11-25-2018, 04:05 PM
Cal by 25?
11-25-2018, 04:17 PM
(11-25-2018, 04:05 PM)yvonne Wrote: http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-foot...me/1200#BTI think that warrants a bet on Stanford... ;-)
(11-25-2018, 04:05 PM)yvonne Wrote: http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-foot...me/1200#BTI think that warrants a bet on Stanford... ;-)
11-25-2018, 06:09 PM
OddsShark has a saner Stanford by -2.5. It's probably a case in which one clerk pushed one wrong button and set off the wrong listing in four houses.
11-25-2018, 07:22 PM
Is it actually possible to get this -25 line o. Stanford? Aka will the casinos honor the bets?
Is it actually possible to get this -25 line o. Stanford? Aka will the casinos honor the bets?
11-26-2018, 07:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-26-2018, 07:37 AM by OutsiderFan.)
I usually scour the betting lines on all the college football games to see if anything seems out of whack to me. Stanford and Cal spreads have not yet once stood out to me, until this week.
A couple weeks ago, Stanford was -2.5, but that was likely gonna be with a much more banged up Stanford team, with both JJAW and Kaden Smith projected to be out. That made a modicum of sense.
The notion the line is once again Stanford -2.5 with JJAW back healthy, Kaden Smith much more likely to play, and Stanford lighting up score boards with one of the most dominant passing attacks in college football over the last few weeks, while Cal can barely get out of its own way and gave up 21 to a Colorado team that has scored just 7 at home in each of its last two games, is frankly stunning to me.
Stanford should beat Cal by at least 2 TDs. No part of me can see why this line is so low. Sure Cal has a good pass D, but they can't score. Stanford even put up 24 at UW. Cal could only muster 12 at home, and 6 of those were a pick 6. Speaking of, if you take defensive TDs out of Cal's scoring average, they are only scoring 18.1 PPG to Stanford's 29.3 PPG. Without defensive scores, they lose to Colorado 21-19.
I'm not a Stanford or Cal homer or hater. Rooting for both teams, I see things pretty darn objectively in this game. I just can't see any real case for why this game should be very close and anything other than a comfortable Stanford win.
A couple weeks ago, Stanford was -2.5, but that was likely gonna be with a much more banged up Stanford team, with both JJAW and Kaden Smith projected to be out. That made a modicum of sense.
The notion the line is once again Stanford -2.5 with JJAW back healthy, Kaden Smith much more likely to play, and Stanford lighting up score boards with one of the most dominant passing attacks in college football over the last few weeks, while Cal can barely get out of its own way and gave up 21 to a Colorado team that has scored just 7 at home in each of its last two games, is frankly stunning to me.
Stanford should beat Cal by at least 2 TDs. No part of me can see why this line is so low. Sure Cal has a good pass D, but they can't score. Stanford even put up 24 at UW. Cal could only muster 12 at home, and 6 of those were a pick 6. Speaking of, if you take defensive TDs out of Cal's scoring average, they are only scoring 18.1 PPG to Stanford's 29.3 PPG. Without defensive scores, they lose to Colorado 21-19.
I'm not a Stanford or Cal homer or hater. Rooting for both teams, I see things pretty darn objectively in this game. I just can't see any real case for why this game should be very close and anything other than a comfortable Stanford win.
(This post was last modified: 11-26-2018, 07:37 AM by OutsiderFan.)
I usually scour the betting lines on all the college football games to see if anything seems out of whack to me. Stanford and Cal spreads have not yet once stood out to me, until this week.
A couple weeks ago, Stanford was -2.5, but that was likely gonna be with a much more banged up Stanford team, with both JJAW and Kaden Smith projected to be out. That made a modicum of sense.
The notion the line is once again Stanford -2.5 with JJAW back healthy, Kaden Smith much more likely to play, and Stanford lighting up score boards with one of the most dominant passing attacks in college football over the last few weeks, while Cal can barely get out of its own way and gave up 21 to a Colorado team that has scored just 7 at home in each of its last two games, is frankly stunning to me.
