John Ryan

Bucks vs Kings 
7-Unit bet on the Bucks priced as a 2-point underdog. 

The following NBA betting algorithm has earned a 36-21 SU (63%) and 35-19-3 ATS good for 65% winning bets since 2017. The requirements are: Bet on any team priced between a 3.5-point favorite and a 3.5-point underdog. That team is coming off a win by 20 or more points. The opponent has scored 115 or more points in three consecutive games. 

Washington vs Knicks 
7-Unit bet on Washington priced as 15.5-point underdogs. 

The following NBA betting algorithm has produced a 37-77 SU record and a 74-39-1 ATS mark good for 65.5% winning bets since 2015. The requirements are: Bet on road teams that have lost the last three meetings to the current foe. That road team is coming off a double-digit home loss. If our road team is priced as a double-digit underdog, they have gone 36-15-1 ATS for 71% winning bets and if our dog is playing with two days or more of rest, they have gone 9-1-1 ATS for 89% winning bets over the past 10 seasons. If our dog is playing no zero days of rest, they have gone 15-5 ATS for 75% winning bets. 

Tennessee vs UCLA 
7-Unit bet on Tennessee priced as a 5.5-point favorite. 

After the Round of 64, favorites of not more than 9.5 points that are ranked in the top 10 and facing an unranked foe have gone a stellar 14-4 ATS for 78% winning bets.  
Tennessee vs. UCLA Game Preview: March 22, 2025 – NCAA Tournament Round of 32 

Today, Saturday, March 22, 2025, the No. 2 seed Tennessee Volunteers (28-7) take on the No. 7 seed UCLA Bruins (23-10) in a highly anticipated Round of 32 matchup at 9:40 p.m. ET on TNT/truTV, live from Rupp Arena in Lexington, Kentucky. With a Sweet 16 berth on the line, Tennessee comes in as a 5.5-point favorite, riding the momentum of a 77-62 dismantling of Wofford in the first round. UCLA, fresh off a 72-47 rout of Utah State, will look to slow down the Vols’ relentless attack. However, Tennessee’s elite defense, superior rebounding, and offensive firepower are poised to overwhelm the Bruins, setting the stage for a commanding double-digit victory. Here’s a breakdown of the key matchups and analytics that will fuel Tennessee’s dominance. 

Game Overview 

Tennessee enters this contest with a clear identity: a physical, defensively suffocating team that thrives on forcing mistakes and capitalizing on the glass. The Vols rank No. 5 in KenPom’s adjusted efficiency, blending a top-3 defense (adjusted defensive efficiency: 91.2) with a top-20 offense (adjusted offensive efficiency: 117.8). UCLA, ranked No. 22 overall by KenPom, boasts a stout defense (No. 15 in adjusted defensive efficiency) but lags offensively (No. 27). The Bruins’ slow tempo (No. 305 in adjusted pace) and reliance on mid-range shooting will struggle against Tennessee’s aggressive, turnover-forcing style and rebounding edge. With an over/under of 132.5, expect Tennessee to dictate the game and pull away decisively. 

Key Matchups 

Tennessee’s Backcourt Firepower vs. UCLA’s Defensive Pressure 

Players to Watch: Chaz Lanier (G, Tennessee) and Zakai Zeigler (G, Tennessee) vs. Dylan Andrews (G, UCLA) and Skyy Clark (G, UCLA) 

The Breakdown: Tennessee’s guard tandem of Lanier and Zeigler is a nightmare for opponents. Lanier torched Wofford for 29 points, including 6-of-13 from three, and leads the Vols with 18.0 points per game. Zeigler, the program’s all-time assists leader, posted a 12-point, 12-assist double-double in the opener, showcasing his elite facilitation (5.2 assists per game) and pesky defense (2.1 steals per game). UCLA’s backcourt, led by Andrews (7.1 points, 3.5 assists) and Clark (10.8 points), excels at forcing turnovers (22.7% rate, No. 7 nationally), but their offense lacks the punch to match Tennessee’s firepower. The Vols rank 80th in three-point attempt rate and shoot 36.5% from deep, exploiting UCLA’s compact defense that allows the 25th-highest three-point rate. Tennessee’s guards will dictate the tempo and bury the Bruins from beyond the arc. 

