points they have soared to a highly profitable 63-12 SU (84%) and 53-22 ATS record good for 71% winning bets. 

Colorado vs TCU 

8-Unit bet on Colorado priced as a 6.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA Basketball algorithm has produced a 70-38-1 ATS record good for 65% winning bets since 2020. The requirements are: 

Bet on dogs priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points. 

That dog has lost three straight games to a conference foe. 

The opponent is coming off a humiliating road loss in which the scored fewer than 60 points. 

Texas Tech vs Houston 
8-Unit bet Under the total currently priced at 128.5 points. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 46-17-3 Under good for 73% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are:  

Bet the Under in a game with a total priced between 123 and 130 points.  

The game is a matchup of teams that have won 80% or more of their games.  

One of the teams (Houston) is coming off a double digit win over a conference opponent.  

If both teams are ranked the Under has gone 19-6-2 for 76% winning bets. 

Indiana-Purdue vs Youngstown State 
8-Unit bet on the YST priced as an 10.5-point favorite. 

The following NCAA basketball betting algorithm has produced a 44-10 SU (82%) and 35-19 ATS mark for 65% winning bets since 2021. The requirements are:  

Bet on favorites that are coming off a win by three or fewer points.  

The opponent has allowed 85 or more points in their two previous games.  

If our favorite is priced between 1.5 and 11.5 points, they have gone 30-7 SU and 26-11 ATS good for 70% winning bets. In addition, if our favorite has won the last two meetings against the foe, they have gone 12-1 SU and 10-3 ATS for 77% winning bets. 

UCSD vs Hawaii 
8-Unit bet on UCSD priced as an 7.5-point favorite. 

The following NCAA basketball betting algorithm has produced a 15-12 SU (56%) and 19-6-2 ATS mark for 76% winning bets since 2020. The requirements are: 

Bet on winning record underdogs. 

The opponent has won 51 to 60% of their games. 

The opponent has lost to the spread by 18 or more points spanning their previous three games. 

If our dog is playing on four or fewer days of rest, they have gone 12-8 SU, and 14-4-2 ATS for 78% winning bets. 

Maine vs New Hampshire 
8-Unit bet on Maine priced as a 13.5-point favorite over New Hampshire. 

The following NCAA basketball betting algorithm has produced a 41-9 SU (81%) and 32-18 ATS mark for 64% winning bets since 2021. The requirements are:  

Bet on favorites that are coming off a win by three or fewer points.  

The opponent has allowed 85 or more points in their two previous games. 

 If our favorite is priced between 1.5 and 13.5 points, they have gone 25-6 SU and 23-8 ATS good for 74% winning bets. In addition, if our favorite has won the last two meetings against the foe, they have gone 11-1 SU and 10-2 ATS for 83% winning bets. 

Nevada vs Boise State 
8-Unit bet on Nevada priced as an7.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA Basketball betting algorithm has gone 16-30 SU and 32-13-1 ATS for 71% winning bets over the past 6 seasons. The requirements are: 

Bet on road underdogs priced between 3.5 and 9.5-points. 

Our dog is coming off a loss priced as the favorite to a conference foe. 

The home team is coming off a loss by three or fewer points to a conference foe. 

If this game is game number 20 or more of the season, our dogs have gone 11-13 SU and 18-5 ATS for 78% winning bets.  

Loyola Marymount vs Bucknell 
8-Unit bet on LMU priced as a 4.5-[point underdog. 

The following NCAA Basketball betting algorithm has gone 16-30 SU and 32-13-1 ATS for 71% winning bets over the past 6 seasons. The requirements are: 

Bet on road underdogs priced between 3.5 and 9.5-points. 

Our dog is coming off a loss priced as the favorite to a conference foe. 

The home team is coming off a loss by three or fewer points to a conference foe. 

If this game is game number 20 or more of the season, our dogs have gone 11-13 SU and 18-5 ATS for 78% winning bets. 

Kentucky vs Tennessee 
8-Unit bet on Kentucky priced as an 8.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA Basketball betting algorithm has gone 13-29 SU and 28-14 ATS for 67% winning bets over the past 5 seasons. The requirements are: 

Bet on road underdogs priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points. 

The dog is coming off a loss priced as the favorite. 

The favorite is coming off a loss by three or fewer points to a conference foe. 

If this game is game number 20 or more of the season, our dogs have gone 9-13 SU and 15-7 ATS for 68% winning bets.  

Nebraska vs 18 Wisconsin 
8-Unit Bet on Nebraska priced as 7.5-pointunderdogs. 

The following NCAA basketball betting algorithm has produced a 16-30 SU (35%) and 32-13-1 ATS mark for 71% winning bets since 2019. The requirements are:  

Bet on road underdogs priced between a 3.5 and 9.5-point underdog. 

The host is coming off a loss to a conference foe by three or fewer points and were the favorites. 

The road team is coming off a loss to a conference foe priced as the favorite. 

Oregon vs Minnesota 
10-Unit bet on Minnesota priced as a 4.5-point underdog. 