Stanford should beat Cal by at least 2 TDs. No part of me can see why this line is so low. Sure Cal has a good pass D, but they can't score. Stanford even put up 24 at UW. Cal could only muster 12 at home, and 6 of those were a pick 6. Speaking of, if you take defensive TDs out of Cal's scoring average, they are only scoring 18.1 PPG to Stanford's 29.3 PPG. Without defensive scores, they lose to Colorado 21-19.
I'm not a Stanford or Cal homer or hater. Rooting for both teams, I see things pretty darn objectively in this game. I just can't see any real case for why this game should be very close and anything other than a comfortable Stanford win.
A couple weeks ago, Stanford was -2.5, but that was likely gonna be with a much more banged up Stanford team, with both JJAW and Kaden Smith projected to be out. That made a modicum of sense.
The notion the line is once again Stanford -2.5 with JJAW back healthy, Kaden Smith much more likely to play, and Stanford lighting up score boards with one of the most dominant passing attacks in college football over the last few weeks, while Cal can barely get out of its own way and gave up 21 to a Colorado team that has scored just 7 at home in each of its last two games, is frankly stunning to me.
Stanford should beat Cal by at least 2 TDs. No part of me can see why this line is so low. Sure Cal has a good pass D, but they can't score. Stanford even put up 24 at UW. Cal could only muster 12 at home, and 6 of those were a pick 6. Speaking of, if you take defensive TDs out of Cal's scoring average, they are only scoring 18.1 PPG to Stanford's 29.3 PPG. Without defensive scores, they lose to Colorado 21-19.
I'm not a Stanford or Cal homer or hater. Rooting for both teams, I see things pretty darn objectively in this game. I just can't see any real case for why this game should be very close and anything other than a comfortable Stanford win.
11-26-2018, 11:09 AM
(11-26-2018, 07:36 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I usually scour the betting lines on all the college football games to see if anything seems out of whack to me. Stanford and Cal spreads have not yet once stood out to me, until this week.
A couple weeks ago, Stanford was -2.5, but that was likely gonna be with a much more banged up Stanford team, with both JJAW and Kaden Smith projected to be out. That made a modicum of sense.
The notion the line is once again Stanford -2.5 with JJAW back healthy, Kaden Smith much more likely to play, and Stanford lighting up score boards with one of the most dominant passing attacks in college football over the last few weeks, while Cal can barely get out of its own way and gave up 21 to a Colorado team that has scored just 7 at home in each of its last two games, is frankly stunning to me.
Stanford should beat Cal by at least 2 TDs. No part of me can see why this line is so low. Sure Cal has a good pass D, but they can't score. Stanford even put up 24 at UW. Cal could only muster 12 at home, and 6 of those were a pick 6. Speaking of, if you take defensive TDs out of Cal's scoring average, they are only scoring 18.1 PPG to Stanford's 29.3 PPG. Without defensive scores, they lose to Colorado 21-19.
I'm not a Stanford or Cal homer or hater. Rooting for both teams, I see things pretty darn objectively in this game. I just can't see any real case for why this game should be very close and anything other than a comfortable Stanford win.
I'm not sure that we are any less banged up than we were two weeks ago. We'll see tomorrow during Shaw's press conference, but I have a feeling that on net the last two weeks have been a wash; we've had some guys (particularly JJAW) get better with the extra two weeks, but we've had injuries at other spots, notably at linebacker.
Also, UCLA was challenging Berkeley for the weakness of offense, and you saw what they did to our defense. While Berkeley's offense has been very weak, if prior form holds, Chase Garbers will have a career day against us.
BC
(11-26-2018, 07:36 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I usually scour the betting lines on all the college football games to see if anything seems out of whack to me. Stanford and Cal spreads have not yet once stood out to me, until this week.
A couple weeks ago, Stanford was -2.5, but that was likely gonna be with a much more banged up Stanford team, with both JJAW and Kaden Smith projected to be out. That made a modicum of sense.
The notion the line is once again Stanford -2.5 with JJAW back healthy, Kaden Smith much more likely to play, and Stanford lighting up score boards with one of the most dominant passing attacks in college football over the last few weeks, while Cal can barely get out of its own way and gave up 21 to a Colorado team that has scored just 7 at home in each of its last two games, is frankly stunning to me.
