2015 NCAA tourney betting guide

O’Brien. I will have some on Harvard plus-525 over North Carolina and Belmont plus-1200 over Virginia, but I’ll probably pass on Texas Southern and Lafayette at plus-2500 apiece over Arizona and Villanova.

Jay Kornegay’s top public teams

No. Seven-footer  Frank Kaminsky, 6-7 Nigel Hayes and 6-8  Sam Dekker are a handful for any frontcourt and will overmatch Coastal Carolina, whose top rebounder is 6-7 Badou Diagne. No. The same can be said for Purdue’s two 7-footers, Isaac Haas and A.J. No. They have a similar profile to the Mountaineers with poor outside shooting (31.9 percent 3-pointers) but the ability to hit the offensive boards (36.5 percent). Notre Dame

2.

No. No. Georgetown

UCLA plus-2 vs. Neither team will shy away from the transition game, but the opportunities will be limited, especially for Purdue as the Bearcats boast one of the best transition defenses I’ve seen this season. Notre Dame can score, but both teams play solid defense, allowing points in the 60s. The Ducks allowed 54.5 percent shooting the last game, an 80-52 loss to Arizona, and are 2-6 ATS following a loss of more than 20 points.

Below are the ATS records for every NCAA tournament team this season, along with each team’s SU record and average margin of cover.

Bettors can also use the public betting trends available on ESPN Chalk’s Live Odds page to track favorites receiving less than 50 percent of spread bets.

More money hits the market during the NCAA tournament than any other time in the sports betting calendar. Cyclones vs. 15 Belmont Bruins

No. 10 Davidson Wildcats

ATS pick: Butler +1.5

Wunderdog: Defense is key in March and Oklahoma State has it, as the Cowboys finished fourth in the Big 12 in points allowed, and fifth in field goal shooting percentage allowed this season. We’ve asked our experienced group of wiseguys, including Dave Tuley, Andrew Lange, Dave Solar, Geoff Kulesa of Wunderdog Sports and Sal Selvaggio what they’re looking at when handicapping the bracket and picking tourney games.

No. 11 Texas Longhorns

Westgate line: Utah -6

PickCenter consensus pick: 59 percent picked Stephen F. No. No. Coastal Carolina

No. 12 seeds against No. Iowa

Lafayette plus-23 vs. Wisconsin is tops in the Big Ten in points allowed, second in free throws, second in field goal shooting and rebound margin. At the time of publication, OSU was receiving just 24 percent of spread bets.

Westgate line: Wisconsin -18

PickCenter consensus pick: 65 percent picked Wisconsin

ATS pick: Belmont +16*

During the regular season, a majority of public bettors take the underdog in just 17.65 percent of games; that figure reaches 23.82 percent for the NCAA tournament. The Badgers come into the tourney fresh off a Big Ten title, winning every game by double digits. I don’t see any potential matchup where I’ll be fading them, starting with the opener, as UAB needed the home court to win the Conference USA tournament as the fourth seed to earn its dance ticket. Lafayette did play at Villanova in last season’s opener and was tied with eight minutes to play before losing by 16 points (75-59). 2 Gonzaga Bulldogs vs. Iowa State

5. They have great balance, with a strong frontcourt, while 6-4 junior Buddy Hield (17.5 PPG, 5 RPG) and 6-4 junior Isaiah Cousins (12.2 PPG, 5 RPG) run the backcourt and lead the team in scoring. 9 Oklahoma State Cowboys

Wunderdog: Wisconsin got off to a great start this season and hasn’t slowed down. In nonconference play, a number of NMSU’s games were in the high 60s to low 70s, possession-wise. Oklahoma State has excellent balance with 6-7 senior Le’Bryan Nash (17 PPG, 5.4 RPG) and 6-8 senior Michael Cobbins up front, plus junior Phil Forte III (15 PGG). Albany is on an 0-5 ATS run and will get stomped by the talented and well-coached Sooners.

Least profitable tournament coaches since 2005

Tuley: UCLA’s inclusion by the selection committee was the most vilified decision on Selection Sunday (especially when the Bruins were given a No.

ATS pick: Lafayette +23*

Westgate line: North Carolina -8.5

PickCenter consensus pick: 68 percent picked North Carolina

Westgate line: Arkansas -6.5

PickCenter consensus pick: 58 percent picked Wofford

Cincinnati plus-1 vs. As much as I and most bettors despise Rick Barnes, it’s important to recognize that the Longhorns have the better personnel in this matchup.

Westgate line: San Diego St. Belmont is probably most known for nearly beating No. Arizona

3. Buffalo

Wisconsin minus-18 vs. It all looks so easy that I hope it’s not one of those things that are too good to be true.

ATS pick: Harvard +8.5*

ATS pick: Gonzaga -16.5

Westgate line: Providence -TBD

PickCenter consensus pick:

Westgate line: Baylor -7

PickCenter consensus pick: 59 percent picked Baylor

No. 8 NC State Wolfpack vs. 14 UAB Blazers

By David Solar, SportsInsights.com

Tuley: Davidson has its best team since Stephen Curry led it to the Elite Eight in 2008, and this team might be even better overall. Indiana is a smoke-and-mirrors team that beat up on the weak and shot its way to wins at home — not a recipe for postseason success. 7 Wichita State Shockers vs. Arkansas won 10 of its last 13 games, and two of those losses were to Kentucky. For all of Texas’ length and size, the Longhorns were a solid, but hardly impressive plus-3.9 rebounds per game vs. The team was 1-3 SU and 2-2 ATS in their absence. 6 Butler Bulldogs vs. 2 Arizona Wildcats vs. The Terrapins rely an awful lot on Dez Wells and Melo Trimble, and I would expect Valpo to play some zone. I’m not buying this one. The Wolfpack are a tough matchup for a lot of teams with their three-guard attack of 6-3 junior Trevor Lacey (15.8 PPG, 4.4 RPG), 6-5 senior Ralston Turner (13.2 PPG) and sophomore Anthony Barber (12 PPG). 5 West Virginia Mountaineers vs. The Badgers are 42-20-1 ATS in nonconference games and 20-8-1 ATS in their past 29 neutral-site games. MAC opponents), but struggled to keep opposing teams off the glass. The Cowboys lost their previous game against Oklahoma and opened as a 1-point favorite against Oregon. NC State is also 31st in the nation in rebounds. Against the spread, I’ll stick with a recommendation on the Lumberjacks plus the points, but I’m not sure I’ll play it myself, so I can’t make it a best bet.

