i just don't get it

[MicroBob]

ummmmm....they picked a margin of 10 and it happened to land on 10...and somehow this makes them geniuses??


It just happened, that's all.
It's hardly an amazing feat.

[riverboatking]

[ QUOTE ]
ummmmm....they picked a margin of 10 and it happened to land on 10...and somehow this makes them geniuses??


It just happened, that's all.
It's hardly an amazing feat.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah you're right. they probably just picked a number randomly out of a hat.

plus if you watched the game you know it was on 10 the whole time, not like there were 20pt swings in both directions.

good response.

[Koss]

I bet a quick analysis of the average margins of victory in past rook/soph games it would be within 2 or 3 of 10. A quick fudge factor based on the players scoring in that season up until the game and it wouldn't be hard to get that spread.

What always amazes me is when they handicapp games with little past evidence as to what typical results might be. Like the Olympic hockey spread of +10.5 that ended up being an 11 point win.

[Runner Runner]

This was fluke that it landed exactly on the number. Take a sample of rookie games from the past and I will bet you that there were some where it was close to the number, and some where it was way off.

The books only set the line so that hopefully they get the same amount of bets from both sides and then they aren't gambling, but simply locking up a commission. Take a look at what the number the books set up for the total. You cannot tell me they thought the game would land on 240 when it is only a 40 minute game. They set the total that high because they knew they would get action on both sides at that total. Sharp action on the under and Square action on the over from a lot of people who forget that the game length is shorter. If the books were looking to hit a number, they would be setting lines differently in some cases.

That game could of very easily have ended a sophomore win by 25, if the rookies don't go on a run at the end.