10-23-2022, 03:54 PM
Stanford 14.5 point dogs to UCLA.
Line vs. UCLA
10-23-2022, 05:13 PM
I can’t believe I’m saying this but that spread looks too wide to me. If I bet I’d probably take Stanford to cover.
10-23-2022, 05:27 PM
Before I looked, I thought 14, so it looks reasonable to me.
Amongst the better teams Stanford has faced, we lost by 13 to USC, 18 to Washington and 18 to Oregon so I can easily see us losing by between 10 and 20.
BC
Amongst the better teams Stanford has faced, we lost by 13 to USC, 18 to Washington and 18 to Oregon so I can easily see us losing by between 10 and 20.
BC
Before I looked, I thought 14, so it looks reasonable to me.
Amongst the better teams Stanford has faced, we lost by 13 to USC, 18 to Washington and 18 to Oregon so I can easily see us losing by between 10 and 20.
BC
Amongst the better teams Stanford has faced, we lost by 13 to USC, 18 to Washington and 18 to Oregon so I can easily see us losing by between 10 and 20.
BC
Me too, it’s not a crazy line and I think there’s a chance DTR goes off enough that the score widens (but we could also scrape some consolation points like we did in early games). I just think the teams present on paper as more of an 8-14 point spread than 14-20.
Regardless of what the computer algorithms say (I think Sagarin would have more like 8.5 and ESPN’s algorithm would have more like 10.5), I am mindful that we rarely win against the spread, so I do hesitate to even comment on this.
Regardless of what the computer algorithms say (I think Sagarin would have more like 8.5 and ESPN’s algorithm would have more like 10.5), I am mindful that we rarely win against the spread, so I do hesitate to even comment on this.
Me too, it’s not a crazy line and I think there’s a chance DTR goes off enough that the score widens (but we could also scrape some consolation points like we did in early games). I just think the teams present on paper as more of an 8-14 point spread than 14-20.
Regardless of what the computer algorithms say (I think Sagarin would have more like 8.5 and ESPN’s algorithm would have more like 10.5), I am mindful that we rarely win against the spread, so I do hesitate to even comment on this.
Regardless of what the computer algorithms say (I think Sagarin would have more like 8.5 and ESPN’s algorithm would have more like 10.5), I am mindful that we rarely win against the spread, so I do hesitate to even comment on this.
10-23-2022, 06:28 PM
I think the distribution is bi-modal. It could be a UCLA blowout, where 18-20+ point delta would be reasonable, maybe down to 14 if Stanford is active in garbage time. It also could be a very close game if UCLA isn't motivated and the Stanford defense plays over their head again, like a 7 point game or less. I don't think a two touchdown delta itself is probable, but it splits the difference.
I think the distribution is bi-modal. It could be a UCLA blowout, where 18-20+ point delta would be reasonable, maybe down to 14 if Stanford is active in garbage time. It also could be a very close game if UCLA isn't motivated and the Stanford defense plays over their head again, like a 7 point game or less. I don't think a two touchdown delta itself is probable, but it splits the difference.
10-23-2022, 08:43 PM
i don't think this game is going to be very close.
UCLA is going to be somewhat angry after giving up 45 points to Oregon.
UCLA is going to be somewhat angry after giving up 45 points to Oregon.
Cal delenda est
(10-23-2022, 08:43 PM)newguy Wrote: i don't think this game is going to be very close.You could be correct. OTOH, both Southern California teams have been known to shut it down after a loss that eliminates them from national championship consideration. Hard to say which team we will get.
UCLA is going to be somewhat angry after giving up 45 points to Oregon.
(10-23-2022, 08:43 PM)newguy Wrote: i don't think this game is going to be very close.You could be correct. OTOH, both Southern California teams have been known to shut it down after a loss that eliminates them from national championship consideration. Hard to say which team we will get.
UCLA is going to be somewhat angry after giving up 45 points to Oregon.
10-23-2022, 10:44 PM
A bimodal distribution is reasonable, but I think we could wind up around the spread if UCLA gets a two or three touchdown lead at the half and cruises to the end. Let’s say it’s 28-6 at the half, UCLA takes its foot off the gas, and we score two touchdowns in garbage time. Final 35-20, though it won’t have been close… and will wind up right around the spread.
BC
BC
A bimodal distribution is reasonable, but I think we could wind up around the spread if UCLA gets a two or three touchdown lead at the half and cruises to the end. Let’s say it’s 28-6 at the half, UCLA takes its foot off the gas, and we score two touchdowns in garbage time. Final 35-20, though it won’t have been close… and will wind up right around the spread.
BC
BC
10-24-2022, 07:43 AM
(10-23-2022, 10:44 PM)BostonCard Wrote: A bimodal distribution is reasonable, but I think we could wind up around the spread if UCLA gets a two or three touchdown lead at the half and cruises to the end. Let’s say it’s 28-6 at the half, UCLA takes its foot off the gas, and we score two touchdowns in garbage time. Final 35-20, though it won’t have been close… and will wind up right around the spread.Agree, thus my comment of down to 14 being possible in garbage time. The bimodal distribution creates a bigger standard deviation and makes an outcome near the "mean" 14 point spread much less likely than in a "normal" game. :-)
BC
(10-23-2022, 10:44 PM)BostonCard Wrote: A bimodal distribution is reasonable, but I think we could wind up around the spread if UCLA gets a two or three touchdown lead at the half and cruises to the end. Let’s say it’s 28-6 at the half, UCLA takes its foot off the gas, and we score two touchdowns in garbage time. Final 35-20, though it won’t have been close… and will wind up right around the spread.Agree, thus my comment of down to 14 being possible in garbage time. The bimodal distribution creates a bigger standard deviation and makes an outcome near the "mean" 14 point spread much less likely than in a "normal" game. :-)
BC
10-24-2022, 09:06 AM
(10-23-2022, 05:13 PM)msqueri Wrote: I can’t believe I’m saying this but that spread looks too wide to me. If I bet I’d probably take Stanford to cover.
I never bet against Stanford but this line looks too low. UCLA has the kind of explosive offense that even the less passive Stanford defense lacks the speed and tackling ability to stay with. UCLA might win by less, but Chip will be able to name the score.
(10-23-2022, 05:13 PM)msqueri Wrote: I can’t believe I’m saying this but that spread looks too wide to me. If I bet I’d probably take Stanford to cover.
I never bet against Stanford but this line looks too low. UCLA has the kind of explosive offense that even the less passive Stanford defense lacks the speed and tackling ability to stay with. UCLA might win by less, but Chip will be able to name the score.
10-24-2022, 01:24 PM
(10-24-2022, 09:06 AM)winflop Wrote:(10-23-2022, 05:13 PM)msqueri Wrote: I can’t believe I’m saying this but that spread looks too wide to me. If I bet I’d probably take Stanford to cover.
I never bet against Stanford but this line looks too low. UCLA has the kind of explosive offense that even the less passive Stanford defense lacks the speed and tackling ability to stay with. UCLA might win by less, but Chip will be able to name the score.
Kelly needs a statement game after his drubbing last week and will likely get it this week. Shaw? Dude has nothing to prove to anybody. Just ask Bernie and MTL. Or a lot of guys on this board for that matter.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
(10-24-2022, 09:06 AM)winflop Wrote:(10-23-2022, 05:13 PM)msqueri Wrote: I can’t believe I’m saying this but that spread looks too wide to me. If I bet I’d probably take Stanford to cover.
I never bet against Stanford but this line looks too low. UCLA has the kind of explosive offense that even the less passive Stanford defense lacks the speed and tackling ability to stay with. UCLA might win by less, but Chip will be able to name the score.
Kelly needs a statement game after his drubbing last week and will likely get it this week. Shaw? Dude has nothing to prove to anybody. Just ask Bernie and MTL. Or a lot of guys on this board for that matter.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
(10-24-2022, 01:24 PM)gailtate Wrote: Kelly needs a statement game after his drubbing last week and will likely get it this week.Maybe, but winning a "statement" game against Stanford is impossible. UCLA should be heavily favored against a 3-4 team when they are 6-1. No matter how badly they beat Stanford, it means nothing. Oct 8 was their "statement" game and they have another chance on Nov 19. All the other games are "statements" only if they get beat. Kelly knows that and his players know that. I am sure Kelly is just trying to make sure his troops are motivated to avoid such a "statement".
(10-24-2022, 01:24 PM)gailtate Wrote: Kelly needs a statement game after his drubbing last week and will likely get it this week.Maybe, but winning a "statement" game against Stanford is impossible. UCLA should be heavily favored against a 3-4 team when they are 6-1. No matter how badly they beat Stanford, it means nothing. Oct 8 was their "statement" game and they have another chance on Nov 19. All the other games are "statements" only if they get beat. Kelly knows that and his players know that. I am sure Kelly is just trying to make sure his troops are motivated to avoid such a "statement".
10-24-2022, 02:20 PM
The line has now increased to -16.5 UCLA. Maybe the odds-makers and/or the bettors have been reading this thread. Given the over/under at 64.5, 41-24 would allow UCLA to cover; 40-24 would be a Stanford win ATS. For the record, this is marginally worse than the line against Notre Dame, so maybe another surprise in the Rose Bowl is possible.
In 2014, the 6-5 Cardinal played the 9-2 #8-ranked Bruins in the Rose Bowl and emerged triumphant 31-10. Yes, we had a different defense back then; and we had Hogan, Cajuste and Rector (but no Montgomery for that game). That loss knocked the Bruins out of the Pac-12 South running and helped Arizona emerge triumphant. The Wildcats were then murdered by Oregon and Mariota in the Pac-12 title game.
In 2014, the 6-5 Cardinal played the 9-2 #8-ranked Bruins in the Rose Bowl and emerged triumphant 31-10. Yes, we had a different defense back then; and we had Hogan, Cajuste and Rector (but no Montgomery for that game). That loss knocked the Bruins out of the Pac-12 South running and helped Arizona emerge triumphant. The Wildcats were then murdered by Oregon and Mariota in the Pac-12 title game.
The line has now increased to -16.5 UCLA. Maybe the odds-makers and/or the bettors have been reading this thread. Given the over/under at 64.5, 41-24 would allow UCLA to cover; 40-24 would be a Stanford win ATS. For the record, this is marginally worse than the line against Notre Dame, so maybe another surprise in the Rose Bowl is possible.
In 2014, the 6-5 Cardinal played the 9-2 #8-ranked Bruins in the Rose Bowl and emerged triumphant 31-10. Yes, we had a different defense back then; and we had Hogan, Cajuste and Rector (but no Montgomery for that game). That loss knocked the Bruins out of the Pac-12 South running and helped Arizona emerge triumphant. The Wildcats were then murdered by Oregon and Mariota in the Pac-12 title game.
In 2014, the 6-5 Cardinal played the 9-2 #8-ranked Bruins in the Rose Bowl and emerged triumphant 31-10. Yes, we had a different defense back then; and we had Hogan, Cajuste and Rector (but no Montgomery for that game). That loss knocked the Bruins out of the Pac-12 South running and helped Arizona emerge triumphant. The Wildcats were then murdered by Oregon and Mariota in the Pac-12 title game.
10-24-2022, 09:51 PM
with our running back depth what it is, i think Shaw should let Arlen Harris run the ball a few times, even though it could eventually lead to a burned shirt.
Cal delenda est
10-24-2022, 10:30 PM
(10-24-2022, 09:51 PM)newguy Wrote: with our running back depth what it is, i think Shaw should let Arlen Harris run the ball a few times, even though it could eventually lead to a burned shirt.
https://twitter.com/arlenharrisjr33/stat...jvdSnrSDqA
(10-24-2022, 09:51 PM)newguy Wrote: with our running back depth what it is, i think Shaw should let Arlen Harris run the ball a few times, even though it could eventually lead to a burned shirt.
https://twitter.com/arlenharrisjr33/stat...jvdSnrSDqA
10-24-2022, 10:38 PM
(10-24-2022, 10:30 PM)Jamesy Wrote:(10-24-2022, 09:51 PM)newguy Wrote: with our running back depth what it is, i think Shaw should let Arlen Harris run the ball a few times, even though it could eventually lead to a burned shirt.
https://twitter.com/arlenharrisjr33/stat...jvdSnrSDqA
Seriously? Interesting that news like this gets provoked right when he's asked to play. Guess he just didn't want to burn his shirt.
(10-24-2022, 10:30 PM)Jamesy Wrote:(10-24-2022, 09:51 PM)newguy Wrote: with our running back depth what it is, i think Shaw should let Arlen Harris run the ball a few times, even though it could eventually lead to a burned shirt.
https://twitter.com/arlenharrisjr33/stat...jvdSnrSDqA
Seriously? Interesting that news like this gets provoked right when he's asked to play. Guess he just didn't want to burn his shirt.
10-24-2022, 10:39 PM
(10-24-2022, 10:30 PM)Jamesy Wrote:(10-24-2022, 09:51 PM)newguy Wrote: with our running back depth what it is, i think Shaw should let Arlen Harris run the ball a few times, even though it could eventually lead to a burned shirt.
https://twitter.com/arlenharrisjr33/stat...jvdSnrSDqA
Wow. That was quick.
We seem to not only have a problem keeping RBs healthy but keeping them on the roster period.
(10-24-2022, 10:30 PM)Jamesy Wrote:(10-24-2022, 09:51 PM)newguy Wrote: with our running back depth what it is, i think Shaw should let Arlen Harris run the ball a few times, even though it could eventually lead to a burned shirt.
https://twitter.com/arlenharrisjr33/stat...jvdSnrSDqA
Wow. That was quick.
We seem to not only have a problem keeping RBs healthy but keeping them on the roster period.
10-24-2022, 11:19 PM
Apparently Arlen hasn’t been at Stanford long enough to know it’s not on the semester system.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »