2010 College Hoops Previews: The Odds

Now that we're finally done discussing and rating the 73 power conference teams plus 12 others, it's time to recap the results. Today I'm going to compare our assessments to the conference odds posted at various books in an attempt to find some opportunities; I'm rather confident I discovered at least one good spot. Odds taken from BetUS (BU), VIP, SportsBetting (SB), and The Greek (TG).

Not much disagreement here. Duke at +250 could be a possibility, but I can't see there being a big enough edge there to wait it out until March; there's not much difference between them and Carolina, and there are enough teams hanging around in the upper .800s that could surprise that I don't think it's worth it.

The other odds that jump out, although not necessarily in a good way, are Georgia Tech's. Their short odds are clearly caused, legitimately or not, by Derrick Favors. We also may have underestimated GT, as I think when we did our ACC ratings we were putting too much stock in the automated projections. It will be interesting to see how much of a difference the freshman class can make on a team that was 2-14 in the ACC with a .725 Pomeroy rating (11th in the conference) last season.
There are some interesting prices here, but first I have to talk about the absurdity at SportsBetting, which is not reflected in the table above. Their odds fail to list either Connecticut or Cincinnati, and the Field is listed at 20:1. Considering the Huskies are no higher than +350 elsewhere, and you throw in Cincy for free when they're 30:1 most places, that's a pretty incredible price. Neither of those teams are the favorite, but we have UConn third, which could be higher if Ater Majok is eligible and effective during the conference season. Throwing Cincy in there is also worth something, as they return more from last year than any Big East team other than St. John's and West Virginia, and also add Lance Stephenson.
As far as normal odds go, I think UConn and Louisville are pretty overrated here because of their success last year, while the teams they return really aren't that comparable to their '09 squads. Apparently this doesn't happen if you lose over 70% of your scoring, as Pitt's odds are more reasonable. I think the value lies with West Virginia, which isn't surprising since their record (10-8) was held down last year by a bunch of close losses; they were only seventh in the Big East standings, but fourth among BE teams in Pomeroy.
Also: the Notre Dame odds are really funny.

The odds seem to indicate that we've underestimated Texas. I actually didn't think there was a huge difference between the Big 12's top two teams, with KU at .970 and UT at .935. Anyway, there doesn't look to be value in either of those two, and I'd be very surprised if the conference champ came from one of the other 10 squads.
With the two favorites clearly established, Minnesota is the interesting option here. It doesn't really make sense for their odds to be as high as they are; the Gophers are directly comparable to a team like Michigan, with the same Pomeroy rating and conference record last year, similar recruiting classes, and Minnesota losing less talent from '09 to '10. Unfortunately, all that really proves is that Michigan's odds suck. Maybe there's some value with Minnesota, but since they're significantly behind Purdue and MSU, and very similar to Ohio St. and Michigan, I'm not too confident.

I don't really understand how UCLA is the favorite here. They lost so much, and the offense is going to have to have a completely new look. That'd be okay if they had a huge recruiting class coming in, but they don't; their newcomers are just the 8th best group in the nation according to Scout, and 13th if you believe ESPN.
With Washington having lost nearly 40% of their scoring themselves, the door is clearly open for Cal. I do have my concerns about the Bears keeping up last year's incredible 3P shooting, but I definitely think they're the best team out west, and have greater than a 22% chance of winning the conference.
The Arizona State odds look good at first, since we do have them finishing fourth, but I have a hard time seeing much upside there. Harden and Pendergraph were such a huge part of their offense, which was the reason they were good last year. Losing them is going to kill their inside scoring, and there are going to be a lot more contested threes now that that's all opposing defenses really have to worry about.

I was quite surprised when I saw these odds. Even if you go by public perception, the Vols are only about six spots behind UK (#10-11 vs. #4-5). We have them about even; when you consider the inherent variability that comes with a team dominated by freshmen, how insane would you have to be to lay -800 with Kentucky? The Wildcats will probably end up winning the conference, but the value here clearly lies with Tennessee.

Even without Sidney, I'm surprised MSU isn't getting more credit here. Some of these other odds don't make much sense; is there any reason to think Mississippi is actually going to be good? Maybe if Huertas and Malcolm White were coming back, but they're not; the defense was 184th in the country even with White's impressive block percentage. Arkansas was also absolutely terrible last year (2-14 in conference, .596 KenPom), and they currently have all sorts of issues. Alabama was well below average last season themselves, and Auburn and LSU both lost a lot, which just leaves MSU, returning 97% of their '09 scoring. Despite the lack of hype, they seem like a much clearer favorite to me than, say, Kentucky, and the odds certainly don't reflect that.