CFB Early Lines Thread (week of 10/8)

[iggymcfly]

FWIW, my Notre Dame lean has a lot more to do with a lack of confidence in BC covering big spreads than it does with any ND resurgence.

Here are some scores for BC home games this year:
BC 38 Wake 28
BC 37 Army 17
BC 24 UMass 14

Just not that confident in their ability to score a lot of points on the road. Also, if Notre Dame has a strength this year, it's pass defense. Since BC relies on their passing game so heavily, that should give the Irish a chance to slow the Eagles down even more, either by stopping the offense cold, or by getting BC to rely on their slow, ineffective rushing game which wouldn't give ND much of a chance to win, but would definitely keep the score down.

I was kind of hoping this would sneak up to 14.5, but it looks like I'm out of luck there unless I want to get my money stuck on Bodog for 3 months. (I don't.) If you really want to know what the square side is on a bet, Bodog having a line that's a full point off from the market crossing a key number is a pretty good indication.

[thelyingthief]

i really have to post one further comment: the way one perceives a fact is more imperative than the fact itself. facere, factum est is a latin word meaning "to make"; i view games from an entirely different perspective, apparently, than do the other posters here; i "make" of occurences on a football field "facts" that express a team's weaknesses and strengths. i do not extract from the continuity or flow of a game a minutia of details and fixate upon them with reference to the over all scheme or development of a game.

for instance, "team speed" is not a concept that refers to the individual players 40 yd time: it is how strategically that "speed" is integrated into the game planning by the coaching staff. penn st. uses schemes that visually, obviously do not emphasize quickness and "speed" to the degree that florida or arkansas uses "speed". penn st. de-emphasizes speed in its pursuit of a blocking pattern, it's line play, in the offensive plans it uses for the games it plays. the 1999 rams are a case in point: no team they faced that or any other year were composed of players "slower" or less "speedy" than theirs; however, it is impossible to argue that the rams implemented philosophies which utilized their players' talents and native abilities in ways which gave those talents' an edge, a readily apparent advantage in quickness and "speed" over their opponents.

you may think your methods superior; you can draft up "facts" that disagree with my interpretation of a game, a coaching staff, or the difference between conferences. that is immaterial, really: the way i view games, and interpret them produces significant profits for me. i will say this: you should seriously believe your approach to game analysis superior to mine; and you should adhere to whatever you see and intuit in your analysis unswervingly.

i would however, suspect that using overly fine discrimination in your perception of the game--the bean counting method--is inadequate, if only because so many serious players use these methods. every body has the same box score, and every body seems, in my experience, to use it pretty much in the same way. a handicapping philosophy that cannot appreciate the difference between Buffalo's play against the Pats, which strictly numerical methods cannot, and Cleveland's play against the pats, will lay -7.5 in the wrong spot and the wrong time. Illinois vs. Wisconsin was a matchup of two good teams: visually, evaluating the flow of that game, i would definitely say wisconsin was better--that is, found a huge gap in their opponent's game and could exploit it, although other variables of a less tangible and more ephemeral nature gave the game to illinois. the turnover ratio was the essence of that game, and home field advantage. i will wager on wisconsin based upon my assessment. i am often wrong: i am never broke. neither team is "great", and other factors tend to have more influence in such matchups than in games between superior teams.

so, while you may fault my perception of tennessee, or the various conferences, it does not therefore mean you are correct. i daresay, i have made more money betting football than most of you will earn in a lifetime: i have done so because i do not allow my objectivity to suffer at the hands of my prejudices. i know, which the authors of the various criticisms above apparently do not, one thing above all--i know what I DO NOT KNOW; which means, i am perfectly willing to adapt a viewpoint to acknowlege probabilities.

to me, 5 to 2 on wisconsin, on the back of my perception of wisconsin and penn st., is outlandish.

as is the the ~7/2 on missouri OU ML. i do have a jar of beans here, if any of you wizards run out of countables, i'll happily send them along.

