CFB Early Lines Thread (week of 10/8)

[wheatrich]

Iowa's so awful I have to take Illinois -3 here. They might be worse than Minnesota even (both are clearly the worst two big 10 squads this year).

[Post-Oak]

NAVY +4 (-106) @ Pitt 1.06u to win 1.0u 5Dimes

Florida St @ WAKE +6 (-105) 1.05u to win 1.0u SIA

YTD: 1-2 -1.12 units

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just a warning to all those following the Badgers

I've heard rumblings Hill is not looking too great following the punishment in Champaign. Swann is out for remainder of the year with hamstring injury . Wisky's backup RB cannot play road games. I think that explains why the Penn St line is higher than most of us think it should be.

[/ QUOTE ]


Just heard that this a.m.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think you're over-reacting: hill is listed as probable; although swann is out, jefferson has been in the rotation, and can catch the deep ball.

people are overestimating penn state's talent: they are, as they always are, SLOW. and i mean, SLOW. true, they play defense fairly well, but is that enough? wisconsin, but for turning the ball over twice in succession on the pass, dominated an illinois defense incapable of handling an air game (re: mizzou game against illinois, where missouri fell asleep after scoring at will; that game was not even close, except for the score)--and i'm not convinced penn st. can, either. penn has a solid set of line backers (as always), but while good line backing can function well enough against the Big Ten's run first and last mentality, wisconsin CAN throw, has the arsenal in place to throw, and WILL throw. the big ten still hasn't entered the modern era offensively, in which throwing is considered a viable aspect of the game. i think the badger's will have to resort to the air and are planning to do so.

also, wisconsin handled the illini's rushing attack fairly well, if one overlooks the first quarter, where the bulk of the rushing yards were forfeited, and the offense fielded by penn is much less dynamic and talented than illini's. i expect wisconsin's front to look much better here than in the illinois game.

all in all, i would say, wisconsin wins this match-up (did i mention, penn st. is SLOW?), in crappy-valley, AT LEAST 45% of the time. at +230 wisconsin is a great play.

tlt

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree with lots of this post

Penn St is not slow
Penn St is faster than Wisconsin

Wisconsin had so many passing yards v Illinois because they fell way behind and middle passing routes are the weak spot on the Illini D. However, by turning Wisconsin to pass first, Illinois won the turnover battle.
Don't forget how 'lucky' that Wisconsin pass total v Illinois was. The Badgers had a player on the ground catch a 40+ yard pass after two Illini both bobbled what should've been a pick. Also, Beckum had a 35 yard completion that he didn't catch. The announcers in the booth were stunned when the completion stood, which flipped Wisconsin from their own 10 to their own 45 down 24-13. Ummm....Wisconsin never held down the Illini rushing. Illinois scored TDs on 2 of their 4 drives in the second half v Wisconsin. It took some incredible breaks (not only the two passes mentioned above, but also a fumble incorrectly blown dead that would've given Illinois a 38-19 lead) to keep the Badgers in the game.
Wisconsin never handled the Illini rushing attack well (though I doubt that is relevant at all considering PSU's offensive shceme).
Illinois drives
2nd qtr
10 plays--42 yards--FG
7 plays--75 yards--TD
3 plays--0 yards--punt
3rd qtr
9 plays--79 yards--TD
3 plays-- -3 yards--punt
4th qtr
4 plays--32 yards--punt
9 plays--71 yards--TD
4 plays--11 yards--clocked out the game

As far as Illinois-Mizzou, it should be noted that Mizzou returned a fumble 101 yds for a TD, returned a punt 66 yards for a TD, and kicked a FG to end the first half after Illinois fumble a kick return. The Mizzou offense only scored 23 points, which is far below their average. In addition, the Tigers only averaged 6.6 yards per pass play, which is a very modest number. It would be average to slightly above average pass defense. Mizzou scored on 1 of 5 first qtr possessions, 1 of 3 second qtr, 1 of 4 3rd qtr, and 1 of 3 4th qtr. I fail to see how that is scoring at will. It's above average, but not at will.


LOL @ the Badgers resorting to the air and that being a good thing. 2+ picks is a given if Wisconsin has to throw the ball 40 times.

You are right that Penn St's offense is not dynamic and it is hurting them. They do have the skill players with Williams-Butler-Norwood at wideout. They haven't shown an ability to capatilize on that.