The following College Basketball betting system has produced a 13-8 SU and 17-3 ATS record good for 85% winning bets since 2019.  

Bet on a team that has not played in 10 or more days.  

That team is coming off an upset loss by 15 or more points. 

Game Details 

Date: Saturday, January 25, 2025 

Time: 1:00 PM PT 

Venue: Williams Arena, Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Broadcast: Big Ten Network 

Team Overview 

Oregon Ducks 

Record: 16-3 (5-3 in Big Ten) 

Key Players: Nate Bittle (13.6 PPG, 7.7 RPG), Jackson Shelstad (12.6 PPG, 2.8 RPG), TJ Bamba (10.2 PPG) 

Strengths: Depth and resilience, especially on the road. The Ducks have shown an ability to come from behind and win1. 

Recent Performance: Won 82-71 against Washington Huskies, with TJ Bamba leading the way with 21 points. 

Minnesota Gophers 

Record: 10-9 (2-6 in Big Ten) 

Key Players: Dawson Garcia (19.1 PPG, 7.5 RPG), Mike Mitchell Jr. (11.8 PPG, 2.8 RPG), Parker Fox (6.8 PPG, 2.6 RPG) 

Strengths: Strong rim protection (5.1 blocks per game) and ball control (10.4 turnovers per game). 

Recent Performance: Won 84-81 in overtime against Michigan Wolverines, with Dawson Garcia hitting the game-winning shot. 

Key Matchups 

Dawson Garcia vs. Nate Bittle: Garcia's scoring and rebounding prowess will be tested against Bittle's defensive skills and rebounding ability. 

TJ Bamba vs. Mike Mitchell Jr.: Bamba's recent scoring surge will be crucial against Mitchell Jr.'s defensive efforts. 

Oregon's Depth vs. Minnesota's Defense: The Ducks' depth and ability to score from multiple players will be a challenge, but a situation they will overcome, for the Gophers' strong defensive lineup. 

Kent State vs Ohio 
8-Unit bet on Kent State priced as a 1.5-point underdog. No money line in play here so stick to the points unless, of course, the line does move to pick-em or makes Kent State a favorite. 

The following College Basketball algorithm has produced a The requirements are: 

Bet against favorites that are averaging 78 or more PPG. 

That team trailed at the half by double-digits in each of their past two games. 

The opponent averages 67 to 74 PPG. 

If the favorite is priced between –1 and –4.5 points they have gone just 1-8-1 ATS for 11%. So, fading Ohio is the call.  

Villanova vs 10 Marquette 
8-Unit Bet Over the posted total currently priced at 142.5 points. 

The following college basketball betting algorithm has produced a 34-19 OVER record good for 64% winning bets since 2006. The requirements are: 

Bet the Over in a game priced between 140 and 149.5 points. 

The road dog is priced at 7.5 or more points. 

The dog has lost to the spread by 18 or more points over their previous three games. 

They have won between 50 and 60% of their games. 

The host has a winning record. 

The game is a conference matchup. 

Our dog is playing on two or more days of rest. 

If our dog lost their previous game priced as a favorite, then the OVER has gone 8-3 for 73% winning bets. 

Long Beach State vs Cal State Northridge 
8-Unit bet on LB State priced as a 12.5-point underdog. 

The following NCAA Basketball betting algorithm has produced a 4-42 SU record and a 30-16 ATS mark good for 65% winning bets since 2010. The requirements are: 

Bet on road teams priced as an 11 or more-point underdog. 

They are coming of upset loss. 

They lost their previous game by 15 or more points. 

They are playing on four or more days of rest. 

Miami (FLA) vs Stanford 
8-Unit bet on Stanford priced as a 11-point home favorite. 

The following NCAA basketball betting algorithm has produced a 41-9 SU (81%) and 32-18 ATS mark for 64% winning bets since 2021. The requirements are:  

Bet on favorites that are coming off a win by three or fewer points.  

The opponent has allowed 85 or more points in each of their two previous games.  

If our favorite is priced between 1.5 and 11.5 points, they have gone 25-6 SU and 23-8 ATS good for 74% winning bets.In addition, if our favorite has won the last two meetings against the foe, they have gone 11-1 SU and 10-2 ATS for 83% winning bets. 

Vanderbilt vs Alabama 
8-Unit bet on Vanderbilt priced as an 11.5-point underdog. 

Vanderbilt is in a good spot here to give Alabama a bit of a tassel and could even push Alabama to the wire. I like betting 7 units on Vanderbilt and one unit on the money line. If you are going to watch the game, then I would prefer to bet 5.5 units on Vanderbilt preflop, then add 2 units and 0.5 units on the money line if Alabama rips off 10+ unanswered points during the first half of action only. 

Vanderbilt brings their best when visiting Alabama and are riding a current 9-2 ATS win streak.  

The following College basketball betting algorithm has produced a 2-15 SU, but a solid 1205 ATS record good for 71% winning bets over the past five seasons. The requirements are: 

Bet on dogs priced between 10 and 19.5 points. 