Westgate line: Georgetown -7.5

PickCenter consensus pick: 73 percent picked Eastern Washington

In last week’s conference tournament betting guide, we detailed a system that focuses on large underdogs in low-scoring games, and explained how public betting patterns change during the postseason. When dealing with mid-major teams, I’m hesitant to put much stock into nonconference play as a vast majority of games against power conference foes are played on the road. The higher the spreads go, the less convinced I am that the underdog will win outright, plus the more the books will shave off the true odds, so I won’t bet as much on the money line. When facing a winning team this season, UCLA was 17-6 hitting the under. While bettors overwhelmingly tend to take the favorite during the regular season, the NCAA tournament is a rare time when the public jumps all over the underdog.

No. 8 Cincinnati Bearcats vs. If Harvard can dictate the pace, the experienced Crimson could pull another upset or at least keep this within the spread.

ATS pick: Iowa St. Sure, the Super Bowl may take a larger handle than any individual game, but the cumulative number of bets taken during March Madness dwarfs even the mighty beast known as the NFL playoffs.

ATS pick: TBD

Lange: First thing’s first: Can Buffalo hang on to the basketball and rebound on the defensive end? No team in the MAC comes close to resembling West Virginia’s chaotic ways. Indiana

Maryland minus-4 vs. Coastal Carolina

Oklahoma St. 7 VCU Rams vs. That worked out well for me, but this year I’m hoping to be able to back Iowa State on a deeper run with Georges Niang & Co. The Great Danes lost 64-60 to Providence and 75-59 to UNLV. The Terps aren’t built to win by big margins, but this price appears cheap. 3 Notre Dame Fighting Irish vs. WVU’s Juwan Staten (knee) and Gary Browne (ankle) are still nursing injuries, but expected to play. The Sooners are also on a 10-3 SU run, and are 23rd in the nation in rebounds. 11 BYU/Ole Miss winner

Wisconsin minus-18 vs.

Tuley: This line has risen from 4.5 to 5.5 since wagering opened Sunday night, which isn’t too surprising as everyone knows how MSU coach Tom Izzo gets his teams to improve as the season progresses (and we all saw how the Spartans took Wisconsin to OT in the Big Ten title game). 4 seed, though it’s a moot point since they’re on a collision course with Louisville regardless).

Tuley: Well, this region is looking rather chalky so far, but I believe that ends here (though I do have some trepidation as Eastern Washington is becoming such a trendy pick). This team is 18-7-1 ATS after a loss, and 23-9-1 ATS on neutral courts. 16 Coastal Carolina Chanticleers

Enjoy and good luck.

ATS picks for every game

Lange: Arguably the best attribute to have with a double-digit underdog in the NCAA tournament is high-caliber shooters, and on paper, Northeastern has just that. The oddsmakers certainly think so, as they made Ohio State the favorite despite the seedings. But fear not: ESPN’s Chalk college basketball betting experts are here to help. However, I’ve seen this before where a team sneaks into the tournament and vindicates the selection committee (most notably VCU in 2011). Now, it’s a sliding scale. Georgia was on the bubble and secured its spot in the field by beating South Carolina in the SEC tournament, then sat second-leading scorer Kenny Gaines in the next game against Arkansas. Northern Iowa

No. You’re going to run into situations in the tournament where hot shooting beats good defense, but in this instance, I want my money on the far more complete basketball team. 1 Wisconsin Badgers vs. Coach Mike Brey is 11-3 hitting the under in NCAA tournament games at Notre Dame.

ATS pick: Maryland -4

Lange: It’s the time of year when identifying the better defensive team in a short-lined game puts you in solid position to cash tickets.

The second is specific to this NCAA tournament, with such a huge favorite in Kentucky. Austin

No.

South | West | Midwest | East South Regional

No. 2 Duke in 2008, but this year’s team was 25th in the nation from the floor at 47.6 percent, and won its last seven games, including an upset of Murray State to steal the OVC’s automatic bid. 9 Purdue Boilermakers

Wunderdog: NC State is on a nice 6-2 SU run coming into the Big Dance. 13 Harvard Crimson

ATS pick: Davidson +2*

ATS pick: Cincinnati -1

East Regional

Tuley: Gonzaga is hardly even considered a mid-major anymore; instead, it’s the poster child for programs like North Dakota State, which upset Oklahoma last year in the Seattle subregional. It’s a veteran team, too. Cincinnati chews up tons of clock trying to get the ball in the paint to Octavius Ellis. No. -1.5

West Regional

Westgate line: Louisville -9

PickCenter consensus pick: 53 percent picked UC-Irvine

Tuley: As we’ve all seen over the years, when an underdog is live during March Madness, they often pull the outright upset instead of just covering. If he’s not fully back in form (and he didn’t look like it in 26 scoreless minutes in the ACC tourney, including a miss on the possible game winner against North Carolina), that opens the door more for the Bruins.

ATS pick: Arkansas -6.5

Wunderdog: Northeastern/Notre Dame: under 141

Tuley: Everyone loves picking No. It took time, but Maryland’s offense looked improved the back half of the campaign. They challenged themselves in nonleague play with games at Wichita State, Wyoming, St. 3 Oklahoma Sooners vs. 7 seed and Ohio State at No. 9 St. 4 Louisville Cardinals vs. 4. Albany

NC State minus-1 vs. 14 Northeastern Huskies

No. Statistically, the Bulls are fairly sound in the turnover department (15.2 percent vs. No. 15 Texas Southern Tigers

With so few past system picks on the third tier of this system, it’s no surprise that there are no current game matches for the opening-round games. Villanova obviously has the talent edge, but it’s not a size mismatch like we usually see with 1-16 matchups. Austin is justifiably getting a lot of support as a live underdog, as it upset VCU last year in this round and a lot of people remember that and are looking for a repeat. Duke