[ClunkerDuds]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BTW--I'm definitely not as high on the Big11Ten as ESPN voters

[/ QUOTE ]


hahaha what the hell is the story behind this?
Top Teams:
1. Illinois
2. OSU
3. Wisconsin
4. Michigan
5. Purdue
6. Indiana
7. Hawaii
8. LSU

LOL?

[/ QUOTE ]

A clever UofI Comp Science kid found a loophole in espns voting mechanic and exploited the hell out of it.

Smart kid

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
i really have to post one further comment: the way one perceives a fact is more imperative than the fact itself. facere, factum est is a latin word meaning "to make"; i view games from an entirely different perspective, apparently, than do the other posters here; i "make" of occurences on a football field "facts" that express a team's weaknesses and strengths. i do not extract from the continuity or flow of a game a minutia of details and fixate upon them with reference to the over all scheme or development of a game.

for instance, "team speed" is not a concept that refers to the individual players 40 yd time: it is how strategically that "speed" is integrated into the game planning by the coaching staff. penn st. uses schemes that visually, obviously do not emphasize quickness and "speed" to the degree that florida or arkansas uses "speed". penn st. de-emphasizes speed in its pursuit of a blocking pattern, it's line play, in the offensive plans it uses for the games it plays. the 1999 rams are a case in point: no team they faced that or any other year were composed of players "slower" or less "speedy" than theirs; however, it is impossible to argue that the rams implemented philosophies which utilized their players' talents and native abilities in ways which gave those talents' an edge, a readily apparent advantage in quickness and "speed" over their opponents.

you may think your methods superior; you can draft up "facts" that disagree with my interpretation of a game, a coaching staff, or the difference between conferences. that is immaterial, really: the way i view games, and interpret them produces significant profits for me. i will say this: you should seriously believe your approach to game analysis superior to mine; and you should adhere to whatever you see and intuit in your analysis unswervingly.

i would however, suspect that using overly fine discrimination in your perception of the game--the bean counting method--is inadequate, if only because so many serious players use these methods. every body has the same box score, and every body seems, in my experience, to use it pretty much in the same way. a handicapping philosophy that cannot appreciate the difference between Buffalo's play against the Pats, which strictly numerical methods cannot, and Cleveland's play against the pats, will lay -7.5 in the wrong spot and the wrong time. Illinois vs. Wisconsin was a matchup of two good teams: visually, evaluating the flow of that game, i would definitely say wisconsin was better--that is, found a huge gap in their opponent's game and could exploit it, although other variables of a less tangible and more ephemeral nature gave the game to illinois. the turnover ratio was the essence of that game, and home field advantage. i will wager on wisconsin based upon my assessment. i am often wrong: i am never broke. neither team is "great", and other factors tend to have more influence in such matchups than in games between superior teams.

so, while you may fault my perception of tennessee, or the various conferences, it does not therefore mean you are correct. i daresay, i have made more money betting football than most of you will earn in a lifetime: i have done so because i do not allow my objectivity to suffer at the hands of my prejudices. i know, which the authors of the various criticisms above apparently do not, one thing above all--i know what I DO NOT KNOW; which means, i am perfectly willing to adapt a viewpoint to acknowlege probabilities.

to me, 5 to 2 on wisconsin, on the back of my perception of wisconsin and penn st., is outlandish.

as is the the ~9/2 on missouri OU ML. i do have a jar of beans here, if any of you wizards run out of countables, i'll happily send them along.

[/ QUOTE ]

so, we've been having a semantic argument this whole time?

I agree, PSU's offensive playcalling has been stone age. What's sad is that JoePa and Galen Hall got away from that a little during the recent Orange Bowl yer, but it appears they are right back on it.