Tennessee’s Rebounding Dominance vs. UCLA’s Frontcourt 

Players to Watch: Igor Milicic Jr. (F, Tennessee) and Felix Okpara (F, Tennessee) vs. Tyler Bilodeau (F, UCLA) and Eric Dailey Jr. (F, UCLA) 

The Breakdown: Tennessee’s rebounding prowess (33.3 rebounds per game, +5.8 margin) will overwhelm UCLA’s modest frontcourt (30.1 rebounds per game, +1.2 margin). Milicic Jr. (6.8 rebounds per game) and Okpara (5.9 rebounds) anchor a Vols squad that thrives on second-chance opportunities, ranking No. 62 in offensive rebounding percentage (31.2%). UCLA’s Bilodeau (9.1 points, 5.1 rebounds) and Dailey Jr. (10.4 points, 4.8 rebounds) are solid, but the Bruins rank 228th in defensive rebounding percentage, struggling to box out physical teams. Tennessee’s 17-2 record when outrebounding opponents signals a clear path to dominance here, as they’ll turn extra possessions into points. 

Tennessee’s Defensive Intensity vs. UCLA’s Ball Movement 

Players to Watch: Jahmai Mashack (G, Tennessee) vs. Lazar Stefanovic (G, UCLA) 

The Breakdown: Tennessee’s defense, ranked No. 3 in adjusted efficiency, forces turnovers on 19.8% of possessions and limits opponents to a 44.9% effective field goal percentage (No. 12 nationally). Mashack, a lockdown defender, neutralizes top perimeter threats (like he did with Wofford’s Corey Tripp), and his 9 points and 7 rebounds off the bench against Wofford highlight his two-way impact. UCLA’s offense leans on ball movement (No. 15 in assist rate, 61.2% of field goals assisted), with Stefanovic (9.2 points, 38% from three) as a key cog. However, Tennessee allows the 56th-lowest assist rate, suffocating team-oriented attacks with isolation pressure. The Bruins’ mid-range-heavy approach (38% of shots) will falter against the Vols’ elite interior defense, led by Okpara’s shot-blocking (1.8 blocks per game). 

Analytics Driving Tennessee to a Double-Digit Win 

Defensive Efficiency Edge 

Tennessee’s No. 3 ranking in adjusted defensive efficiency dwarfs UCLA’s No. 15 mark. The Vols hold opponents to 41.2% from two-point range (No. 8 nationally) and excel at contesting shots without fouling (opponent free-throw rate: 26.8%, No. 32). UCLA’s offense, which scores just 74.1 points per game (No. 168), will struggle to crack 60 against this suffocating unit, as evidenced by Tennessee’s 22-8 opening run against Wofford. 

Rebounding and Second-Chance Points 

The Vols’ +5.8 rebounding margin and 31.2% offensive rebound rate will punish UCLA’s weaker glass game (27.4% defensive rebound rate allowed). Tennessee averages 11.8 second-chance points per game in wins, and against a Bruins team that surrendered 10 offensive boards to Utah State, this disparity will balloon the scoreline. 

Turnover Exploitation 

UCLA forces turnovers at a top-10 rate, but Tennessee counters with a top-50 turnover percentage (15.9%) and thrives off opponents’ mistakes (19.8% turnover rate forced). The Vols’ 17-1 record when winning the turnover battle underscores their ability to turn Bruins miscues into fast-break points, where they average 13.2 points per game (No. 72 nationally). 

Offensive Versatility 

Tennessee’s balanced attack (No. 20 in adjusted offensive efficiency) features Lanier’s scoring (18.0 PPG), Zeigler’s playmaking (5.2 APG), and Jordan Gainey’s spark off the bench (11.3 PPG). The Vols shoot 49.8% inside the arc and 36.5% from three, exploiting UCLA’s defense that allows 34.8% from deep (No. 228). With a 22-4 record as moneyline favorites, Tennessee thrives when it can dictate terms. 

