[washingtonismoney]

Per Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheMaxMeyer/status/9...4068347906

Looks like that correlates with a roughly 40% chance of winning, per historical trends (https://www.teamrankings.com/ncf/odds-history/results/)

[washingtonismoney]

Per Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheMaxMeyer/status/9...4068347906

Looks like that correlates with a roughly 40% chance of winning, per historical trends (https://www.teamrankings.com/ncf/odds-history/results/)

[OutsiderFan]

Will be fascinating to see how this line moves up until the game kicks off.

[OutsiderFan]

Will be fascinating to see how this line moves up until the game kicks off.

[Row80Critic]

ESPN's FPI gives Stanford a 60.4% chance of winning.  Sagarin hasn't been updated yet for this weekend's games, but his overall rating right now would make Stanford about a 1/2 point favorite.  Very difficult to put odds on a game this early in the season I suppose.

[Row80Critic]

ESPN's FPI gives Stanford a 60.4% chance of winning.  Sagarin hasn't been updated yet for this weekend's games, but his overall rating right now would make Stanford about a 1/2 point favorite.  Very difficult to put odds on a game this early in the season I suppose.

[Goose]

It is always wise to remember that Vegas odds are set not by what the book's think is "true", but rather by what the book's think will make them the most money. The Toejam faithful will probably be happy to give the 5 and bet. Given that it is USC, at home, #4, against Stanford, #14, I would almost expect a larger number. Home field is suppose to be worth about 3 points, isn't it?

[Goose]

It is always wise to remember that Vegas odds are set not by what the book's think is "true", but rather by what the book's think will make them the most money. The Toejam faithful will probably be happy to give the 5 and bet. Given that it is USC, at home, #4, against Stanford, #14, I would almost expect a larger number. Home field is suppose to be worth about 3 points, isn't it?

[DC 86]

The line actually opened at 5.5 but moved to 6.5 fairly quickly.

[DC 86]

The line actually opened at 5.5 but moved to 6.5 fairly quickly.

[martyup]

Perfect.  Keep disrespecting Stanford.  Keep underestimating Shaw.  Tackling fuel.

[martyup]

Perfect.  Keep disrespecting Stanford.  Keep underestimating Shaw.  Tackling fuel.

[Hurlburt88]

5 is more than I expected.  Oh well, let's get to the game!

[Hurlburt88]

5 is more than I expected.  Oh well, let's get to the game!

[OutsiderFan]

All the USC fan boy money will come in first.  The smart money will bet later in the week.

[OutsiderFan]

All the USC fan boy money will come in first.  The smart money will bet later in the week.

[DC 86]

All the Under Stanford Control (again) fan boy money will come in first.  The smart money will bet later in the week.

I expect there will be buyback later in the week, but it wasn't fan boy money that moved the line a full point in a span of 17 minutes after being posted offshore.

[DC 86]

All the Under Stanford Control (again) fan boy money will come in first.  The smart money will bet later in the week.

I expect there will be buyback later in the week, but it wasn't fan boy money that moved the line a full point in a span of 17 minutes after being posted offshore.

[ADPATERSON]

Line was 3 until Vegas saw the Jake Olson snap.  WMU didnt even rush the ball.
Worth 2 PATs, line moved to 5. 

https://youtu.be/lvW3zjMGzLY 

[ADPATERSON]

Line was 3 until Vegas saw the Jake Olson snap.  WMU didnt even rush the ball.
Worth 2 PATs, line moved to 5. 

https://youtu.be/lvW3zjMGzLY 

[OutsiderFan]

Line is now 7, so has gone up 2 pts since opening. But why let recent and even not so recent history get in the way?

In its last 13 games at the Coliseum since 1991, Stanford has lost to USC by more than 7 pts just 3 times, and is 7-6 against USC in such games.  In the last nine meetings in L.A., Stanford is 6-3 overall.  And Stanford is 8-3 in the last 11 meetings between the two period, no matter where played.  Only one of those games did USC win by more than 7 and the other two win were only by 3 pts. 

You have to be kind of crazy to bet USC by more than 6.5 in this game.

[OutsiderFan]

Line is now 7, so has gone up 2 pts since opening. But why let recent and even not so recent history get in the way?

In its last 13 games at the Coliseum since 1991, Stanford has lost to USC by more than 7 pts just 3 times, and is 7-6 against USC in such games.  In the last nine meetings in L.A., Stanford is 6-3 overall.  And Stanford is 8-3 in the last 11 meetings between the two period, no matter where played.  Only one of those games did USC win by more than 7 and the other two win were only by 3 pts. 

You have to be kind of crazy to bet USC by more than 6.5 in this game.

[DC 86]

Line is now 7, so has gone up 2 pts since opening. But why let recent and even not so recent history get in the way?

In its last 13 games at the Coliseum since 1991, Stanford has lost to Under Stanford Control (again) by more than 7 pts just 3 times, and is 7-6 against Under Stanford Control (again) in such games.  In the last nine meetings in L.A., Stanford is 6-3 overall.  And Stanford is 8-3 in the last 11 meetings between the two period, no matter where played.  Only one of those games did Under Stanford Control (again) win by more than 7 and the other two win were only by 3 pts. 