The big11ten criticisms of dynamic offenses, in general though, is an old, tired and incorrect statement.

Does everyone forget Chuck Long under Hayden Fry at Iowa in the 80s? What about the Jim Everett Purdue teams? Mike White with Dave Wilson, Tony Eason, and Jack Trudeau at Illinois a few years before Jeff George played at both Purdue and Illinois? Iowa and Illinois were right there with Ohio State as the second best programs in the big11ten from 1982-1991 or something precisely because they did throw the ball all over the place. Look at the current set of offenses: Purdue under Tiller has played "basketball-on-grass" since 97, N'Western and Illinois use the shotgun spread rushing attack that West Virginia is known for, Indiana's offense has been unreal under Antwan Randle El in the mid90s to the Kellen Lewis and James Hardy shotgun spread pass of today, and MSU hasn't completely left behind the offense of John L. Smith that brought L'ville to national prominance. Just because Wisconsin and Penn St play a boring style doesn't mean the conference does as a whole.

BTW---I think the Wisconsin ML might be a good play, but had to correct many of the statements here.

[psuasskicker]

Good post MT2R, though your last line sums it up. Both of these teams IMO are bad and can find ways to give the game away. I like the Wisc ML a good bit actually, though I hate betting against PSU and probably won't.

- C -

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, even though I said I wasn't going to bet any more games after last week, I've still kind of been eying the lines, and I may bet a couple games on a purely recreational basis.

My leans this week are:
Iowa +3.5
TCU -6
Kentucky +9
Notre Dame +13.5
OU/Mizz over 61

Out of those, Iowa +3.5's the one I like best, as it seems like everyone's piling on the Illini this week and they've been getting a lot of media attention for being "underrated" and underranked after their last two wins.

The fact that they're only a 3.5 point favorite against a team who's 0-3 in conference seems to reflect the sharps backing Iowa. Also, they're only favored by 2 according to Sagarin which while still bayesian is only lightly impacted by preseason rankings at this point of the season and is only impacted by them at all because Sagarin obviously has found including them at this point of the season makes the rankings more accurate. Also, Iowa had their best defensive game of the year against a Wisconsin team that also loves to run the ball much like Illinois.

Add in the obvious letdown factor with Illinois being a young team that's not used to success and could very easily overlook an 0-3 team on the road and I really think that Iowa should keep this close if not win outright. I may move money to a book with first half lines for this game as I think Iowa has a much better chance to outplay Illinois in the first half when the Illini don't really have their heads in the game than they do down the stretch if the Illini are trailing since Illinois is the more talented team.

[/ QUOTE ]

nice hit on the Bears ML...I see you are putting my strategy into practice

I completely understand why you are going against me here. I think my first post in this thread sums up part of the reason. This is a letdown game and I expect the public to be heavy on Illinois. Just as very few could see Illinois favored v Wisconsin last week, very few don't see Illinois covering. It's always a good idea to be with the 20% betting heavy amounts balancing the other 80% betting recreationally.

It sticks in the back of my mind how Iowa has dominated Illinois of late.

Two games that also stick in my head are Rutgers (9-0) @ Cincy (5-5) last season and UCLA (8-0) @ Arizona (2-6) in 2005. In both cases, the schools were having an above expectation season though they both had heavy upside dreams coming into the season. In both cases, they were coming off nail-biting big wins. Both cases were against inferior opponents on the road. Both got smoked. (I predicted both which is why I remember and love to bring the games up.)


That being said, I just think the matchups here are too lopsided.

I've added on to my position.

Illinois -3.5 @ Iowa bet 3.15u to win 3u
with the previous wager, that makes the total bet on the game
Illinois -3.5 @ Iowa bet 5.15u to win 5u

I see the lines moving more toward Illinois and I don't expect it to move back, so I grabbed Illini -3.5 while I still could.

From everything I've heard, the Iowa injury situation is bad. MLB and all-big11ten candidate Klinkenborg is out. The TE, Moeaki, is out. One of the safeties is out. All-big11ten LT Dace Richardson is out.

Iowa was already 118th in NCAAF for sacks allowed. Now, they lose their stud blindside tackle before playing Illinois, whom is 13th with 3.33 sacks per game.
Without a good TE, no pass protection, and the previous WR problems I mentioned, I just see no way of this team scoring enough points to keep close to Illinois.
It will take a +3 turnover day for the Hawkeyes, which is unlikely given the amount of times they will be under pressure and tackled for losses.