Stanford should beat Cal by at least 2 TDs. No part of me can see why this line is so low. Sure Cal has a good pass D, but they can't score. Stanford even put up 24 at UW. Cal could only muster 12 at home, and 6 of those were a pick 6. Speaking of, if you take defensive TDs out of Cal's scoring average, they are only scoring 18.1 PPG to Stanford's 29.3 PPG. Without defensive scores, they lose to Colorado 21-19.
I'm not a Stanford or Cal homer or hater. Rooting for both teams, I see things pretty darn objectively in this game. I just can't see any real case for why this game should be very close and anything other than a comfortable Stanford win.
I'm not sure that we are any less banged up than we were two weeks ago. We'll see tomorrow during Shaw's press conference, but I have a feeling that on net the last two weeks have been a wash; we've had some guys (particularly JJAW) get better with the extra two weeks, but we've had injuries at other spots, notably at linebacker.
Also, UCLA was challenging Berkeley for the weakness of offense, and you saw what they did to our defense. While Berkeley's offense has been very weak, if prior form holds, Chase Garbers will have a career day against us.
BC
11-26-2018, 11:24 AM
(11-26-2018, 11:09 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(11-26-2018, 07:36 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I usually scour the betting lines on all the college football games to see if anything seems out of whack to me. Stanford and Cal spreads have not yet once stood out to me, until this week.
A couple weeks ago, Stanford was -2.5, but that was likely gonna be with a much more banged up Stanford team, with both JJAW and Kaden Smith projected to be out. That made a modicum of sense.
The notion the line is once again Stanford -2.5 with JJAW back healthy, Kaden Smith much more likely to play, and Stanford lighting up score boards with one of the most dominant passing attacks in college football over the last few weeks, while Cal can barely get out of its own way and gave up 21 to a Colorado team that has scored just 7 at home in each of its last two games, is frankly stunning to me.
Stanford should beat Cal by at least 2 TDs. No part of me can see why this line is so low. Sure Cal has a good pass D, but they can't score. Stanford even put up 24 at UW. Cal could only muster 12 at home, and 6 of those were a pick 6. Speaking of, if you take defensive TDs out of Cal's scoring average, they are only scoring 18.1 PPG to Stanford's 29.3 PPG. Without defensive scores, they lose to Colorado 21-19.
I'm not a Stanford or Cal homer or hater. Rooting for both teams, I see things pretty darn objectively in this game. I just can't see any real case for why this game should be very close and anything other than a comfortable Stanford win.
I'm not sure that we are any less banged up than we were two weeks ago. We'll see tomorrow during Shaw's press conference, but I have a feeling that on net the last two weeks have been a wash; we've had some guys (particularly JJAW) get better with the extra two weeks, but we've had injuries at other spots, notably at linebacker.
Also, UCLA was challenging Berkeley for the weakness of offense, and you saw what they did to our defense. While Berkeley's offense has been very weak, if prior form holds, Chase Garbers will have a career day against us.
BC
That's not saying much. And besides, they also lack WRs who can get any separation, and a TE with any real threat. UCLA has been very capable offensively ever since Speight became the QB. Comparing them to Cal is only accurate insofar as they are both Pac-12 football teams. UCLA's personnel on offense is far superior to UCB's.
The thing I think is being overlooked is Stanford's run defense has actually gotten better, and it's better than 2017's. Cal likes to run the ball a lot more than pass it in part because they can't pass it well. This plays to Stanford's strength. UCLA only averaged 1.7 YPC and had like 67 yards rushing, a week after they rolled up 300 on USC.
(11-26-2018, 11:09 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(11-26-2018, 07:36 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: I usually scour the betting lines on all the college football games to see if anything seems out of whack to me. Stanford and Cal spreads have not yet once stood out to me, until this week.
A couple weeks ago, Stanford was -2.5, but that was likely gonna be with a much more banged up Stanford team, with both JJAW and Kaden Smith projected to be out. That made a modicum of sense.