You have to be kind of crazy to bet Under Stanford Control (again) by more than 6.5 in this game.

Setting aside the issue of arbitrary endpoints, what exactly is the relevance of a game played in 1991 to this upcoming Saturday's result? Data points from prior seasons are not particularly useful for handicapping, nowhere moreso than in college sports where the entire roster turns over every few years and significant changes (including dramatic improvements by younger players) take place each year.

Going into the Washington game last year Stanford had only lost once in Seattle after 2003, and that loss was by four points, yet somehow we got blown out 44-6. Then we played Colorado, against whom our last three results were 48-0, 48-7 and 42-10 wins, yet lost 10-5.

Even just two years ago, when we most recently played USC at the Coliseum, we had Kevin Hogan at QB, Christian McCaffrey was our leading rusher and Austin Hooper was our leading receiver. Steve Sarkisian was USC's head coach and Cody Kessler was their QB.

I believe that Stanford matches up very well with USC and will be fully prepared coming off their bye, but don't think that it's "crazy" to bet SC on the basis of somewhat-recent and definitely not-recent data points.

[DC 86]

Line is now 7, so has gone up 2 pts since opening. But why let recent and even not so recent history get in the way?

In its last 13 games at the Coliseum since 1991, Stanford has lost to Under Stanford Control (again) by more than 7 pts just 3 times, and is 7-6 against Under Stanford Control (again) in such games.  In the last nine meetings in L.A., Stanford is 6-3 overall.  And Stanford is 8-3 in the last 11 meetings between the two period, no matter where played.  Only one of those games did Under Stanford Control (again) win by more than 7 and the other two win were only by 3 pts. 

You have to be kind of crazy to bet Under Stanford Control (again) by more than 6.5 in this game.

Setting aside the issue of arbitrary endpoints, what exactly is the relevance of a game played in 1991 to this upcoming Saturday's result? Data points from prior seasons are not particularly useful for handicapping, nowhere moreso than in college sports where the entire roster turns over every few years and significant changes (including dramatic improvements by younger players) take place each year.

Going into the Washington game last year Stanford had only lost once in Seattle after 2003, and that loss was by four points, yet somehow we got blown out 44-6. Then we played Colorado, against whom our last three results were 48-0, 48-7 and 42-10 wins, yet lost 10-5.

Even just two years ago, when we most recently played USC at the Coliseum, we had Kevin Hogan at QB, Christian McCaffrey was our leading rusher and Austin Hooper was our leading receiver. Steve Sarkisian was USC's head coach and Cody Kessler was their QB.

I believe that Stanford matches up very well with USC and will be fully prepared coming off their bye, but don't think that it's "crazy" to bet SC on the basis of somewhat-recent and definitely not-recent data points.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17294.msg199164#msg199164 date=1504621898]
Line is now 7, so has gone up 2 pts since opening. But why let recent and even not so recent history get in the way?

In its last 13 games at the Coliseum since 1991, Stanford has lost to Under Stanford Control (again) by more than 7 pts just 3 times, and is 7-6 against Under Stanford Control (again) in such games.  In the last nine meetings in L.A., Stanford is 6-3 overall.  And Stanford is 8-3 in the last 11 meetings between the two period, no matter where played.  Only one of those games did Under Stanford Control (again) win by more than 7 and the other two win were only by 3 pts. 

You have to be kind of crazy to bet Under Stanford Control (again) by more than 6.5 in this game.

Setting aside the issue of arbitrary endpoints, what exactly is the relevance of a game played in 1991 to this upcoming Saturday's result? Data points from prior seasons are not particularly useful for handicapping, nowhere moreso than in college sports where the entire roster turns over every few years and significant changes (including dramatic improvements by younger players) take place each year.

Going into the Washington game last year Stanford had only lost once in Seattle after 2003, and that loss was by four points, yet somehow we got blown out 44-6. Then we played Colorado, against whom our last three results were 48-0, 48-7 and 42-10 wins, yet lost 10-5.

Even just two years ago, when we most recently played Under Stanford Control (again) at the Coliseum, we had Kevin Hogan at QB, Christian McCaffrey was our leading rusher and Austin Hooper was our leading receiver. Steve Sarkisian was Under Stanford Control (again)'s head coach and Cody Kessler was their QB.

I believe that Stanford matches up very well with Under Stanford Control (again) and will be fully prepared coming off their bye, but don't think that it's "crazy" to bet SC on the basis of somewhat-recent and definitely not-recent data points.
[/quote]

I don't have the ATS stats, but it sure seems Stanford has consistently outperformed expectations against USC, probably more than any other program it faces.  And this has happened with a lot of turnover on both sides.  Sure USC could cover a 7pt spread or more, but historical results suggest it is highly unlikely.

The betting public seems to agree with me, because the line is now down to -6.5 from a high of 7.

Now that the total of 56 is out, Vegas expects roughly USC 31 Stanford 24.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17294.msg199164#msg199164 date=1504621898]
Line is now 7, so has gone up 2 pts since opening. But why let recent and even not so recent history get in the way?

