[DeucesUp]

EZ,

Even if NoChance is tired of discussing it, I think it's interesting to try to break down this system and I'll play along with you.

Personally I like the idea of this system. It seems to be based on sound principles, that is the betting public overvalues ranked teams just because they're ranked. They may be even more inclinded to bet them if they're getting points, perhaps taking the naive view that "heck, I'm getting points so that cancels out any home court advantage" even if they're only getting a point or two which we know doesn't overcome HCA. This might explain why unranked favs are preferred. The linesmakers know that they're going to get a lot of action on ranked dogs, so when they put one out there, they want to make sure the ranked dog is the WRONG side.

The thing is, I've been looking at these games all year and I just haven't seen any of the value you'd hope to be getting. Using power rankings, RPI, Sagarin rankings, my own assessment of the teams, common opponents, everything I've looked at there hasn't systematically been any value on the unranked favorite. Indeed, more often than not I've found value on the ranked dog, and I've bet against the system quite a bit this year.

The only thing I can come up with is that it is some sort of intangible motavation factor, which could also make sense. Teams are especially motivated to beat ranked teams, particularly at home. The crowd is going to be fired up for a game against a ranked team. So I could understand why the stats and rankings might not tell the whole story.

But if this was the reason, it seems, as you've suggested, that home unranked dogs would fit the scenario just as well. The unranked dogs might even fit better since the ranked team might overlook a game in which they're the favorite and might be looking ahead to a tougher game. The ranked team is unlikely to overlook a game in which they're a dog.


I do think it's important to continue to evaluate the system, not because of the results this year -- they're statisically insignificant and the system may be working as well as ever, but as you point out EZ things may have changed. Perhaps a lot of people (or a few big bettors) are following this system hence the books have removed some of the value from the unranked favs. Maybe the betting public is better informed. These days even a pretty unsophisticated bettor may take a look at the RPI ratings and may think twice when they find out the unranked team is as strong as the ranked team. This might not have been the case even a few years ago as, until recently, the RPI was just some secret formula the committee used for NCAA tourney seeding, but now I think most sports fans are aware of it and can easily find it on the internet. Maybe the poker craze had has brought a lot more analytically minded people into sports betting and betting public as a whole doesn't follow the "square" mold quite as well as they used to. Who knows, but I do think one should at least consider these ideas before blindly following a system.

Anyway, I've enjoyed following the system even if I don't entirely buy into it and I hope NoChance continues to bring the games to our attention. Definitely worthwhile no matter what the results.