March Madness Betting Picks: 8 Best Bets for Friday's Late Games

Newsweek - Mar 21st, 2025

Day 2 of March Madness promises thrilling basketball action, featuring top-seeded teams like Florida and Kentucky, alongside reigning national champions UConn. The evening kicks off with Florida facing Norfolk State, where Florida is expected to dominate early. Kentucky takes on Troy, with expectations of a high-scoring game favoring the Wildcats. Other key matchups include New Mexico against Marquette and a potential upset as Liberty faces Oregon. Notably, Liberty's three-point shooting prowess has made them a popular choice for an upset prediction.

This action-packed evening of college basketball is not just about the games, but also highlights the ongoing excitement around sports betting. With odds and predictions provided by FanDuel, bettors are keenly watching for upsets and standout performances. The tournament's significance extends beyond the court, reflecting the growing synergy between college sports and betting, as well as the continued popularity of March Madness as a major sporting event. As teams battle for advancement, viewers and bettors alike are drawn into the high stakes and unpredictability of the tournament.

College Basketball Kentucky Wildcats March Madness Sports Betting Florida Gators U Conn Huskies Liberty Flames Oregon Ducks Fan Duel

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a focused look at March Madness through the lens of sports betting, offering predictions and odds for upcoming games. Its strengths lie in its timeliness and clarity, as it presents information in a structured and accessible manner for those interested in betting. However, the article falls short in balance and transparency, as it predominantly emphasizes betting without exploring broader perspectives or disclosing the basis for its predictions. The reliance on a single source type limits its source quality, and its potential impact is confined to influencing individual betting decisions rather than broader societal shifts. Overall, the article serves its niche audience well but lacks depth and breadth for a wider readership.

Accuracy

The article makes several claims about the schedule and performance of teams in the March Madness tournament. Specific examples include the mention of Florida's dominant stretch and UConn not being the same team as last year. These claims require verification through recent game results and performance metrics. The mention of betting odds from FanDuel adds a layer of precision, but these should be cross-verified with the sportsbook for accuracy. The article's predictions, such as Kentucky's expected performance, are speculative and should be treated as opinion rather than fact.

Balance

The article primarily focuses on betting predictions and team performances, lacking a broader range of perspectives. It does not explore the potential impact of these games on the teams' future or on the tournament as a whole. The focus on betting might overshadow other aspects of the games, such as player development or coaching strategies. This creates an imbalance, presenting the games mainly from a gambling perspective rather than a more comprehensive sports analysis.

Clarity

The article is written in a straightforward manner, making it easy to follow for readers familiar with March Madness and sports betting. The structure, which breaks down predictions for each game, helps in understanding the flow of the evening's events. However, the use of jargon related to betting, such as 'cover the spread,' might not be clear to all readers. Overall, the language is neutral, but the focus on betting may not cater to a general sports audience.

Source quality

The article cites FanDuel for betting odds, which is a credible source for such information. However, it lacks a variety of sources, particularly for the factual claims about team performances and player abilities. The reliance on a single type of source (betting odds) limits the depth of the article. There is no attribution to sports analysts or data from the NCAA, which could provide a more rounded view of the tournament dynamics.

Transparency

The article does not clearly disclose the basis for its claims about team performances or the methodology behind its betting picks. While it notes that Newsweek may earn a commission from affiliate links, which is a positive transparency practice, it fails to provide context for the predictions or the criteria used to evaluate the teams. This lack of transparency can affect the reader's ability to assess the impartiality and reliability of the information presented.