Prediction 

Tennessee’s suffocating defense will stifle UCLA’s deliberate offense, while their rebounding edge and guard play turn this into a rout. Lanier and Zeigler will exploit the Bruins’ perimeter vulnerabilities, and Milicic Jr. will dominate the boards, leading to a barrage of second-chance points. UCLA’s slow pace and mid-range reliance play right into Tennessee’s hands, as the Vols’ physicality and depth wear them down. Expect Tennessee to jump out early, build a double-digit lead by halftime, and cruise to a statement win. 

Final Score Prediction: Tennessee 78, UCLA 59 
Tennessee rolls to a 19-point victory, advancing to the Sweet 16 with a dominant performance that showcases their championship pedigree. The Vols’ rebounding, defense, and offensive versatility will leave UCLA reeling, setting up a blockbuster matchup in Atlanta. 

St. Johns vs Arkansas 
5-Unit bet on St. Johns priced as a 6.5-point favorite. 

After the Round of 64, favorites of not more than 9.5 points that are ranked in the top 10 and facing an unranked foe have gone a stellar 14-4 ATS for 78% winning bets. 

St. John’s vs. Arkansas Game Preview: March 22, 2025 – NCAA Tournament Round of 32 

Today, Saturday, March 22, 2025, the No. 2 seed St. John’s Red Storm (31-4) face off against the No. 10 seed Arkansas Razorbacks (21-13) in a Round of 32 showdown at 2:40 p.m. ET on CBS, live from Amica Mutual Pavilion in Providence, Rhode Island. With a Sweet 16 berth in San Francisco on the line, St. John’s enters as a 7.5-point favorite, fresh off an 83-53 thrashing of Omaha in the first round. Arkansas, meanwhile, pulled off a 79-72 upset over Kansas, but the Razorbacks now face a juggernaut in St. John’s, whose elite defense and relentless pressure are poised to overwhelm them. Here’s a breakdown of the key matchups and analytics that will propel the Red Storm to a commanding double-digit victory. 

Game Overview 

St. John’s has been a force all season, boasting a 31-4 record and a No. 8 national ranking in average scoring margin (+13.3). Under legendary coach Rick Pitino, the Red Storm rank No. 1 in KenPom’s adjusted defensive efficiency (88.9) and No. 10 overall, blending suffocating defense with an efficient offense (No. 64 in adjusted offensive efficiency). Arkansas, in John Calipari’s first year, has shown flashes of brilliance, finishing 8-10 in SEC play and riding a late-season surge (5-2 in their last seven). However, the Razorbacks’ middling offense (No. 72 in adjusted efficiency) and turnover issues will be exposed against a St. John’s team built to dominate. With an over/under of 144.5, expect the Red Storm to hold Arkansas well below their scoring average, paving the way for a blowout. 

Key Matchups 

St. John’s Defensive Backcourt vs. Arkansas’ Guard Play 

Players to Watch: Kadary Richmond (G, St. John’s) and RJ Luis Jr. (G, St. John’s) vs. D.J. Wagner (G, Arkansas) and Boogie Fland (G, Arkansas) 

The Breakdown: St. John’s boasts one of the nation’s most disruptive backcourts, led by Richmond (10.8 points, 5.1 assists, 2.2 steals) and Luis Jr., the Big East Player of the Year (18.5 points, 7.2 rebounds). Against Omaha, Luis erupted for 22 points, including 5-of-8 from three, while Richmond’s on-ball pressure fueled a 16-turnover night for the Mavericks. Arkansas counters with Wagner (11.2 points) and the returning Fland (9.8 points), who combined for 19 points against Kansas. However, the Razorbacks rank No. 135 in turnover percentage (17.8%), and St. John’s forces turnovers on 23.6% of possessions (No. 4 nationally). Richmond and Luis will hound Arkansas’ guards, turning mistakes into transition buckets and burying the Hogs early. 