In its last 13 games at the Coliseum since 1991, Stanford has lost to Under Stanford Control (again) by more than 7 pts just 3 times, and is 7-6 against Under Stanford Control (again) in such games.  In the last nine meetings in L.A., Stanford is 6-3 overall.  And Stanford is 8-3 in the last 11 meetings between the two period, no matter where played.  Only one of those games did Under Stanford Control (again) win by more than 7 and the other two win were only by 3 pts. 

You have to be kind of crazy to bet Under Stanford Control (again) by more than 6.5 in this game.

Setting aside the issue of arbitrary endpoints, what exactly is the relevance of a game played in 1991 to this upcoming Saturday's result? Data points from prior seasons are not particularly useful for handicapping, nowhere moreso than in college sports where the entire roster turns over every few years and significant changes (including dramatic improvements by younger players) take place each year.

Going into the Washington game last year Stanford had only lost once in Seattle after 2003, and that loss was by four points, yet somehow we got blown out 44-6. Then we played Colorado, against whom our last three results were 48-0, 48-7 and 42-10 wins, yet lost 10-5.

Even just two years ago, when we most recently played Under Stanford Control (again) at the Coliseum, we had Kevin Hogan at QB, Christian McCaffrey was our leading rusher and Austin Hooper was our leading receiver. Steve Sarkisian was Under Stanford Control (again)'s head coach and Cody Kessler was their QB.

I believe that Stanford matches up very well with Under Stanford Control (again) and will be fully prepared coming off their bye, but don't think that it's "crazy" to bet SC on the basis of somewhat-recent and definitely not-recent data points.
[/quote]

I don't have the ATS stats, but it sure seems Stanford has consistently outperformed expectations against USC, probably more than any other program it faces.  And this has happened with a lot of turnover on both sides.  Sure USC could cover a 7pt spread or more, but historical results suggest it is highly unlikely.

The betting public seems to agree with me, because the line is now down to -6.5 from a high of 7.

Now that the total of 56 is out, Vegas expects roughly USC 31 Stanford 24.

[washingtonismoney]

I don't have the ATS stats, but it sure seems Stanford has consistently outperformed expectations against Under Stanford Control (again), probably more than any other program it faces.  And this has happened with a lot of turnover on both sides.  Sure Under Stanford Control (again) could cover a 7pt spread or more, but historical results suggest it is highly unlikely.

IIRC Shaw is 5-2 ATS against SC. Per Teamrankings.net, Stanford is #1 in college football against the spread since 2011 at 52-30 for a 63.4 percent cover clip. So Shaw is slightly better against SC against the spread than against all teams.

[washingtonismoney]

I don't have the ATS stats, but it sure seems Stanford has consistently outperformed expectations against Under Stanford Control (again), probably more than any other program it faces.  And this has happened with a lot of turnover on both sides.  Sure Under Stanford Control (again) could cover a 7pt spread or more, but historical results suggest it is highly unlikely.

IIRC Shaw is 5-2 ATS against SC. Per Teamrankings.net, Stanford is #1 in college football against the spread since 2011 at 52-30 for a 63.4 percent cover clip. So Shaw is slightly better against SC against the spread than against all teams.

[DC 86]

I don't have the ATS stats, but it sure seems Stanford has consistently outperformed expectations against Under Stanford Control (again), probably more than any other program it faces.  And this has happened with a lot of turnover on both sides.  Sure Under Stanford Control (again) could cover a 7pt spread or more, but historical results suggest it is highly unlikely.

The betting public seems to agree with me, because the line is now down to -6.5 from a high of 7.

Stanford has consistently outperformed expectations against almost every opponent during the Shaw era, although the market may be adjusting (Stanford was 7-6 ATS last year).

Under Shaw, Stanford's best ATS records are against UCLA (6-1) and Cal (5-1).

My argument is not about Stanford's likelihood of covering the spread or winning the game, it is about the relevance of historical results (especially going back 26 years), which absolutely influences public betting, but in a negative fashion. Data mining reveals that following historical trends is a losing proposition ATS and that being a contrarian in this area is more profitable.

[DC 86]

I don't have the ATS stats, but it sure seems Stanford has consistently outperformed expectations against Under Stanford Control (again), probably more than any other program it faces.  And this has happened with a lot of turnover on both sides.  Sure Under Stanford Control (again) could cover a 7pt spread or more, but historical results suggest it is highly unlikely.

The betting public seems to agree with me, because the line is now down to -6.5 from a high of 7.

Stanford has consistently outperformed expectations against almost every opponent during the Shaw era, although the market may be adjusting (Stanford was 7-6 ATS last year).

Under Shaw, Stanford's best ATS records are against UCLA (6-1) and Cal (5-1).

My argument is not about Stanford's likelihood of covering the spread or winning the game, it is about the relevance of historical results (especially going back 26 years), which absolutely influences public betting, but in a negative fashion. Data mining reveals that following historical trends is a losing proposition ATS and that being a contrarian in this area is more profitable.