It looks pretty bad the other way losing the star MLB and secondary help. One needs experience and hard hitting to the outside to stop the spread shotgun rushing attack.

But, Iowa does have talented, experienced DEs which can help.


All the 'sharp' betting philosophy says to be on Iowa. However, the game matchups themselves are about the ugliest I've seen in awhile.

FWIW--I was expecting a 8-9.5 spread on this game.

[iggymcfly]

Just wondering, do you have a reliable web resource for injury information? It seems like it's really hard to find anything accurate. ESPN only catches the really major ones and even when looking at what looked to be a legitimate, regularly updated injury report, Richardson being out wasn't even mentioned.

I assume that for an Illinois game, you have local stuff to refer to, but it would be really helpful to just have a site you could look at and find all the relevant injuries. For instance, I didn't see that Urrutia was going to be out anywhere last week and wouldn't have bet Louisville if I had known.

FWIW, I am feeling shakier about the Iowa pick now. The fact that Iowa's D played so well against Wisconsin now seems more likely to be because that's the last game that Klinkenborg played than that they have a similar style to Illinois. Richardson doesn't seem to be that big of a factor since he's only started one game all season, but I can see how that's a bad matchup for Iowa too. I may end up just betting the first half line now and leaving the game line alone altogether.

[MyTurn2Raise]

sorry, no web page...stuff I read in premium chat rooms on the scout site for both Illinois and Iowa

[MyTurn2Raise]

Ferentz did talk about injuries in his weekly press conference


I do see where your pick is coming from Iggy. For instance, the Iowa rivals boards has threads such as "Illinois only -3.5? WTF" and "I just put $1000 down on Illinois" written by Hawkeye fans. Seems like the typical, public square is all over Illinois.
Also, the Illinois boards are buzzing with ESPN gameday potential for next weekend v Michigan, FoxSports projecting an Illinois Rose Bowl, and normal ND bashing that shows the focus isn't on Iowa for the Illinois community. Hopefully, the players aren't thinking the same stuff.

[thelyingthief]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL @ the Badgers resorting to the air and that being a good thing. 2+ picks is a given if Wisconsin has to throw the ball 40 times.

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, that's 40 times for 392 yds,2 TD's. Wis. had the ball a full 8 minutes longer than illinois, indicating extraodinary domination of the game, since it was PASSING THE BALL. Wis. scored it's first 3 pts down 17-0 with 3.52 remaining in the half. illinois scored twice more, once following an int, as i recall, but perhaps twice owing to int's. i do not have a break down by halves of Ill.'s yardage, but the initial scoring burst by Ill. included the preponderance of Mendenhall's rushing (1st half, 100/160 total, ball in wis's possession throughout last 7 minutes of quarter). That pretty much echoes my statement above.

[ QUOTE ]
The big ten criticisms of dynamic offenses, in general though, is an old, tired and incorrect statement.

[/ QUOTE ]


yes, the annihilation of the two premier big ten programs by fla. and usc last year in post season certainly demonstrates how fast and well equipped these teams were to handle the SEC and Pac 10. because a statement is stale, old, and cliched does not rob it thereby of its wisdom. if you havent perceived the enormous gap that has opened between the other major conferences and the big ten, let me advise this mantra: appalachian state. appalachian state. appalachian state.

as to the mizzou material: what manner of interpretation it requires to question the domination of mizzou in that game is beyond me. to this i can only state, after 2 and 1/2 quarters, mizzou 37, illinois 13. 359 yds and 3 TDs through the air. i call this "scoring at will". i will concede the punt return and kickoff return as points. but those occured against an obviously poorly prepared special teams, and underscore the AT WILL portion of my statement. perhaps you regard 4th quarter scores into a relaxed opponent good effort. you're in fine company, Nebraska does too, they like their 21 pts vs usc before their wildly ecstatic fans.

snearing and pontificating are really wonderful substitutes for astute judgment; i wish you good luck in your plays.

[Austiger]

[ QUOTE ]
sorry, no web page...stuff I read in premium chat rooms on the scout site for both Illinois and Iowa

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you mind divulging how many premium Scout boards are you on? Is it mostly for handicapping reasons, or just because you're a fan? (I realize why you have an Illinois membership obv. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])