The Case for the UNDER to hit in Super Bowl LVI
Earlier we covered the "Case for the OVER to hit in the Super Bowl.†Today, we will take the opposite stance, and allow you, the bettor, to decide which reasoning makes more sense.
Prepare your Super Bowl Squares contests for friends and family using our tool >>
Super Bowl LVI Totals Basics
The Super Bowl LVI under/over number opened at 49, but quickly dipped below that *key number to 48.5.
48.5 is a number not likely to move much (until possibly right before the opening kick), as it sits precisely at the two teams’ "assumed total.†That is, given each team's offensive/defensive points per game averages netted against each other:
As you can see above, this number is sitting exactly where the two teams have averaged out on both sides of the ball this season. The fact the number lies BELOW a key number is frankly not the BEST situation for the UNDER, but there is some solace in the fact betting the UNDER would be betting with the direction the market has taken the number.
Interesting to note, IF this number holds it will be the lowest Super Bowl total since the 2015-2016 season when the Broncos beat the Panthers, and coincidentally hit the under (24-10 on a 43 O/U).
Recent Super Bowl Trends
Just to give us a starting dataset, take a look at the last ten years of Super Bowl betting totals and spreads, along with results below:
What's most likely the starting point for an argument that the under will hit, is the simple lack of star-power at the QB position. This is only the 5th time this century that neither Super Bowl team rosters a top 5 QB (by Football Outsiders DYAR) with Rams QB Matt Stafford coming in at #6 and the Bengals' Joe Burrow at #13. One would think this could lead you to fade the OVER, yet when you look at the last 21 seasons, it's resulted in a mixed bag (3-2 OVER). So, still, nothing to glean there.
Recent Team Trends
Now that we have a picture of the macro, let's take a look at the micro and see how each team has performed in regards to O/U the last 10 games:
Not much to learn from this information, as both teams are sitting around 50/50 in UNDER/OVER. You find the same split even when focusing on relevant game totals (between 46.5 - 50.5):
We see only a 5-6 UNDER record here, which is not enough of a trend to be significant.
Check out all of our Super Bowl LVI coverage >>
The Case for the UNDER
Although you know we aren't big fans of "traditional trend betting", we do think there is value in looking at the past through the lens of "what would fit into our scenario." Hence, we'll dive into some "backward engineering" towards the UNDER hitting in the Super Bowl.
If you look at the average ACTUAL ending score between the winners and losers based on the UNDER (vs OVER) in the history of the Super Bowl it looks like this:
As we are making the case for the UNDER, we are most likely looking for a game around 24-14 to occur. Marrying this to the *team betting totals, which currently stands at Rams 26.5 and Bengals 22.5, we are looking at the following scenarios:
The Rams score about three points less (26.5 - 23.4) than historically likely AND the Bengals score almost ten points less (22.5-12.4). In other words, a defensive game.
OR
You are looking at the Bengals winning outright, scoring only 1 point more than expected AND the Rams scoring 14 points less than expected.
In other words, you are most likely betting on an overall defensive game OR the Rams offense getting shut down.
This latter case is something we have direct evidence of happening in a recent Super Bowl when the Patriots shut down the powerful Rams offense a few years back. They did this by taking a page from Vic Fangio (then Bears DC that shutdown the powerful Rams offense earlier in the season) and running a "6-1" to disrupt the Rams' heavy use of wide zone and limit the play-action exposure of their LBs at the second level. You can see a good breakdown here.
Now to be clear, the Rams and HC Sean McVay have shown an uncanny ability to adapt and adjust to personnel over the years. The Ringer did a great piece on this a couple of weeks ago, as did Sharp Football earlier this week (particularly regarding the use of deep drops with new QB Matthew Stafford) yet, with that sample in mind, the Bengals (at least on defense) have proven open/capable to changing their tendencies to attack a QB's weakness (as the Patriots did a few years back vs this very same team). This is a good sign for the more likely of our expected scenarios to happen.
Finally, two advanced metrics support the UNDER hitting:
- Cincinnati QB Joe Burrow has the highest difference in positive play rate between *MFO and **MFC defenses (12.7% points better vs MFC). Yet, the Rams play the 4th most (more) MFO defense.
- Rams QB Matt Stafford has the second-highest difference in positive play rate between being blitzed and NOT being blitzed (12% points higher when blitzed). Yet, the Bengals blitz at the 7th lowest rate in the league.
*MFO = Middle Field Open or 2 Deep Safeties (mainly Cover 2 and 4)
**MFC = Middle Field Closed or 1 Deep Safety (mainly Cover 1 and Cover 3)
Stats above thanks to our friends at SIS
Based on our historical analysis, if you are making a case for the UNDER you are counting on the Bengals defense to once again game plan properly to make the Rams play "left-footed." This is particularly true when you look at Cincinnati being the "5th most UNDER hitting Team this season," yet the Rams being the "7th most OVER hitting team."
Combine all these elements and you have a good case for the UNDER to hit in the Super Bowl.
Check out all of our Super Bowl LVI sportsbook offers >>
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | RadioPublic | Breaker | Castbox | Pocket Casts
Whether you're new to sports betting or a betting pro, our How To Bet and Sports Betting Strategy and Advice pages are for you. You can get started with our How To Section -- including How to Make Money Betting on Sports -- or head to more advanced strategy -- like Win Totals Strategy for Sports Betting -- to learn more.