St. John’s Interior Presence vs. Arkansas’ Frontcourt 

Players to Watch: Zuby Ejiofor (F, St. John’s) vs. Jonas Aidoo (F, Arkansas) and Trevon Brazile (F, Arkansas) 

The Breakdown: Ejiofor (8.2 points, 5.8 rebounds) anchors a St. John’s frontcourt that outrebounded Omaha 38-26, showcasing their physicality. Arkansas relies on Aidoo (11.8 points, 6.9 rebounds), who dropped 22 points against Kansas, and Brazile (8.9 points, 5.8 rebounds), who added 11 points and 12 boards. The Razorbacks rank No. 5 in blocks per game (5.6), but St. John’s counters with a top-10 two-point defense (43.8% allowed) and a +5.2 rebounding margin. Ejiofor and company will neutralize Arkansas’ size, limiting second-chance points (Arkansas’ 31.1% offensive rebound rate ranks No. 66) and forcing the Hogs into a perimeter game they can’t win (28.4% from three, No. 312). 

St. John’s Full-Court Pressure vs. Arkansas’ Ball Security 

Players to Watch: Jahmai Mashack (G, St. John’s) vs. Johnell Davis (G, Arkansas) 

The Breakdown: Mashack, a defensive specialist off the bench, exemplifies St. John’s relentless press, which held Omaha to 25.7% shooting. Davis, Arkansas’ leading scorer (13.4 points), hit a clutch three to seal the Kansas win, but he’s turnover-prone (2.1 per game). The Red Storm’s full-court chaos—evident in their 17 points off turnovers against Omaha—will exploit Arkansas’ shaky ball-handling. The Razorbacks struggled against Kansas’ zone, and Pitino’s history of mixing defenses will fluster them further, leading to empty possessions and a widening gap. 

Analytics Driving St. John’s to a Double-Digit Win 

Defensive Efficiency Dominance 

St. John’s No. 1 adjusted defensive efficiency (88.9) is a class above Arkansas’ No. 18 mark (95.4). The Red Storm have allowed 75+ points just twice in their last 20 games, while Arkansas averages 76.7 points per game (No. 148). Against Omaha, St. John’s clamped down for a 50-25 second half, and they’ll replicate that suffocation, holding Arkansas under 65 points. 

Turnover Differential 

St. John’s forces turnovers at a top-5 rate (23.6%) and thrives in transition (14.8 fast-break points per game, No. 42). Arkansas, conversely, ranks No. 135 in both turnover percentage (17.8%) and turnovers forced (15.9%). The Red Storm’s 29-2 record when winning the turnover battle highlights their ability to turn Arkansas’ sloppiness into a rout—expect 15+ points off turnovers. 

Rebounding Edge 

St. John’s +5.2 rebounding margin and No. 38 defensive rebounding percentage (73.1%) will neutralize Arkansas’ frontcourt advantage. The Razorbacks grabbed 13 offensive boards against Kansas, but St. John’s physicality limited Omaha to 8. With a 26-2 record when outrebounding foes, the Red Storm will dominate the glass and starve Arkansas of second chances. 

Offensive Balance 

St. John’s shoots 47.8% from the field (No. 51) and 35.8% from three (No. 88), with five players averaging 8+ points. Luis’ 18.5 points per game and 5.2 free-throw attempts will exploit Arkansas’ No. 256 free-throw defense (67.8% allowed). The Red Storm’s 29-2 record as moneyline favorites (-305 here) underscores their consistency, while Arkansas is just 7-10 as underdogs. 

Prediction 

St. John’s will impose their will from the opening tip, leveraging their top-ranked defense to dismantle Arkansas’ offense. Richmond and Luis will overwhelm the Razorbacks’ backcourt, forcing turnovers and fueling a transition attack that Arkansas (No. 80 in transition defense) can’t stop. Ejiofor will anchor the paint, shutting down Aidoo and Brazile, while the Red Storm’s depth (10 players saw action vs. Omaha) wears down Arkansas’ thin seven-man rotation. Expect St. John’s to lead by double digits at halftime and pull away in the second half as Pitino’s squad executes a clinic in physicality and precision. 

Final Score Prediction: St. John’s 80, Arkansas 61 
St. John’s cruises to a 19-point win, advancing to the Sweet 16 for the first time since 1999. The Red Storm’s defensive mastery and offensive versatility will leave Arkansas reeling, cementing St. John’s as a legitimate title contender. 

Drake vs. Texas Tech Game Preview: March 22, 2025 – NCAA Tournament Round of 32 

Today, Saturday, March 22, 2025, the No. 3 seed Texas Tech Red Raiders (26-8) square off against the No. 11 seed Drake Bulldogs (31-3) in a Round of 32 matchup at 6:10 p.m. ET on TNT, live from INTRUST Bank Arena in Wichita, Kansas. With a Sweet 16 berth in San Francisco on the line, Texas Tech enters as a 7.5-point favorite, coming off an 82-72 victory over UNC Wilmington in the first round. Drake, meanwhile, pulled off a 67-57 upset over Missouri, but the Red Raiders’ superior offensive efficiency, size advantage, and defensive versatility are set to overpower the Bulldogs in a dominating double-digit win. Here’s a breakdown of the key matchups and analytics that will fuel Texas Tech’s commanding performance. 

Game Overview 

Texas Tech has been a force this season, ranking No. 5 in KenPom’s adjusted offensive efficiency (124.9) and averaging 80.9 points per game (No. 28 nationally). The Red Raiders showcased their perimeter prowess against UNC Wilmington, attempting 46 threes and finishing with a 13-point victory despite a slow start. Drake, led by Missouri Valley Conference MVP Bennett Stirtz, leans on a deliberate, defensively stout style (No. 38 in adjusted defensive efficiency), holding opponents to 58.4 points per game (No. 2 nationally). However, the Bulldogs’ slow tempo (No. 362 in adjusted pace) and interior defensive weaknesses will be exploited by a Texas Tech team firing on all cylinders. With an over/under of 126.5, expect the Red Raiders to dictate the pace and pull away decisively. 

Key Matchups 

Texas Tech’s JT Toppin vs. Drake’s Interior Defense 

Players to Watch: JT Toppin (F, Texas Tech) vs. Cam Manyawu (F, Drake) 

The Breakdown: Toppin, the Big 12 Player of the Year, averages 17.9 points and 9.2 rebounds, using his 6’9” frame to dominate inside. Against UNC Wilmington, he notched 12 points and 11 rebounds, his 16th double-double of the season. Drake’s Manyawu (5.3 rebounds per game) and undersized frontcourt rank No. 291 in two-point defense (51.2% allowed), a glaring weakness against Texas Tech’s No. 11 offense (105.7 points per 100 possessions). Toppin’s athleticism and pick-and-roll synergy with guards will overwhelm Drake’s interior, leading to easy buckets and foul trouble for the Bulldogs. 

Texas Tech’s Perimeter Attack vs. Drake’s Backcourt Pressure 

Players to Watch: Kerwin Walton (G, Texas Tech) and Elijah Hawkins (G, Texas Tech) vs. Bennett Stirtz (G, Drake) 

The Breakdown: Walton’s 8-of-19 three-point barrage against UNC Wilmington (24 points) highlighted Texas Tech’s floor-spacing ability (37.9% from three, No. 47 nationally). Hawkins, a playmaking maestro, added 14 points, 9 rebounds, and 10 assists in the opener. Drake’s Stirtz (19.2 points, 5.6 assists, 2.1 steals) is a one-man wrecking crew, but his ball-pressure defense (top-25 turnover rate forced) faces a Texas Tech backcourt ranked No. 28 in turnover percentage (15.1%). The Red Raiders’ spacing and Hawkins’ vision will neutralize Stirtz’s aggression, raining threes and carving up Drake’s half-court D. 