I've always agreed that the Wisconsin ML is the ML side that I would be on in this game if I were betting it.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
I was kinda poking fun at iggy about Notre Dame earlier, but after looking into things a little closer, in all seriousness...are there 10 I-A teams worse than Notre Dame right now? Are there 5?

Looking back, I am sick that I didn't have a max play on Michigan against them. Less than 300 total yards in the first 2 games combined. That is just abysmal. 2nd best offensive performance through 6 games yielded 203 total yards, against Michigan State's swiss cheese-like D which just gave about that many points to Northwestern. Their only life this season was after Purdue had taken the foot off their throat leading 23-0.

The UCLA game I put basically nothing into. Notre Dame had 140 yards of offense. That's horrible. After UCLA's 2nd-string QB went down, they had a 3rd-string walk-on QB in the game, and to say he was a disaster would be an understatement. He was so bad that after the game, media members were asking (in all seriousness) why Dorrell didn't move to put a WR in at QB who was a HS QB. He is probably the worst QB that will see the field in I-A this season. And they still doubled ND in yardage.

How can a semi-competent football team go +7 in turnovers in ONE GAME and ONLY win by 14?

(Warning: daisy-chain argument.)

To put this week's game into perspective, GT outgained ND by 260 yards at ND. BC outgained GT by 260 at GT. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

My only concern is how much BC will try to do. They kinda laid an egg against I-AA UMass, only winning by 10 at home, but they have pretty well dispatched their other opponents. But then UMass managed 277 yards, so do we have any reason to think Notre Dame is better than them? Looking at their performances against Michigan, it is pretty clear that Appalachian State is...I dunno...14 better than Notre Dame on a neutral? More?

Given last week's results, the public (especially the usual ND backers) is likely to be hopping on a Notre Dame resurgence here, when in fact, their performance last week mirrored their other (horrendous) performances this season in every way but the score.

I've been working to convince myself not to go above 5 units on this one (given that 13.5 is still available at VIP, slow line - won't add at 14).

I am not a Notre Dame hater. I own some Notre Dame merchandise. They're just that bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah...pathetic....I actually has my silly UCLA o9 wins at about 40/60 going into the ND game. I had no idea that they couldn't put anyone in at QB after the top two got hurt. WTF????
That loss was so embarrassing that I'm on the fire Karl Dorrell bandwagon as well. Two years ago, when UCLA got out to that 8-0 start, everyone was surprised because it was this year that was supposed to be the breakout. That team did fold. This team was supposed to compete for the conference crown. At least, it had been anticipated for 2-3 years as the players/recruits filled in positions. Just a pathetic display.
That's twice this year in 6 games UCLA has laid a complete egg.

[ICantCash]

Pirateboy, I had already picked up UT at -7, and now my bookie has dropped the line to -6.5... is there something behind this or does someone just love MSST?

[Gordon Scott]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Notre Dame +13.5

[/ QUOTE ]

*pukes*

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a man I'm 40 AND THATS HOW MANY WE'RE GOING TO DROP ON THE HUSKERS THIS WEEK............

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I was kind of hoping this would sneak up to 14.5, but it looks like I'm out of luck there unless I want to get my money stuck on Bodog for 3 months. (I don't.) If you really want to know what the square side is on a bet, Bodog having a line that's a full point off from the market crossing a key number is a pretty good indication.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's leaning toward 14 on Pinny and has been there on and off during the week, and Bodog has shifted their juice back toward 14 as well, and that's just the square line which I'm sure most of us aren't getting, so it's not really that big of a difference.

[zOrO2k6]

any1 betting on Texas A & M @ Texas Tech?

[pirateboy]

[ QUOTE ]
Pirateboy, I had already picked up UT at -7, and now my bookie has dropped the line to -6.5... is there something behind this or does someone just love MSST?

[/ QUOTE ]

No injuries to speak of. People (sports bettors) have mentioned it could be a trap game for Tennessee, but I don't see it that way. The team has new life, and Fulmer is still coaching for his job.