early over/unders for wins set by one casino - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: early over/unders for wins set by one casino (/thread-9275.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: early over/unders for wins set by one casino (/thread-9275.html)
early over/unders for wins set by one casino - washingtonismoney - 05-30-2015
Pac-12
Arizona: 7 (over -150, under +110)
Arizona State: 8.5 (+130, under -170)
Cal: 5 (over -130, under -110)
Colorado: 4.5 (over -140, under +100)
Oregon: 9.5 (over -165, under +125)
Oregon State: 4 (over -110, under -130)
Stanford: 9 (over +100, under -140)
UCLA: 9.5 (over +100, under -140)
USC: 8.5 (over -105, under -135)
Utah: 7.5 (over -7.5, under -110)
Washington: 4 (over -185, under +145)
Washington State: 5 (over -130, under -110)
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/eye-on-college-football/25196379/5dimes-releases-2015-college-football-win-totals-
Re: early over/unders for wins set by one casino - BostonCard - 05-30-2015
Surprised by USC. Conventional wisdom is that with Kessler back and finally free of their sanctions, they should contend for a conference championship.
BC
Re: early over/unders for wins set by one casino - washingtonismoney - 05-30-2015
(05-30-2015, 01:12 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Surprised by U$. Conventional wisdom is that with Kessler back and finally free of their sanctions, they should contend for a conference championship.
Yeah, but conventional wisdom doesn't have money on being right.
Re: early over/unders for wins set by one casino - winflop - 05-30-2015
(05-30-2015, 01:12 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Surprised by U$. Conventional wisdom is that with Kessler back and finally free of their sanctions, they should contend for a conference championship.
BC
I'm not. Until Sark wins more than 8 regular season games I'm betting against him
Re: early over/unders for wins set by one casino - pcgoode - 05-30-2015
Most of this looks about right to me. I'm surprised that UCLA is at 9.5. They lost a fair amount of talent on defense, and will be going with an untested QB. Enlighten me if you have a different view...
Re: early over/unders for wins set by one casino - SeattleTree - 06-01-2015
(05-30-2015, 06:40 PM)pcgoode link Wrote:Most of this looks about right to me. I'm surprised that UCLA is at 9.5. They lost a fair amount of talent on defense, and will be going with an untested QB. Enlighten me if you have a different view...
I'm with you pc. UCLA has a lot of returning starters, but until they beat Stanford and/or Oregon, I have a hard time taking them too seriously.
Re: early over/unders for wins set by one casino - CTcard - 06-01-2015
(05-30-2015, 06:40 PM)pcgoode link Wrote:They lost a fair amount of talent on defense, and will be going with an untested QB.
That fair amount of talent is in three bodies - they are reported to have 8 defensive starters back ... and 10 on offense apparently only losing Hundley.
But of course it's easy to not think too much of the Bruins after watching them vs Stanford the past several seasons.
Re: early over/unders for wins set by one casino - Papa John - 06-01-2015
7 of Stanford's 12 opponents are "predicted" to be bowl eligible:
@ Northwestern: 6.5
UCF: 7
@ U-S-C: 8.5
@ OSU: 4
UA: 7
UCLA: 9.5
UW: 4
@ WSU: 5
@ CU: 4.5
UO: 9.5
C.al: 5
N.otre D.ame: 9
So according to this data, Stanford gets the best possible Southern Division misses with ASU (8.5) and Utah (7.5)--although both of those numbers may have been different if the Sun Devils and Utes had been scheduled to play Stanford.
Note also that Stanford gets 5 of the 7 expected bowl-eligible teams at home. I like this schedule.
Re: early over/unders for wins set by one casino - PrinceLightfoot - 06-01-2015
(06-01-2015, 07:42 AM)SeattleTree link Wrote:[quote author=pcgoode link=topic=12193.msg119651#msg119651 date=1433036455]
Most of this looks about right to me. I'm surprised that UCLA is at 9.5. They lost a fair amount of talent on defense, and will be going with an untested QB. Enlighten me if you have a different view...
I'm with you pc. UCLA has a lot of returning starters, but until they beat Stanford and/or Oregon, I have a hard time taking them too seriously.
[/quote]
They lost Kendricks (LB), Odighizuma (DE) and Hundley (QB) to the draft on top of Jefferson (CB) who was a key coverage player. They return 17 of 22 starters so that is why people are so high on them, but they fail to note that one of the replacements is either a true freshman QB (doesn't matter if it is Rosen) or a non-threatening Neuhisel. There running game with the lack of a very strong RB will not be enough to give their new QB a break....pin those ears back, defenses, and crash the QB!
Eight wins is their ceiling.