Texas Tech’s Size Advantage vs. Drake’s Rebounding 

Players to Watch: Darrion Williams (F, Texas Tech) vs. Tavion Banks (F, Drake) 

The Breakdown: Williams (14.2 points, 5.4 rebounds) brings high-energy versatility, nearly notching a double-double (13 points, 9 rebounds) against UNC Wilmington. Drake’s Banks (10.9 points, 6.7 rebounds recently) and the Bulldogs rank No. 18 in offensive rebounding percentage (33.8%), but Texas Tech’s length and physicality (No. 57 in defensive efficiency, 88.4 points allowed per 100 possessions) will limit second-chance opportunities. The Red Raiders’ size across the board—no Drake player matches Toppin’s 6’9” height—will dominate the glass and shut down the Bulldogs’ gritty style. 

Analytics Driving Texas Tech to a Double-Digit Win 

Offensive Firepower 

Texas Tech’s No. 5 adjusted offensive efficiency (124.9) and 80.9 points per game dwarf Drake’s No. 38 defensive efficiency (86.7 points allowed per 100 possessions). The Red Raiders are 24-7 when scoring over 58.4 points—Drake’s season average allowed—while the Bulldogs are untested against top-10 offenses. Against UNC Wilmington, Texas Tech’s 46 three-point attempts signaled their willingness to shoot over smaller defenses, a strategy that will exploit Drake’s No. 327 rebounding average (28.9 per game). 

Tempo Mismatch 

Drake’s glacial pace (No. 362 in adjusted tempo) aims to grind games into slugfests, but Texas Tech thrives in half-court sets (No. 11 in points per 100 possessions) and can push when needed. The Red Raiders’ 19-6 record as moneyline favorites (-325 here) reflects their ability to impose their will, while Drake’s 7-0 underdog run faces a step-up in competition. Texas Tech’s versatility will turn Drake’s low-possession game into a scoring spree. 

Interior Dominance 

Drake’s No. 291 two-point defense (51.2% allowed) is a fatal flaw against Texas Tech’s No. 52 two-point shooting (53.2%). Toppin and Williams will feast inside, where the Bulldogs lack the size to compete (no starter over 6’8”). Auburn’s 51-32 second-half rout of Alabama State mirrors the mismatch here—Texas Tech’s 18-2 record when holding foes under 70 points ensures Drake’s offense stalls. 

Turnover Resilience 

Drake forces turnovers at a top-25 rate (19.8%), but Texas Tech’s No. 28 turnover percentage (15.1%) and Hawkins’ ball-handling (10 assists, 2 turnovers vs. UNC Wilmington) neutralize that edge. The Red Raiders’ 24-7 record when scoring over Drake’s defensive average (58.4) highlights their ability to protect the ball and capitalize, piling up points against a Bulldogs team that struggles to keep pace (70.0 points per game, No. 282). 

Prediction 

Texas Tech will seize control early, with Toppin exploiting Drake’s undersized frontcourt and Walton stretching the floor from deep. Hawkins’ playmaking will dismantle Stirtz’s pressure, while Williams and the Red Raiders’ length dominate the boards. Drake’s slow tempo and stout defense will keep it close initially, but Texas Tech’s offensive efficiency and physical edge will trigger a second-half surge, turning this into a rout. Expect the Red Raiders to lead by double digits by the under-12 timeout and cruise to a statement win. 

Final Score Prediction: Texas Tech 79, Drake 60 
Texas Tech rolls to a 19-point victory, advancing to the Sweet 16 to face the St. John’s-Arkansas winner. The Red Raiders’ size, shooting, and efficiency will overwhelm Drake, cementing their status as a Final Four contender. 

Creighton vs Auburn 
7-Unit bet on Auburn priced as a 9.5-point favorite. 

Teams in the Round of 32 that won their Round of 64 game by double-digits and were priced as the dog, have gone 6-22 SU and 8-19-1 ATS for just 30% winning bets. 

Creighton vs. Auburn Game Preview: March 22, 2025 – NCAA Tournament Round of 32 

Today, Saturday, March 22, 2025, the No. 1 seed Auburn Tigers (29-5) take on the No. 9 seed Creighton Bluejays (25-10) in a Round of 32 showdown at 7:10 p.m. ET on TBS/truTV, live from Rupp Arena in Lexington, Kentucky. With a Sweet 16 berth in Atlanta on the line, Auburn enters as a 9.5-point favorite, coming off an 83-63 dismantling of Alabama State in the first round. Creighton, meanwhile, showcased its shooting prowess in an 89-75 upset over Louisville, but the Bluejays now face a Tigers team poised to assert its dominance. Auburn’s elite efficiency, rebounding advantage, and defensive tenacity will overwhelm Creighton, setting the stage for a double-digit victory. Here’s a look at the key matchups and analytics that will propel Auburn to a commanding win. 

Game Overview 

Auburn, the top overall seed in the NCAA Tournament, has been a juggernaut all season, ranking No. 2 in KenPom’s adjusted offensive efficiency (128.1) and No. 12 in defensive efficiency (92.3). The Tigers’ balanced attack (83.8 points per game, No. 10 nationally) and physicality overwhelmed Alabama State, while Creighton’s hot shooting (45.8% from three vs. Louisville) propelled them past the Cardinals. However, Auburn’s superior depth, size, and ability to dictate tempo will expose Creighton’s vulnerabilities. With an over/under of 150.5, expect Auburn to push the pace and pull away, leveraging their +14.4 scoring margin (No. 8 nationally) to bury the Bluejays. 

Key Matchups 

Auburn’s Johni Broome vs. Creighton’s Ryan Kalkbrenner 

Players to Watch: Johni Broome (F, Auburn) vs. Ryan Kalkbrenner (C, Creighton) 

The Breakdown: Broome, the SEC Player of the Year, averages 18.7 points and 10.6 rebounds, dominating inside with a 54.2% field goal percentage. Against Alabama State, he posted 14 points and 11 boards, showcasing his two-way impact. Kalkbrenner, a 7’1” rim protector (19.2 points, 8.7 rebounds), was efficient vs. Louisville (14 points, 6-of-8 shooting), but Auburn’s physicality gives Broome the edge. The Tigers’ No. 6 ranking in offensive efficiency (107.0 points per 100 possessions) thrives on Broome’s paint presence, while Creighton’s slower-footed defense (No. 164 in rebounds allowed per game) struggles against dynamic bigs. Broome will outmuscle Kalkbrenner, controlling the paint and opening up Auburn’s perimeter game. 

Auburn’s Guard Depth vs. Creighton’s Backcourt Shooting 

Players to Watch: Chad Baker-Mazara (G, Auburn) and Tahaad Pettiford (G, Auburn) vs. Steven Ashworth (G, Creighton) and Jamiya Neal (G, Creighton) 

The Breakdown: Creighton’s Ashworth (22 points vs. Louisville) and Neal (29 points, 12 rebounds) lit up the Cardinals, shooting a combined 7-of-13 from three. However, Auburn’s guard tandem of Baker-Mazara (12.4 points, 42% from three) and Pettiford (explosive off-the-dribble scoring) brings versatility and defensive pressure. The Tigers rank No. 63 in points allowed per 100 possessions (88.6), excelling at contesting perimeter shots (opponents shoot 31.8% from three, No. 62). Auburn’s switchable guards will glue to Creighton’s shooters, forcing tough looks and neutralizing their 34.7% three-point attack (No. 44 nationally). Baker-Mazara and Pettiford will also exploit Creighton’s No. 112 transition defense, adding easy buckets. 

Auburn’s Rebounding vs. Creighton’s Interior Defense 

Players to Watch: Dylan Cardwell (F, Auburn) vs. Kalkbrenner and Creighton’s Frontcourt 

The Breakdown: Auburn’s rebounding dominance (34.3 rebounds per game, +4.9 margin) will overwhelm Creighton’s middling glass game (34.7 rebounds, +3.6 margin). Cardwell, a 6’11” reserve, complements Broome with hustle (5.2 rebounds in 14.8 minutes), while Creighton relies heavily on Kalkbrenner (8.7 rebounds). The Tigers’ No. 60 ranking in rebounds per game and No. 12 offensive rebound rate (33.8%) will generate second-chance points against a Bluejays defense that allows 31.1 rebounds per game (No. 164). Auburn’s 25-2 record when outrebounding opponents signals a mismatch Creighton can’t overcome. 

Analytics Driving Auburn to a Double-Digit Win 

Offensive Efficiency Edge 

Auburn’s No. 2 adjusted offensive efficiency (128.1) towers over Creighton’s No. 32 mark (112.4). The Tigers’ 83.8 points per game (No. 10) and 53.8% two-point shooting (No. 18) exploit Creighton’s No. 112 ranking in points allowed per 100 possessions (96.2). Against Alabama State, Auburn’s 51-32 second-half surge showcased their ability to pull away, and they’ll replicate that against a Creighton defense untested by this level of potency. 

Defensive Matchup Advantage 

Auburn’s No. 12 adjusted defensive efficiency (92.3) suffocates opponents, holding them to 69.4 points per game (No. 91). Creighton’s 75.6 points per game (No. 126) rely on hot shooting (45.8% from three vs. Louisville), but Auburn’s top-62 perimeter defense (31.8% allowed) will force regression. The Tigers’ 18-1 record when holding teams under 70 points ensures Creighton stays well below their average. 

Rebounding and Second-Chance Points 

Auburn’s +4.9 rebounding margin and 33.8% offensive rebound rate (No. 12) dwarf Creighton’s +3.6 margin and No. 164 ranking in rebounds allowed. The Tigers average 12.4 second-chance points in wins, and against a Bluejays team that surrendered 10 offensive boards to Louisville, Auburn will pile on extra possessions to widen the gap. 

Depth and Tempo Control 

Auburn’s bench outscored Alabama State’s 34-14, with Miles Kelly (23 points, 7-of-15 from three) leading a deep rotation (eight players average 10+ minutes). Creighton’s starters logged heavy minutes vs. Louisville (Ashworth 40, Kalkbrenner 38), and their seven-man rotation will fatigue against Auburn’s No. 66 tempo (68.9 possessions per game). The Tigers’ 26-4 record as moneyline favorites (-467 here) reflects their ability to dominate lesser foes. 

Prediction 

Auburn will impose their will early, with Broome dominating Kalkbrenner in the paint and the Tigers’ guards shutting down Creighton’s perimeter attack. Auburn’s rebounding edge and defensive intensity will stifle the Bluejays’ offense, while their balanced scoring—led by Kelly’s outside shooting and Baker-Mazara’s versatility—overwhelms Creighton’s thin roster. Expect Auburn to lead by double digits at halftime and cruise in the second half, as their depth and physicality turn this into a statement win. 

Final Score Prediction: Auburn 88, Creighton 70 
Auburn rolls to an 18-point victory, advancing to the Sweet 16 with a performance that reaffirms their status as the tournament’s top seed. The Tigers’ efficiency, rebounding, and defensive prowess will leave Creighton outmatched, setting up a clash with the Texas A&M-Michigan winner in Atlanta. 

Drake vs Texas Tech 
7-Unit bet on Texas Tech priced as a 6.5-point favorite. 

Teams in the Round of 32 that won their Round of 64 game by double-digits and were priced as the dog, have gone 6-22 SU and 8-19-1 ATS for just 30% winning bets. If they are priced as the dog, they have gone 4-20 SU and 7-16-1 ATS for 70% winning bets. If these teams were priced as 5.5 or more-point dogs they have gone 2-13 SU and 5-10 ATS for 33% winning bets. 

After the Round of 64, favorites of not more than 9.5 points that are ranked in the top 10 and facing an unranked foe have gone a stellar 14-4 ATS for 78% winning bets. 

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.