The dog has won as many games as the favorite. 

Our dog was a winning record on the season. 

The opponent has won 80% or more of their games. 

The opponent has covered the spread in six or seven of their previous eight games. 

The Alabama Crimson Tide will host the Vanderbilt Commodores on Tuesday, January 21, 2025, at the Coleman Coliseum in Tuscaloosa. Both teams have had strong starts to the season, with identical records of 15-3 overall. Alabama holds a slight edge in conference play with a 4-1 record compared to Vanderbilt's 3-2. This game will mark the first meeting between the two teams in the current season's SEC conference play. 

Key Players and Their Impacts 

Alabama Crimson Tide 

Mark Sears (Guard): Averaging 18.9 points, 3.0 rebounds, and 4.8 assists per game. Sears is the central figure in Alabama's offense, known for his shooting capability with a 35.1% average from beyond the arc. 

Grant Nelson (Forward): Following a standout 25-point performance against Kentucky, Nelson averages 18.8 points and 6.8 rebounds per game4. His defensive rebounding prowess puts him among the top in college basketball. 

Mouhamed Dioubate (Forward): Contributing significantly to Alabama’s defensive efforts with 2.1 offensive rebounds per game. 

Clifford Omoruyi (Center): Dominating the paint with his height and rebounding skills, contributing both offensively and defensively. 

Vanderbilt Commodores 

Jason Edwards (Guard): Averaging 17.2 points per game with 2.2 rebounds and 1.3 assists. Edwards is a critical scorer for Vanderbilt and plays a vital role in their offensive strategy. 

Jaylen Carey (Forward): Known for his double-double abilities, Carey averages 14 points and 10 rebounds per game, providing essential support in the paint. 

Grant Huffman (Guard): Adding depth to the guard position, Huffman’s performance is crucial in high-pressure situations. 

AJ Hoggard (Guard): With a commanding presence in the backcourt, Hoggard’s playmaking abilities are instrumental for Vanderbilt. 

Statistical Comparison 

Scoring: Alabama leads the SEC with an astounding 90.2 points per game. Vanderbilt follows with a respectable 82.1 points per game. 

Defense: Alabama allows 78.3 points per game, while Vanderbilt is slightly more effective defensively, allowing only 67.8 points per game. 

Rebounding: Alabama averages 40.7 rebounds per game, ranking third in college basketball. Vanderbilt’s rebounding stats indicate a significant part of their game strategy, especially with contributions from players like Jaylen Carey. 

Assists and Turnovers: Alabama is strong in assists with 17.3 per game but struggles with turnovers (averaging 12.1 per game). This could be a critical factor against a team like Vanderbilt. 

Key Determinants for the Game 

Defense and Rebounding: Alabama's defensive rebounds and Vanderbilt's ability to limit Alabama's second chances could be game-changers. 

Backcourt Battle: The duel between guards like Sears for Alabama and Edwards for Vanderbilt will be pivotal in determining the pace and flow of the game. 

Three-Point Shooting: Alabama's shooting from beyond the arc and Vanderbilt's defense against it will significantly influence the offensive output. 

Bench Contributions: The depth of both teams' rosters and efficient bench contributions will help determine stamina and dynamics in the later stages of the game. 

Idaho vs Montana 
8-Unit bet on Montana priced as  

The following college basketball betting algorithm has gone 120-76ATS good for 61% winning bets since 2020.The requirements are: 

Bet on favorites priced between 3.5 and 9.5 points. 

The opponent has allowed 75 or more points in each of their last two games. 

The favorite has scored 65 or fewer points in each of their last two games. 

If the total is less than 150 points these teams have gone 77-27 SU (74%) and 61-39-4 ATS for 61% winners. Last, if it is a conference matchup, these teams have gone 47-16 SU and 37-23-3 ATS for 62% winning bets. 

With the high percentage straight up records in mind, betting 80% preflop and then looking to add the 20% remaining amount on Montana at pick-em or immediately following the first 10-point unanswered scoring run by Idaho is a exceptional strategy to execute. 

SMU vs Miami(FLA) 
8-Unit bet on SMU priced as a 5.5-point favorite. 

The following NCAA basketball betting algorithm has produced a 39-9 SU (81%) and 31-17 ATS mark for 65% winning bets since 2021. The requirements are: 

Bet on favorites that are coming off a win by three or fewer points. 

The opponent has allowed 85 or more points in each of their two previous games. 

If our favorite is priced at 9.5 or fewer points they have gone 21-6 SU and 20-7 ATS good for 74% winning bets. 

Queens University vs Florida Gulf Coast 
8-Unit bet on FGC priced as a 5.5-point favorite. 

The following NCAA betting algorithm has produced a 31-8 SU and 26-12-1 ATS record good for 68% winning bets since 2018. The requirements are:  

Bet on favorites between 3.5and 9.5 points.  

They have scored 75 or more points in five consecutive games.  

They are facing a foe off win by 30 or more points.