[BostonCard]

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.

Yes, it is very hard to beat the spread consistently, because the spread adjusts over time to take into account the fact that a team consistently beats the spread.  Conversely, a team that consistently underperforms the spread will see the spread lowered in response.

You might look at correlation between recruiting rankings and outcomes a few years later.

BC

[BostonCard]

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.

Yes, it is very hard to beat the spread consistently, because the spread adjusts over time to take into account the fact that a team consistently beats the spread.  Conversely, a team that consistently underperforms the spread will see the spread lowered in response.

You might look at correlation between recruiting rankings and outcomes a few years later.

BC