The notion the line is once again Stanford -2.5 with JJAW back healthy, Kaden Smith much more likely to play, and Stanford lighting up score boards with one of the most dominant passing attacks in college football over the last few weeks, while Cal can barely get out of its own way and gave up 21 to a Colorado team that has scored just 7 at home in each of its last two games, is frankly stunning to me.
Stanford should beat Cal by at least 2 TDs. No part of me can see why this line is so low. Sure Cal has a good pass D, but they can't score. Stanford even put up 24 at UW. Cal could only muster 12 at home, and 6 of those were a pick 6. Speaking of, if you take defensive TDs out of Cal's scoring average, they are only scoring 18.1 PPG to Stanford's 29.3 PPG. Without defensive scores, they lose to Colorado 21-19.
I'm not a Stanford or Cal homer or hater. Rooting for both teams, I see things pretty darn objectively in this game. I just can't see any real case for why this game should be very close and anything other than a comfortable Stanford win.
I'm not sure that we are any less banged up than we were two weeks ago. We'll see tomorrow during Shaw's press conference, but I have a feeling that on net the last two weeks have been a wash; we've had some guys (particularly JJAW) get better with the extra two weeks, but we've had injuries at other spots, notably at linebacker.
Also, UCLA was challenging Berkeley for the weakness of offense, and you saw what they did to our defense. While Berkeley's offense has been very weak, if prior form holds, Chase Garbers will have a career day against us.
BC
That's not saying much. And besides, they also lack WRs who can get any separation, and a TE with any real threat. UCLA has been very capable offensively ever since Speight became the QB. Comparing them to Cal is only accurate insofar as they are both Pac-12 football teams. UCLA's personnel on offense is far superior to UCB's.
The thing I think is being overlooked is Stanford's run defense has actually gotten better, and it's better than 2017's. Cal likes to run the ball a lot more than pass it in part because they can't pass it well. This plays to Stanford's strength. UCLA only averaged 1.7 YPC and had like 67 yards rushing, a week after they rolled up 300 on USC.
11-26-2018, 11:41 AM
I hope you are right. The game on Saturday, though, alternated between tight coverage on UCLA's receivers (or Speights failing to see the uncovered receiver), giving our defensive line enough time to pressure Speights, and Speights seeing a receiver wandering without a defender within 5 yards. Those weren't about athleticism; they were defensive breakdowns. If we have those on Saturday, Cal's offense may wake up.
Good point about the run defense. I looked, and I was surprised to see that over the course of the year, we actually have an above average run defense in the Pac-12; we give up an average of 3.85 yards/cary, which is sixth in the Pac-12. Moreover, in November, that number is down to 3.48 ypc.
BC
Good point about the run defense. I looked, and I was surprised to see that over the course of the year, we actually have an above average run defense in the Pac-12; we give up an average of 3.85 yards/cary, which is sixth in the Pac-12. Moreover, in November, that number is down to 3.48 ypc.
BC
I hope you are right. The game on Saturday, though, alternated between tight coverage on UCLA's receivers (or Speights failing to see the uncovered receiver), giving our defensive line enough time to pressure Speights, and Speights seeing a receiver wandering without a defender within 5 yards. Those weren't about athleticism; they were defensive breakdowns. If we have those on Saturday, Cal's offense may wake up.
Good point about the run defense. I looked, and I was surprised to see that over the course of the year, we actually have an above average run defense in the Pac-12; we give up an average of 3.85 yards/cary, which is sixth in the Pac-12. Moreover, in November, that number is down to 3.48 ypc.
BC
Good point about the run defense. I looked, and I was surprised to see that over the course of the year, we actually have an above average run defense in the Pac-12; we give up an average of 3.85 yards/cary, which is sixth in the Pac-12. Moreover, in November, that number is down to 3.48 ypc.
BC
11-26-2018, 12:29 PM
Also, if we're using UCLA as a measuring stick, we scored 49 on UCLA and Cal only managed 7. So based on that difference on offense, they would need one hell of a difference on defense. So let's not lose hope just yet here.
Also, if we're using UCLA as a measuring stick, we scored 49 on UCLA and Cal only managed 7. So based on that difference on offense, they would need one hell of a difference on defense. So let's not lose hope just yet here.