7. underachiever (Texas). Arizona

Harvard plus-8.5 vs. Purdue

Notre Dame minus-12 vs. Tyler Kalinoski was the Atlantic 10 Player of the Year, but he’s far from the lone gunman as Davidson averages more than 10 3-pointers made (hitting at better than 40 percent from long range) and more than 80 points per game. This team is 312th in the nation in assists and its top rebounder is 6-6 Sam Rowley. UC Irvine has twin towers in 7-6 Mamadou Ndiaye and 7-2 Ioannis Dimakopoulos, but Louisville still has the matchup’s two best players in Terry Rozier and Montrezl Harrell despite all the players the Cardinals have lost. Gonzaga 6-foot-10 freshman Domantas Sabonis (9.5 PPG, 7 RPG), 7-1 junior Przemek Karnowski (11 PPG) and 6-10 junior Kyle Wiltjer (16.7 PPG) anchor an NBA-like frontcourt, while senior guard Kevin Pangos (11.5 PPG, 5 APG) gets things moving. -4.5

PickCenter consensus pick: 70 percent picked Michigan St. Below is a list of the best and worst coaches to bet on in the NCAA tourney this year and their corresponding ATS tourney records.

No. Some will say the Shockers are being punished for losing to Illinois State in the Missouri Valley semifinals. Purdue

West Virginia minus-4.5 vs. No. As an underdog under Steve Alford, the Bruins are 17-7 hitting the under.

Best and worst coaches to bet on

Westgate line: Villanova -23

PickCenter consensus pick: 53 percent picked Lafayette

No. When this team was also an underdog in its previous game, the number of past matches is reduced dramatically, but we’re left with a 27-11 ATS record (+14.5 units, 38.2 percent ROI).

ATS pick: TBD

Westgate line: Arizona -21.5

PickCenter consensus pick: 58 percent picked Arizona

Note: Picks marked with an asterisk (*) are best bets. But for the Aggies, it’s really all we have to go off considering they haven’t played anyone even remotely capable since beating UC Irvine at home in early January.

No. No. Oregon

Oklahoma minus-12 vs. Oftentimes, those “snubbed” teams go on to lose right away in the NIT and the “overseeded” teams live up to their billing, while “underseeded” teams put in disappointing showings. The Tigers turned it over 17 times to Auburn’s attacking guards, and this is an equally tough backcourt matchup.

Lange: This is a classic case of overachiever (Butler) vs. 4 North Carolina Tar Heels vs. No. He will not get outcoached. No. However, it troubles me that this line is so short (years ago, this would be well into double digits) and I’m just afraid that in the end, Baylor will win out. 9 LSU Tigers

ATS pick: Oklahoma St. 10 Ohio State Buckeyes

No. 1 Villanova Wildcats vs. No. 12 seed). Stephen F. 7 Iowa Hawkeyes vs. This is the best and most balanced Gonzaga team yet, playing in its backyard, so I can’t get on the NDSU bandwagon.

Westgate line: Northern Iowa -7.5

PickCenter consensus pick: 60 percent picked Wyoming

Perhaps bettors consider all tournament participants to be upper-echelon teams and are content taking the points regardless of opponent. 13 UC Irvine Anteaters

Our theory posits that when an underdog pulls off an unlikely upset, square bettors have difficulty accepting the team’s new role as a favorite. No. No. The Tigers have to be feeling the role of Cinderella, and I think they can stay within the huge number.

Wunderdog: Gonzaga (18-1 at Westgate, bet down to 15-1)

No. Another thing working for the underdog is that Lafayette coach Fran O’Hanlon is a Nova alumnus and there’s a chance the Wildcats won’t want to embarrass O’Hanlon by running up the score.

Andrew Lange:

Tuley: This game is a contrast in styles, as St. 6 Xavier Musketeers vs. No. No. ACC opponents). Interesting side note in that for all the flack Barnes and the Longhorns have taken, they have an identical 17-13 ATS record as Butler. No. 12 Wyoming Cowboys

Championship title odds

Best title value bets

No. No. 11 seed and pretty far removed from the bubble). However, this puts Shaka Smart and his VCU program in the underdog role, where they’re more comfortable. The public has mostly bet against UCLA, as this line opened SMU minus-2 at several books and is up to 3.5 at most books and even 4 at a few as of late Monday night. Hammons. Valparaiso

The 10 teams, according to Kornegay, lead bookmaker at the Westgate Las Vegas SuperBook, and his staff, that are the most popular teams to wager on as the tourney begins.

As the spreads get higher, the points are more likely to come into play and I’ll bet a smaller percentage on the money line: Georgia plus-210 over Michigan State and Eastern Washington plus-280 over Georgetown. The Bulldogs held a plus-7.3 rebounds-per-game edge in Big East play — 3.9 rebounds per game better than second-best Providence.

Eastern Washington plus-7.5 vs. However, I’m really high on Utah with its inside-outside tandem of guard Delon Wright and 7-foot center Jakob Poeltl, and this number looks a little short (again, because of the support for SFA as an ever-popular No. 12 Buffalo Bulls

What this guide contains:

Westgate line: Texas -1.5

PickCenter consensus pick: 62 percent picked Texas

To be added after the Boise State-Dayton “First Four” game on Wednesday in Dayton, Ohio.

Andrew Lange: Bettors are faced with handicapping a dreaded “non-boarded” team here, as New Mexico State won the oddball WAC.

Westgate line: Maryland -4

PickCenter consensus pick: 69 percent picked Maryland

ATS pick: Notre Dame -12

ATS pick: Stephen F. 14 Albany Great Danes

No. Kentucky

4. 4 Georgetown Hoyas vs. 5 Arkansas Razorbacks vs. Coach Lon Kruger is outstanding, knowing how to get his team focused and prepared, and he’s very strong at in-game adjustments. Whatever the reason, our historical archive reveals a distinct change in public betting behavior.

Tuley: Every year, there are a few teams that get snubbed or a few teams that get overseeded or underseeded and cause heated discussions. This is one of those instances, and it provides a very strong favorite laying a very reasonable price.

ATS pick: Texas Southern +21.5*

Westgate line: NC State -1

PickCenter consensus pick: 64 percent picked NC State

To summarize our handicappers’ best bets (lines are from the Westgate SuperBook as of Tuesday morning):

No. Spartans vs. No. 16 North Florida/Robert Morris

To be added after the Hampton/Manhattan “First Four” game on Tuesday in Dayton, Ohio.

No. This is a long-winded way of saying that the committee put VCU in at a No. 3 Baylor Bears vs. It almost always yields a better payoff, plus it gives you the option along the way to pull out profits or to stop altogether if there’s a key injury or something.

Coaching is a huge part of any sport, but particularly in college basketball. Kansas

10. Austin team in the first round, but the Utes play a very good brand of basketball that fits the tournament setting. 14 Georgia St Panthers

This is a high total — the third highest on the board in the opening round. 10 when a lot of people would argue those should be switched.

I think it’s important not to punish NMSU too much for its conference affiliation, as the program recruits well and has been on solid footing throughout the Marvin Menzies era. The American has some weak teams, but I give the Bearcats small edges on both sides of the ball. Aztecs vs. The Zags just won the West Coast Conference by winning two games 79-61 and 91-75. But except for Lawrence Alexander, NDSU is far inferior to the team that nearly made the Sweet 16 last year, and frankly, it wouldn’t be in the field if it hadn’t won the Summit Conference tournament. The Utes are underseeded by most respected metrics, and the committee didn’t do them any favors matching them up against a tough Stephen F. Wyoming made a nice run through the Mountain West Conference to steal a bid, but Northern Iowa has moved beyond that “Cinderella” category into a team that wouldn’t be a shock if it made the Sweet 16 (in fact, an argument could be made that the Panthers should be the No. However, we do have a Tier 2 match on Oklahoma State. The Bulldogs obviously missed him on both ends of the floor, and it probably kept them from winning that game and finishing second in the league tourney to Kentucky. No. 6 Providence Friars vs. With public support shifting, we theorized that there would be value fading these so-called “trendy underdogs.”

Utah would be the only tourney future I see to hold a little bit of value. 1 Kentucky Wildcats vs. The Bulldogs have more than enough talent to hang with Duke and Kentucky.

ATS pick: Northern Iowa -7.5

Tuley: I liked Iowa State last year and was bummed when the Cyclones ran into another hot team that I was in love with (UConn) in the Sweet 16. Big 12 opponents. Wisconsin is 4-0-1 ATS in its past five NCAA tournament games. 2 seed Duke last year). Kansas is at its best in transition, and I would expect it to push the pace and pull New Mexico State along.

Maddux Sports:

With more than 9.2 quintillion possible NCAA tournament brackets, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed. John’s Red Storm

. The issue is that Northeastern hasn’t faced an offense even remotely close to that of the Irish. The reason for this is if your team gets to the Final Four and you want to hedge, you’re gonna be paying a huge price to hedge with Kentucky on the money line.

The first would be that instead of betting the fixed-odd futures to win the title, bet the money line in the first game your team plays and roll over your winnings through all six games. 10 Indiana Hoosiers

Lange: From a betting perspective, the Terrapins went from underrated heading into Big Ten play (4-2 ATS start) to overrated after sweeping Michigan State (which went on a 1-8 ATS slide), and then back to underrated following six straight covers heading into the Big Dance. For short-priced dogs, I might just bet only the money line with Davidson plus-120 over Iowa, VCU plus-145 over Ohio State or UCLA plus-150 over SMU, as I’m basically picking them because I believe they will win.

One reason for this phenomenon may be that bettors are used to taking upsets in their brackets, making them more likely to gravitate toward the underdog. 8 Oregon Ducks vs. Unfortunately, this system would also include teams that were an underdog during their last conference tournament game. 5 Utah Utes vs. We all know the Harvard kids are smart, but Crimson have also won opening-round games each of the past two years. Villanova

Belmont plus-16 vs. And while the level of competition in the Colonial (the 19th-rated conference, according to Sagarin) wasn’t all that stiff, Notre Dame isn’t known for its defensive prowess (1.07 points per possession allowed vs. Oregon leans too much on offense, as the Ducks were 10th in the Pac-12 in points allowed and ninth in rebounding defense this season.

ATS pick: Wichita State -6

Westgate line: Michigan St. And I like the public dog, too. No. SMU held opponents to fewer than 60 points per game this season — ranked in the top 20 in the nation. Bison

Mark Few has had a lot of great players and teams at Gonzaga, but this may be his best. 7 Michigan St. LSU

Tuley: I’m conflicted on this game. North Carolina

VCU plus-2 vs. No. minus-6 vs. It’s that lack of depth that has me looking to play against them in the next round, but not in this one.

ATS pick: San Diego St. However, the one thing in Butler’s favor is its ability to win the battle on the boards. 12 Wofford Terriers

Using Sport Insights’ Bet Labs software, we found that tournament favorites that receive less than 50 percent of spread bets have gone 86-65 ATS (+16.24 units won, 10.8 percent ROI) over the past 10 years. As a team, the Huskies shoot 52.9 percent from 2, 38.8 percent from 3 and 72.4 percent from the free throw line. The WAC was one of the slowest conferences in the country, with the “fastest” team averaging 61.6 possessions per game in league play. Northeastern

Wichita St. Mary’s, Baylor and Colorado State (average loss: 8.8 PPG). The Wolfpack match up well with an LSU squad that is on a 6-4 SU run, bowing out fast in the SEC tourney (a 73-70 OT loss to Auburn as a 9-point favorite). No. And Mick Cronin’s absence won’t be as magnified with Purdue playing a nearly identical brand of basketball. John’s will likely stick with its four-guard lineup and push the pace while San Diego State will try to slow it down and control the game with its huge front line — especially compared to SJU with just 6-foot-6 Sir’Dominic Pointer to match up with 6-10 Skylar Spencer, 6-8 Winston Shepard and 6-7 J.J. Austin +6

Westgate line: Oklahoma -12

PickCenter consensus pick: 56 percent picked Oklahoma

No. 2 Kansas Jayhawks vs. Michigan St. 2 Virginia Cavaliers vs. If bettors are willing to take a 12-seed over a 5-seed straight up, it makes sense that they would also be willing to bet the 12-seed getting points.

Texas Southern plus-21.5 vs. +1*

Midwest Regional

Tuley: A lot of people are picking this game as this year’s mega-upset (like Mercer over No. However, I think what gives Belmont a chance to at least cover is that Virginia’s leading scorer,  Justin Anderson, is coming back slowly from a broken finger and an appendectomy. But I’m going contrarian here. On offense, they are strong in free throw shooting (76 percent), which is always a plus when games are close. Austin Lumberjacks

No. North Carolina has every possible edge, but the Tar Heels don’t always show up, and they were just 14-13-1 ATS before finishing the season 5-2 ATS. Larry Krystkowiak is one of the best coaches in the game and will hold an advantage over most on the sidelines. 15 North Dakota St. This isn’t your typical Valpo team, as the Crusaders play at a plodding pace and win with defense (0.94 points per possession allowed). 11 UCLA Bruins

To be added after the BYU-Mississippi “First Four” game on Tuesday in Dayton, Ohio.

ATS pick: UCLA +2*

Westgate line: Kentucky -TBD

PickCenter consensus pick: TBD

No. They also scored a favorable venue with Omaha and a short four-hour drive north from their campus.

Westgate line: Iowa St. 16 Hampton/Manhattan winner

1. 3 Iowa St. 1 Duke Blue Devils vs. Utah can play with anybody sans Kentucky in this field.

Tuley: This isn’t like one of the Louisville teams we’ve grown accustomed to seeing in recent years, and they look fade-able, but it looks like the committee did the Cardinals a favor with this seeding and matchup. The state of college basketball — slower, and lower scoring — makes it so “superior” teams aren’t always asked to cover big numbers. SEC Player of the Year Bobby Portis (yes, he won over all those Kentucky blue-chippers) and his teammates love to run, and I just don’t see Wofford keeping pace.

No. Texas Southern comes in with 11 straight wins and covered the first two games in the SWAC tourney before winning but failing to cover in the title game, though that was a weird case (their opponent, Southern, was put on probation so the Tigers were going to be going dancing regardless of the outcome). No. 15 New Mexico St Aggies

ATS pick: Baylor -7

Pick: over 131

ATS pick: TBD

ATS pick: Wisconsin -18*

No. -12

PickCenter consensus pick: 54 percent picked Iowa St. Michigan State

9. No.

Westgate line: Kansas -11

PickCenter consensus pick: 60 percent picked Kansas

No. Besides, a lot of people think the Hoyas are overseeded; in fact, the BPI had them as a No. However, the Wildcats are only 2-3 ATS when laying 20 points or more, so this seems to be the tipping point. All that stuff aside, we can only handicap the games in front of us, and while SMU is a solid team, I am convinced that if UCLA plays like it did against Arizona in the Pac-12 semifinals, the Bruins will be able to pull the upset here.

ATS pick: NC State -1*

NCAA tournament teams, 2014-15 records

Westgate line: Gonzaga -16.5

PickCenter consensus pick: 54 percent picked North Dakota St. The Red Storm will really miss suspended 6-10 shot-blocker Chris Obekpa. Albany got here by winning the America East, but didn’t step up in competition much. They’ve lost two games all year: an OT loss at Arizona and a 3-point loss to BYU, the No. 13 Eastern Washington Eagles

Westgate line: Notre Dame -12

PickCenter consensus pick: 60 percent picked Notre Dame

Dave Tuley:

Westgate line: West Virginia -4.5

PickCenter consensus pick: 52 percent picked West Virginia

ATS pick: TBD

ATS pick: VCU +2*

ATS pick: Louisville -9

No. A year ago at this time they played American in the opening game and won 75-35, allowing only 29 percent shooting.

Lange: How is either team going to score? Both squads are tremendous at packing the paint, contesting shots and rebounding. Ohio St. 11 Boise St./Dayton winner

ATS pick: Oklahoma -12*

Westgate line: Xavier -TBD

PickCenter consensus pick: TBD

Westgate line: Virginia -16

PickCenter consensus pick: 58 percent picked Belmont

No. While managing egos seems to be the largest challenge for NBA coaches, imparting fundamentals and turning five talented individuals into one cohesive unit are just two of the struggles facing college coaches. Furthermore, they’re playing their best basketball of the season right now, winning the Atlantic 10 title, and they will be taking on a turnover-prone Buckeyes team.

No. In the end this is a very even matchup, but I think the Bearcats are still the play, even being bet to favoritism.

Westgate line: SMU -2

PickCenter consensus pick: 67 percent picked SMU

ATS pick: West Virginia -4.5

The table below summarizes the results of our analysis.

UCLA averaged more than 80 points per game at home this season, but just 62.7 on the road — a difference of more than 18 points per game. The Cowboys come in off a bad offensive game against Oklahoma, but they are 6-1-1 ATS after scoring fewer than 50 points in their previous game. 13 Valparaiso Crusaders

To be added after the North Florida-Robert Morris “First Four” game on Wednesday in Dayton, Ohio.

Wunderdog: You know what you’re going to get out of Oklahoma. 5 Northern Iowa Panthers vs. -12

Cincinnati plus-1 vs. 10 Georgia Bulldogs

Westgate line: Oregon -1

PickCenter consensus pick: 60 percent picked Oregon

Selvaggio: Utah (75-1 at CG Technology; 60-1 at Westgate)

Teams I would consider: Iowa State at 9-2 to win the South and Baylor at 10-1 to win the West.

Fading the trendy underdog

o picks for every NCAA tourney game on Thursday and Friday

o ATS records for every tourney team

o the best 2015 NCAA title value bets 

o Vegas handicappers’ best ATS bets, upset picks and over/under bets

o the best system bets from David Solar of Sports Insights

o the best and worst coaches in the tourney to bet on

o the top 10 public teams according to Jay Kornegay of the Westgate Las Vegas SuperBook

Tuley: Georgia State is an interesting underdog as it plays well on the defensive end, holding 11 opponents under 30 percent shooting this season. I don’t think Buffalo will be overwhelmed, as they held halftime leads on the road at Kentucky and Wisconsin, but West Virginia is an extremely hard team for which to prepare. A lot of NCAA underdogs have used a stellar defense to pull upsets or cover spreads against more athletic teams. 12 Stephen F. Offensive rebounding and garbage points are musts for Butler, because Texas is a fairly strong defensive team in the half court. 4 Maryland Terrapins vs. -1.5

PickCenter consensus pick: 65 percent picked San Diego St. If you’re playing any other team and don’t want to parlay game to game (maybe you’re betting in Vegas and won’t be back after the opening weekend), bet the odds to win the regional (see below) instead of the odds to win the whole thing. 6 seed instead of a No. But I don’t expect Arizona to rack up a ton of points and run up the score, either. 2 offensive team in the nation. 5 (and for good reason), but I think the oddsmakers had this right when they opened Northern Iowa as a 7.5-point favorite. SDSU’s inside game and stubborn defense (the Aztecs allow just 53.1 points per game, ranked second in the nation) should get the job done.

ATS pick: Eastern Washington +7.5*

Wunderdog Sports:

No. 16 Lafayette Leopards

Tuley: I have two things to say about betting futures.

Tuley: Here’s another 5-12 matchup, with the public looking to the underdog to pull an upset. This addition leads to a 12-2 ATS record with +9.45 units won and a 67.5 percent ROI.

Most profitable tournament coaches since 2005

Westgate line: Ohio St. 8 San Diego St. No. No. Iowa has a big size advantage, but unless Davidson goes stone cold, I don’t see the Hawkeyes being able to use that enough (at 2 points at a time) to keep up with the Wildcats.

UCLA/SMU: under 134

ATS pick: Georgia +4.5*

Westgate line: Cincy -1

PickCenter consensus pick: 61 percent picked Cincinnati

Westgate line: Wichita State -6

PickCenter consensus pick: 55 percent picked Wichita St. Everyone is buying into the hype of the nation’s leading scorer, Tyler Harvey (22.9 PPG), and that the Eagles get to play in their home state while Georgetown has to travel all the way across the country from the “other” Washington. Virginia

Georgia plus-4.5 vs. -2

PickCenter consensus pick: 58 percent picked Ohio St. No. Anyway, the added rest should help Gaines and put Georgia as a live underdog.

Westgate line: Iowa -2

PickCenter consensus pick: 53 percent picked Davidson

Tuley: I don’t expect Texas Southern to give Arizona too much of a scare as they’re overmatched talent-wise and don’t have a superstar or even a true big man. (Note: I am considering playing Georgia State plus-4.5 in the first half, though that still seems a little short.

No. Not one I’m going to overthink here, as Butler is worth a play as an underdog, preferably at plus-2.

Tuley: Villanova is for real, and hard to bet against at 24-9 ATS. I say they caught a break by facing super-soft Indiana and a likely date against a reeling Kansas squad in the second round. No. SMU

Davidson plus-2 vs. No. To eliminate these teams, we focused solely on teams that won their previous game. No. Since Butler left in 2011, the last three Big Dance participants from the Horizon lost by margins of 15, 11 and 20 in the first round.

No. Gonzaga

8. Wisconsin

6. If anyone asks if I think my dog has a chance to win outright, I’m going to say, “Of course!” On most of my plays, I’ll add a little something on the money line. They also have a tremendous amount of size, with a frontcourt that features players standing 7-3, 6-10, 6-9 and 6-8. 6 SMU Mustangs vs. The Mountaineers’ success in the “first meetings” in Big 12 play (6-3 SU/ATS) suggests we look their way.

Westgate line: Duke -TBD

PickCenter consensus pick: TBD

Tuley: This line climbed from UNC minus-9 to minus-10, and I liked it more and more — until it got bet back to 8.5. No. minus-1 vs

NBA bets on winning back fans | Reuters

Since the Rockets made Yao the top selection in the 2002 NBA draft, the towering 7ft 6ins center has blossomed into one of the NBA’s most dominant players and one of world’s most recognizable athletes.

NEW YORK After a summer spent expanding its global brand with exhibition games from Shanghai to Rome, the NBA opens a new season on Tuesday looking to win back home fans following a gambling scandal which rocked the sport to its core.

While restoring integrity will be the NBA’s newest priority, the goal for the league’s 30 teams remains the same — winning a title.

Yao, however, could be in for some stiff competition off the court following the arrival of compatriot Yi Jianlian, who has hogged the international spotlight since the Milwaukee Bucks took the seven-footer with the sixth overall selection in this year’s draft.

Stung by the failure, James dedicated himself to an off-season of intense training in his bid to guide the Cavaliers to the championship and secure his place among the game’s greats.

Trade rumors have once again started to circulate, the Chicago Bulls reportedly making another bid for Bryant.

Garnett, who came to Boston in a blockbuster trade with the Minnesota Timberwolves, joins Ray Allen and Paul Pierce in Beantown, instantly transforming the crumbling Celtics into championship contenders.

In Dwyane Wade and Shaquille O’Neal the Miami Heat still pack the NBA’s best one-two punch and if the two all-stars can stay healthy another championship could be headed to South Florida.

San Antonio will be part of the opening night action against the Portland Trail Blazers and the Utah Jazz take on the Golden State Warriors.

Over the last decade, none have been better at collecting championships than the San Antonio Spurs, who enter the new campaign seeking their fifth title in 10 years.

By Steve Keating

| NEW YORK

NBA commissioner David Stern dismissed the incident as nothing more than a rogue employee but the league must now concentrate on regaining the confidence of American and Canadian fans instead of wooing interest abroad.

The aging Spurs will have a familiar look with 12 players back from last year’s squad, former league and playoff MVP Tim Duncan leading an all-star international cast that includes Frenchman Tony Parker and Argentine Manu Ginobili.

After spending much of summer demanding a trade, Bryant is expected to be on the floor for the Lakers despite a wrist injury that kept him out of the team’s final exhibition contest.

LeBron James is no stranger to the spotlight and is certain to be the focus of attention again after leading the Cavaliers to the NBA finals for the first time last year only to be swept in four games by the Spurs.

There appears, however, to be a new powerhouse taking shape in the Eastern Conference with 10-times all-star Kevin Garnett’s arrival in Boston.

The Phoenix Suns and their high-octane offence led by twice MVP Steve Nash, once again look the best in the West alongside the Spurs and Dallas Mavericks.

Referee Tim Donaghy’ admission he bet on games he officiated and passed on inside information to bookies has inflicted severe damage to the NBA’s credibility with the toll likely to mount as investigations continue.

The Miami Heat and Detroit Pistons also look ready to figure into the Eastern Conference battle.

The night’s other matchup will see two of the league’s marketing dynamos clash when Kobe Bryant and the Los Angeles Lakers host Yao Ming and the Houston Rockets.

8 Surprising Facts About Parenting, Genes and What Really Makes Us Who We Are

This allows researchers to determine whether differences in genes or differences in the environment in a particular population are associated with more of the differences in observed behavior.

Heritability Depends Entirely On Context

Because heritability is a population statistic, it has nothing to say about the individual. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 11, 201-211.

This Blogger’s Books and Other Items from…

Heritability Doesn’t Necessarily Have To Do With Biology

The fact that both our genes and our environment contribute to who we are and depend on each other is actually quite a good thing! Give too much control to our environment or our genes, and we lose free will. But all that we actually inherit from our parents are our genes and our genes’ (and our) environments, factors that then construct full-blown traits during development. You get picked first for the basketball team, whereas your smaller friends may not get picked at all. Psychological Science, 14, 623-628.

We hope these eight facts have cleared up some misunderstandings. Unfortunately, careful consideration of these statistics suggests that they might not be applicable in any meaningful way, and so, consequently, are uninteresting at best and misleading at worst.

Deary, I.J., Penke, L., & Johnson, W.

In fact, the least heritable features of human nature may be those that appear to be the most genetically determined! Consider the fact that having 5 fingers on each of our hands is not a particularly heritable characteristic (because most finger number variations in humans are attributable not to genetic variation, but to variations in experiences, such as accidents). The causal route from genes to behavior is often very complex!

In 1990, Thomas J. It makes no sense to ask whether a particular individual’s intelligence has been more determined by nature or by nurture. This would give you more experience in basketball, which increase the chances you’d get picked first for another team. Because traits that are 100 percent heritable can nonetheless be strongly influenced by environmental factors, it is not the case that a trait found to be heritable in a particular twin study will be passed from a given pair of parents to their children. Genes could “account for” 100 percent of the variability in a trait in a particular twin study, but this does not mean that environmental factors are therefore unimportant in the development of the trait; parents still matter and will always matter.

[Genes] are devices for extracting information from the environment. After all, if everyone were raised in an identical environment, variations in their psychological characteristics couldn’t possibly be accounted for by anything other than variations in their genes (since there would be no variations in their developmental environments); the more variation in environments that twins in twin studies are exposed to, the lower the heritabilities we should expect to find.

Bouchard, , T.J., Lykken, D.T., McGue, M., Segal, N.L., & Tellegen, A. As Moore puts it in his journal article:

In reality, all biological and psychological characteristics are constructed during development, when genes interact with local environmental factors that can be influenced by the broader environment. As already stated, every trait develops through the interplay of genes and the environment. (2003). It’s possible for many traits to involve gene-environment correlations. Science writer Matt Ridley has put it this way:

Bouchard’s study, along with many others, has painted a consistent picture: Genes matter. Nonetheless, it is quite obvious that genetic factors play a role in determining the number of fingers we have on each of our hands!

Twin studies partition the variance in nature and the variance in nurture. Those who repeatedly don’t get picked for the basketball team may invest in other skills, such as physics or art. Nature and nurture are complementary, not at odds.

Heritability depends on the amount of variability in the environmental factors that contribute to a trait. (2009). The rich tend to get rich, and the poorer tend to get poorer. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 217-220.

Of course, we could just aim to measure all of the environmental factors that might affect the development of a trait. But it is not at all obvious prior to developmental analysis which environmental factors might make important contributions to the development of specific traits, so that approach would leave us measuring a seriously unwieldy number of variables.

It turns out that parenting matters, just in a way different than originally assumed. a trait like height, which is highly heritable in most developed nations, is very affected by environmental factors, like diet). Naked DNA (or RNA) is simply not sufficient to produce psychological or biological traits.

Take the most essential element: a child needs to be raised in a family, almost any kind of family, to develop the ability to speak a language. Beyond heritability: Twin studies in behavioral research. Genes are the mechanisms of experience.

Because the development of behavioral and psychological characteristics can be influenced by experiential factors in ways that are unpredictable from casual observation, we cannot hope to happen to measure — through sheer lucky guesswork — which environmental factors contribute importantly to the development of those characteristics; we first need to understand the mechanisms by which those traits develop.

In one study, Eric Turkheimer and colleagues studied 320 pairs of 7-year-old twins who were raised in extreme poverty. Consequently, it doesn’t matter how heritable a trait is; if development of the offspring occurs in a different environment than the parent developed in, most bets are off.

The authors of many twin studies have claimed that the environments experienced by twins (or any two siblings) do little to create differences in intelligence and personality as adults. Just because a variable doesn’t vary doesn’t mean it has no causal impact on a particular outcome.

Even so, the findings from twin studies should not be understated; it counters many a prevailing belief that we are born into this world as blank slates, completely at the mercy of the external environment. Hence, such studies are unable to generate satisfying understandings of the factors and processes that contribute to the development of intelligence.

This raises a deeper point: Depending on what you hold constant, you can either show a genetic contribution or an environmental contribution. (1990). Let’s imagine that a study of alcoholism in the United States finds that the vast majority of the variation in people’s tendencies to drink to excess can be accounted for by variation in their genes. Because our psychological characteristics reflect the physical structures of our brains and because our genes contribute to those physical structures, there are unlikely to be any psychological characteristics that are completely unaffected by our DNA. The Flynn effect should be a reminder of just how much the environment matters, even after completely controlling for genes (by looking at IQ changes across generations).

Johnson, W., Turkheimer, E., Gottesman, I.I., & Bouchard, T.J., Jr. Furthermore, identical twins reared apart were eerily similar to identical twins reared together on various measures of personality, occupational and leisure-time interests, and social attitudes.

At the very least, heritability tells us how much of the variation in IQ can be accounted for by variation in genetic factors when development occurs in an exquisitely specific range of environments. Genes vary within any group of people (even among the inhabitants of middle-class in Western society), and this variation contributes to variations in these people’s behaviors. Consequently, in this study, the heritability of IQ was reported to be close to zero! Among the richest, however, the heritability of IQ approached what Bouchard found: Variations in the genes accounted for most of the differences in IQ scores, and the shared environment accounted for very little of the variance. Even though the proliferation of advanced statistical techniques (such as structural equation modeling) and the implementation of additional controls have allayed some of the concerns, they haven’t allayed all of the them.

Adoption studies and twin studies do not entail the purposeful manipulation of either specific genes or specific environmental factors. A currently active area of research is the study of epigenetics, and how the many interacting genes that make up any trait are differentially activated depending on the environment. Among the poorest, the shared environment accounted for most of the differences in IQ (60 percent), and the genes accounted for very little. Genes matter to the extent that they support parenting, because like any other behavior, parenting behaviors are influenced by the genes. Parents matter to the extent that they support the expression of genes.

Parents Matter, And Will Always Matter

The parenting factors that are statistically associated with differences between individuals should never be confused with the parenting factors that cause the development of a trait within an individual. Therefore, gene-environment interactions are understood to drive the development of all of our characteristics.

Twin Studies Do Not Reveal The Causes Of Intellectual Development

Because adoption and twin studies that seek to account for trait variation in terms of genetic and environmental variation are always correlational, they reveal nothing about the causes of the appearance of the traits.

The Actual Heritability Value Simply Does Not Matter

Some of the most well-known behavioral geneticists, including Thomas Bouchard, Jr., recognize that it’s time to move beyond heritability estimates. The studies say nothing about how they matter, or which genes matter, but they show quite convincingly that they indeed do matter. (2003) The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of “Nature vs. The problem is that our understanding of the factors that contribute to the development of human traits in general — and to IQ in particular — is currently so deficient that we typically do not know if the environmental factors important in the development of a particular trait are stable across testing situations, vary somewhat across those situations, or vary wildly across those situations.

The heritability of a trait can vary from 0.00 to 1.00, depending on the environments from which research participants are sampled. We often talk as if we “inherit” full-blown traits from our parents, like eye colors, nose shapes and shyness. However, David S. Every minute, every second, the pattern of genes being expressed in your brain changes, often in direct or indirect response to events outside the body.

Does Heritability Have Any Practicality?

Genes, By Themselves, Can’t Determine Anything

Many psychologists continue to compute heritability statistics without questioning what exactly it is that they reveal to us. Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of twins reared apart. But does this mean that the variable “has a family” doesn’t matter in determining whether or not a person develops the ability to speak a language? Of course not! That’s like saying that water has no influence on a fish’s development because all fish live in water. There is reason to believe that under more dire circumstances, the heritability of IQ would be significantly lower than that reported by Bouchard. Nurture.” New York, NY: Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.

It’s important to keep in mind that the route from genotype (genetic makeup) to phenotype (observed behavior) is hardly ever clear-cut. and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota published a striking finding: About 70 percent of the variance in IQ found in their particular sample of identical twins was found to be associated with genetic variation. Nature and nurture are inextricably intertwined, and it’s time for science to figure out how.

Moore, D.S.. The neuroscience of human intelligence differences. Since every single person in twin studies checks that box — that is, they are raised in a family of some sort — this factor never varies and thus does not predict differences in ability to speak a language. This study points to the fact that estimates of heritability depend on the sample that is studied, and the environment of that sample.

Unfortunately, findings from twin studies are often misunderstood, misinterpreted and blown out of proportion — not just by the media, but even by serious scientists who get their work published. The Flynn effect — the dramatic rise in IQ witnessed in the 20th century — is a good example of that. Because we know that genes play some role in the development of any trait, the precise heritability estimate doesn’t matter in a practical sense.

Turkheimer’s study should also be a reminder that just because something is heritable doesn’t mean it’s immutable. Somehow, this finding translates to the media as “parenting doesn’t matter.” This couldn’t be farther from the truth.

Therefore, when it comes to understanding the development of a trait in a particular person, nature can never be separated from nurture. If we then take a baby, newly born to a pair of alcoholic American parents, and raise it in a small village in southern India where it never encounters alcohol across its lifespan, it will not develop alcoholism. This cycle continues to magnify observed ability differences in basketball between those who keep getting opportunities to increase their skills and those who didn’t get picked that first time. Moore has argued that even this is not significant when we realize that the magnitude of any heritability statistic reflects the extent of variation in unidentified non-genetic factors that contribute to the development of the trait in question.

Let’s be clear: Twin studies have received much criticism.

None of the twins in Bouchard’s study were reared in real poverty, were raised by illiterate parents, or were mentally retarded. (2010). To put things in perspective, I teamed up with the well-known developmental psychologist at Pitzer College, David S. Imagine if you were born slightly taller than others (maybe you don’t have to imagine this!). Science, 250, 223-228. Likewise, as can be seen from the example below, genetic factors influence the development of non-heritable traits just as much as they influence the development of highly heritable traits.

Even if a population of individuals were to develop in a range of environments believed to be the same as that in which a particular study was conducted, the results of that study would not allow us to predict developmental outcomes in the new range of environments because the environmental factors that the researchers originally focused on — and controlled for — might not be the relevant environmental factors at all.

It’s very easy to imagine how slight genetic predispositions can get magnified through the course of development by the environment. The way we work gives us choice.

Heritability Is Not The Same As Heredity

Heritability does not tell us how likely it is that people’s characteristics will be inherited by their children. After reading these facts, it might be reasonable to ask, “Does the heritability coefficient have any practical value?”

Instead, the crucial environmental factors might remain unmeasured, and consequently, variability of those factors across the new range of environments could easily be very different than the variability of those factors across the environments sampled in the original study.

Because we cannot assess the variability (across our testing environments) of all the yet-to-be-identified non-genetic factors that influence IQ, Moore argues that estimates of the heritability of IQ are effectively uninterpretable and unable to be applied in any appropriate way. The point is that both are always contributing to the development of any trait, and context matters in which accounts for more of the differences in a trait.

Heritability Says Nothing About Whether Intelligence Is More Determined By Genes Or The Environment. The idea here is that environments set off an appetite in the genes that nudges individuals to engage in certain experiences, and the environment then responds in a reciprocal fashion that reinforces an individual’s nature. Bouchard, Jr. Moore, to list eight facts about genes, twin studies, and the heritability statistic that may come as a surprise to many people — even biologists!

Environmental factors influence the development of highly heritable traits just as much as they influence the development of non-heritable traits (i.e. Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. The genes and environment eventually become correlated.

Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., Onofio, B, & Gottesman, I.I