[Levarkin]

Perhaps there's an explanation here I'm not aware of, but I saw the unusual success of favourites in 2005 as a statistical aberration, and nothing more. Thus, I consider it no more or less likely that favourites will do better than usual this year. I don't see what effect parity has. I can understand a wider range of spreads as a result, but not why favourites would be any more likely to cover.

Edit: An interesting note from the Wizard of Odds, who - like most cappers - had a rough '05:

"During the 2005 regular season favorites beat the spread 144 times, underdogs covered 103 times, and 9 times the game fell exactly on the spread (according to Mr. NFL spreads). The probability of underdogs doing so badly assuming a 50/50 chance of winning over 247 resolved bets is 0.45%, of 1 in 220."

I notice that the Wiz tracks performance against the spread back to 1983. In 24 seasons, the odds of a 1 in 220 shot hitting are around 9-1. So while it's possible that bookies were just chronically underestimating favoured teams, the statistical explanation isn't entirely inplausible. And even if it is the former (which I doubt), you can certainly expect a correction, as many books take a significant hit when favourites do so well.

In other words, I wouldn't bet all faves this year and expect to cruise to easy money.