11-26-2018, 01:37 PM
(11-26-2018, 11:09 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Also, UCLA was challenging Berkeley for the weakness of offense, and you saw what they did to our defense. While Berkeley's offense has been very weak, if prior form holds, Chase Garbers will have a career day against us.
While I don't necessarily doubt that cal will somehow find their season best offense against us, UCLA has had a better, and improving, offense.
While a week out of date (but thus before playing us), FEI has UCLA as #65 offense and cal as #121. S&P+ (not a week old) has exactly the same rankings (that's a little weird).
UCLA's past four games have been four of their top five games in yds/gm and yds/play. That seems to roughly correspond to Speight becoming the starter at QB.
Meanwhile, cal's past four games have been four of their five lowest outputs in yds/gm, four of six in yds/play.
(11-26-2018, 11:09 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Also, UCLA was challenging Berkeley for the weakness of offense, and you saw what they did to our defense. While Berkeley's offense has been very weak, if prior form holds, Chase Garbers will have a career day against us.
While I don't necessarily doubt that cal will somehow find their season best offense against us, UCLA has had a better, and improving, offense.
While a week out of date (but thus before playing us), FEI has UCLA as #65 offense and cal as #121. S&P+ (not a week old) has exactly the same rankings (that's a little weird).
UCLA's past four games have been four of their top five games in yds/gm and yds/play. That seems to roughly correspond to Speight becoming the starter at QB.
Meanwhile, cal's past four games have been four of their five lowest outputs in yds/gm, four of six in yds/play.
11-26-2018, 04:15 PM
(11-26-2018, 01:37 PM)CTcard Wrote: While I don't necessarily doubt that cal will somehow find their season best offense against us, UCLA has had a better, and improving, offense.We have to be a bit careful about evaluating the Cal offense. They are often playing not to lose, rather than to win. The defense has got them ahead, so they take few chances. The problems Cal had early in the year were when they were turning the ball over. I don't think the Cal offense is very good, but what it could do if called upon is probably more than we have seen recently. They played their last few games in "turtle" mode the whole way, even WSU.
While a week out of date (but thus before playing us), FEI has UCLA as #65 offense and cal as #121. S&P+ (not a week old) has exactly the same rankings (that's a little weird).
UCLA's past four games have been four of their top five games in yds/gm and yds/play. That seems to roughly correspond to Speight becoming the starter at QB.
Meanwhile, cal's past four games have been four of their five lowest outputs in yds/gm, four of six in yds/play.
Mcllwain was a turnover machine. They went to Garbers not because they felt he was "better", but rather because he wouldn't turn it over as much. Cal isn't very good on offense, but if they can get Laird going they will be better than they have been in the last few games. What we need to do is make sure the Cal defense can't win the game for them. That will put pressure on the Cal offense, and they might very well revert to their early season form if they get out of their comfort zone.
(11-26-2018, 01:37 PM)CTcard Wrote: While I don't necessarily doubt that cal will somehow find their season best offense against us, UCLA has had a better, and improving, offense.We have to be a bit careful about evaluating the Cal offense. They are often playing not to lose, rather than to win. The defense has got them ahead, so they take few chances. The problems Cal had early in the year were when they were turning the ball over. I don't think the Cal offense is very good, but what it could do if called upon is probably more than we have seen recently. They played their last few games in "turtle" mode the whole way, even WSU.
While a week out of date (but thus before playing us), FEI has UCLA as #65 offense and cal as #121. S&P+ (not a week old) has exactly the same rankings (that's a little weird).
UCLA's past four games have been four of their top five games in yds/gm and yds/play. That seems to roughly correspond to Speight becoming the starter at QB.
Meanwhile, cal's past four games have been four of their five lowest outputs in yds/gm, four of six in yds/play.
Mcllwain was a turnover machine. They went to Garbers not because they felt he was "better", but rather because he wouldn't turn it over as much. Cal isn't very good on offense, but if they can get Laird going they will be better than they have been in the last few games. What we need to do is make sure the Cal defense can't win the game for them. That will put pressure on the Cal offense, and they might very well revert to their early season form if they get out of their comfort zone.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »