[washingtonismoney]

The team is 6-3-1 against the spread (exactly +18 @ UNC). See "betting view" here if you're curious: https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basket...d-cardinal

Ah, interesting, well, then, I was wrong. 

To circle to CTCard's point, the statistic is definitely a very circumstantial one. For example, in another sport, you often see name-brand schools do just OK against the spread (e.g. Nick Saban is 54% ATS at Alabama) relative to their actual quality. That's probably due to it being difficult to exceed Everest-high expectations. So my maybe-casual belief is that performing well (or poorly) against the spread is a decent first-pass metric to see whether the hoi polloi are performing well or badly against their underlying quality.

[washingtonismoney]

The team is 6-3-1 against the spread (exactly +18 @ UNC). See "betting view" here if you're curious: https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-basket...d-cardinal

Ah, interesting, well, then, I was wrong. 

To circle to CTCard's point, the statistic is definitely a very circumstantial one. For example, in another sport, you often see name-brand schools do just OK against the spread (e.g. Nick Saban is 54% ATS at Alabama) relative to their actual quality. That's probably due to it being difficult to exceed Everest-high expectations. So my maybe-casual belief is that performing well (or poorly) against the spread is a decent first-pass metric to see whether the hoi polloi are performing well or badly against their underlying quality.