[SUBuddha]

OK I do not gamble anymore, but due to a death in the family of a member of a P12 board I frequent I have been put in charge of the weekly pick ems for the PAC and NFL.

As I went through and started looking at the lines for the week in Vegas a couple struck me as odd.

Here are the games and lines as of tonight. Anyone else see 2 that look screwy?

Thursday:
Washington @ U$C -17 (O/U 56)

Saturday:
OR St. @ Arizona -10 (O/U 62)

WSU @ UO -17.5 (O/U 71)

Colorado @ ASU -15 (O/U 56.5)

Weenies @ Utah -7 (O/U 61)

[SUBuddha]

OK I do not gamble anymore, but due to a death in the family of a member of a P12 board I frequent I have been put in charge of the weekly pick ems for the PAC and NFL.

As I went through and started looking at the lines for the week in Vegas a couple struck me as odd.

Here are the games and lines as of tonight. Anyone else see 2 that look screwy?

Thursday:
Washington @ U$C -17 (O/U 56)

Saturday:
OR St. @ Arizona -10 (O/U 62)

WSU @ UO -17.5 (O/U 71)

Colorado @ ASU -15 (O/U 56.5)

Weenies @ Utah -7 (O/U 61)

[CTcard]

Here are the games and lines as of tonight. Anyone else see 2 that look screwy?

Thursday:
Washington @ U$C -17 (O/U 56)

Saturday:
OR St. @ Arizona -10 (O/U 62)

WSU @ UO -17.5 (O/U 71)

Colorado @ ASU -15 (O/U 56.5)

Weenies @ Utah -7 (O/U 61)

A lot of people here think that isn't enough points for the bares - the number is about the Sagarin neutral field prediction.

Personally I think that is too many points for UA over OSU, though it obviously depends on who is the QB for UA. The Sagarin line is about 8.2.

Finally, I'd probably go over on WSU-$C as both are offense-first, defensively challenged teams.
EDIT: It appears I cannot read. UW is playing $C. Maybe I believe the over-under is reasonable now.

[CTcard]

Here are the games and lines as of tonight. Anyone else see 2 that look screwy?

Thursday:
Washington @ U$C -17 (O/U 56)

Saturday:
OR St. @ Arizona -10 (O/U 62)

WSU @ UO -17.5 (O/U 71)

Colorado @ ASU -15 (O/U 56.5)

Weenies @ Utah -7 (O/U 61)

A lot of people here think that isn't enough points for the bares - the number is about the Sagarin neutral field prediction.

Personally I think that is too many points for UA over OSU, though it obviously depends on who is the QB for UA. The Sagarin line is about 8.2.

Finally, I'd probably go over on WSU-$C as both are offense-first, defensively challenged teams.
EDIT: It appears I cannot read. UW is playing $C. Maybe I believe the over-under is reasonable now.

[washingtonismoney]

I think Oregon State takes out Arizon -- I'd take them straight up.

[washingtonismoney]

I think Oregon State takes out Arizon -- I'd take them straight up.

[Hulk01]

USC v. Washington. 

USC has such an explosive audience that 36-19 sounds off.  I'd peg USC for more and Washington for fewer.  It seems Washington cannot have the defense it had last year, given the losses of Shaq, Shelton, Kikaha and Peters, but they've been remarkably good against a decent schedule.

Easy to imagine SC scoring over 40, but Vegas knows best. 

And yes, Utah 34  Cal 27 doesn't sound quite right at first, either.  But Utah will make Cal work for everything, something they haven't had to do against what has been a very weak group of opponents.  Cal has relied on a ridiculous turnover margin, and the Utes doesn't turn the ball over.  Still, Utah scoring 34 seems excessive; they simply don't make big plays, other than an special teams, and they've already scored more than their quota there already.  Somehow, Utah 27 sounds much better; may 27-24 Utah or even 31-28 Cal--the under in each case,

[Hulk01]

USC v. Washington. 

USC has such an explosive audience that 36-19 sounds off.  I'd peg USC for more and Washington for fewer.  It seems Washington cannot have the defense it had last year, given the losses of Shaq, Shelton, Kikaha and Peters, but they've been remarkably good against a decent schedule.

Easy to imagine SC scoring over 40, but Vegas knows best. 

And yes, Utah 34  Cal 27 doesn't sound quite right at first, either.  But Utah will make Cal work for everything, something they haven't had to do against what has been a very weak group of opponents.  Cal has relied on a ridiculous turnover margin, and the Utes doesn't turn the ball over.  Still, Utah scoring 34 seems excessive; they simply don't make big plays, other than an special teams, and they've already scored more than their quota there already.  Somehow, Utah 27 sounds much better; may 27-24 Utah or even 31-28 Cal--the under in each case,

[CowboyIndian]

U$¢ has such an explosive audience...

They'll boo at the drop of a hat...or a pass.

[CowboyIndian]

U$¢ has such an explosive audience...

They'll boo at the drop of a hat...or a pass.

[CTcard]

And yes, Utah 34  Low APR U 27 doesn't sound quite right at first, either.  But Utah will make Low APR U work for everything, something they haven't had to do against what has been a very weak group of opponents.  Low APR U has relied on a ridiculous turnover margin, and the Utes doesn't turn the ball over.  Still, Utah scoring 34 seems excessive; they simply don't make big plays, other than an special teams, and they've already scored more than their quota there already.  Somehow, Utah 27 sounds much better; may 27-24 Utah or even 31-28 Low APR U--the under in each case,

This is a game between the #1 (Utah) and #2 (c.a.l.) teams in the conference by turnover margin. Utah got there by not turning the ball over much: 1.0 turnovers given up per game, that's tied for third in the conference. c.a.l. got there by both getting and giving up lots: gained 3.6 per game, easily first in conference; gave up 2 per game, second worst.

Utah's defense also doesn't appear to be quite what it was. I'd go with the over.

[CTcard]

And yes, Utah 34  Low APR U 27 doesn't sound quite right at first, either.  But Utah will make Low APR U work for everything, something they haven't had to do against what has been a very weak group of opponents.  Low APR U has relied on a ridiculous turnover margin, and the Utes doesn't turn the ball over.  Still, Utah scoring 34 seems excessive; they simply don't make big plays, other than an special teams, and they've already scored more than their quota there already.  Somehow, Utah 27 sounds much better; may 27-24 Utah or even 31-28 Low APR U--the under in each case,

This is a game between the #1 (Utah) and #2 (c.a.l.) teams in the conference by turnover margin. Utah got there by not turning the ball over much: 1.0 turnovers given up per game, that's tied for third in the conference. c.a.l. got there by both getting and giving up lots: gained 3.6 per game, easily first in conference; gave up 2 per game, second worst.

Utah's defense also doesn't appear to be quite what it was. I'd go with the over.

[martyup]

[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=13064.msg133002#msg133002 date=1444142569]
U$¢ has such an explosive audience...

They'll boo at the drop of a hat...or a pass.
[/quote]

Maybe their audience is full of jihadists?

[martyup]

[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=13064.msg133002#msg133002 date=1444142569]
U$¢ has such an explosive audience...

They'll boo at the drop of a hat...or a pass.
[/quote]

Maybe their audience is full of jihadists?

[cardcoug]

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=13064.msg133019#msg133019 date=1444148172]
[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=13064.msg133002#msg133002 date=1444142569]
U$¢ has such an explosive audience...

They'll boo at the drop of a hat...or a pass.
[/quote]

Maybe their audience is full of jihadists?
[/quote]
Or maybe there was something wrong with the food at the concession stands.

[cardcoug]

[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=13064.msg133019#msg133019 date=1444148172]
[quote author=Hulk01 link=topic=13064.msg133002#msg133002 date=1444142569]
U$¢ has such an explosive audience...

They'll boo at the drop of a hat...or a pass.
[/quote]

Maybe their audience is full of jihadists?
[/quote]
Or maybe there was something wrong with the food at the concession stands.