[washingtonismoney]

https://twitter.com/TomFornelli/status/9...5839338496

To extract just conference/rival teams: 

Stanford 9.5
Washington 8.5 
ND 8.5 
SC 7.5 

I hate to say this but....Stanford seems overrated? I would bet the under?

[washingtonismoney]

https://twitter.com/TomFornelli/status/9...5839338496

To extract just conference/rival teams: 

Stanford 9.5
Washington 8.5 
ND 8.5 
SC 7.5 

I hate to say this but....Stanford seems overrated? I would bet the under?

[stupac2]

Also Stanford at 50/1 for winning the championship and Love the frontrunner at 5/1 for the H-word.

[stupac2]

Also Stanford at 50/1 for winning the championship and Love the frontrunner at 5/1 for the H-word.

[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/TomFornelli/status/9...5839338496

To extract just conference/rival teams: 

Stanford 9.5
Washington 8.5 
ND 8.5 
SC 7.5 

I hate to say this but....Stanford seems overrated? I would bet the under?

I agree that Stanford's O/U appears high.  Especially with our QB out with an injury this spring, and not having a full season under his belt.  Even if we all expect him to be fully recovered, this seems... generous.  And that doesn't even take into account the holes in our defense.

UW seems massively underrated.  USC will have a new QB, but 8 + wins should be fairly easy for them to achieve.  Were I setting the bar, I would have set UW 9.5, Stanford and USC 8.5, and I think 8 wins is more likely than 9 for us.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://twitter.com/TomFornelli/status/9...5839338496

To extract just conference/rival teams: 

Stanford 9.5
Washington 8.5 
ND 8.5 
SC 7.5 

I hate to say this but....Stanford seems overrated? I would bet the under?

I agree that Stanford's O/U appears high.  Especially with our QB out with an injury this spring, and not having a full season under his belt.  Even if we all expect him to be fully recovered, this seems... generous.  And that doesn't even take into account the holes in our defense.

UW seems massively underrated.  USC will have a new QB, but 8 + wins should be fairly easy for them to achieve.  Were I setting the bar, I would have set UW 9.5, Stanford and USC 8.5, and I think 8 wins is more likely than 9 for us.

BC

[qwerty49]

https://twitter.com/TomFornelli/status/9...5839338496

To extract just conference/rival teams: 

Stanford 9.5
Washington 8.5 
ND 8.5 
SC 7.5 

I hate to say this but....Stanford seems overrated? I would bet the under?

Sorry to nitpick but let's remember that initial or early lines are NOT really how gamblers see it, but how bookies see it.  Bookies set the initial lines based on how they think the public would bet, in order to ensure balanced betting and prevent a big loss.  Gamblers will look for what they think are anomalies in the odds and spreads. If too much action comes down on one side or the other, the bookies simply adjust their lines accordingly.

Example of an anomaly was Tiger being favored (again, by the public) to win the Masters.  Based on his present game, so-called "smart money" would have looked for ANY other proposition and bet against him.

Sorry to beat this one to death, but it's one of my pet peeves.  The odds, lines and spreads in sports betting have ZERO predictive value and are all about nothing more than a reflection of public perception.  Those over/under numbers merely mean that the bookies think half the public would bet the over and the other half the under.  And of course, YMMV.

[qwerty49]

https://twitter.com/TomFornelli/status/9...5839338496

To extract just conference/rival teams: 

Stanford 9.5
Washington 8.5 
ND 8.5 
SC 7.5 

I hate to say this but....Stanford seems overrated? I would bet the under?

Sorry to nitpick but let's remember that initial or early lines are NOT really how gamblers see it, but how bookies see it.  Bookies set the initial lines based on how they think the public would bet, in order to ensure balanced betting and prevent a big loss.  Gamblers will look for what they think are anomalies in the odds and spreads. If too much action comes down on one side or the other, the bookies simply adjust their lines accordingly.

Example of an anomaly was Tiger being favored (again, by the public) to win the Masters.  Based on his present game, so-called "smart money" would have looked for ANY other proposition and bet against him.

Sorry to beat this one to death, but it's one of my pet peeves.  The odds, lines and spreads in sports betting have ZERO predictive value and are all about nothing more than a reflection of public perception.  Those over/under numbers merely mean that the bookies think half the public would bet the over and the other half the under.  And of course, YMMV.

[CowboyIndian]

The odds, lines and spreads in sports betting have ZERO predictive value and are all about nothing more than a reflection of public perception.

Not so sure about ZERO predictive value. There is such a thing as collective wisdom and I'm often shocked at how close the lines are to outcomes.

[CowboyIndian]

The odds, lines and spreads in sports betting have ZERO predictive value and are all about nothing more than a reflection of public perception.

Not so sure about ZERO predictive value. There is such a thing as collective wisdom and I'm often shocked at how close the lines are to outcomes.

[qwerty49]

The odds, lines and spreads in sports betting have ZERO predictive value and are all about nothing more than a reflection of public perception.

Not so sure about ZERO predictive value. There is such a thing as collective wisdom and I'm often shocked at how close the lines are to outcomes.

I think there are a lot of stats that support both sides of the argument.  Here's one that supports yours:  year-in and year-out, the betting favorite in a horse race wins about one-third of the time.  So yes, the collective wisdom is correct here to a certain extent.  However, one factor the smart horseplayer could consider is the actual parimutuel odds.  If those odds are less than 2-1, (e.g. 3-2 or 6-5, etc) from a purely mathematical standpoint, it wouldn't make sense to bet that horse.  (Of course lots of other factors could sway the bettor.)

OTOH what was the spread in the Greatest Upset Ever?  41, 42 points?  If one was betting on SC that day, not much predictive value there.  Of course, after the fact, that's easy to say.

[qwerty49]

The odds, lines and spreads in sports betting have ZERO predictive value and are all about nothing more than a reflection of public perception.

Not so sure about ZERO predictive value. There is such a thing as collective wisdom and I'm often shocked at how close the lines are to outcomes.

I think there are a lot of stats that support both sides of the argument.  Here's one that supports yours:  year-in and year-out, the betting favorite in a horse race wins about one-third of the time.  So yes, the collective wisdom is correct here to a certain extent.  However, one factor the smart horseplayer could consider is the actual parimutuel odds.  If those odds are less than 2-1, (e.g. 3-2 or 6-5, etc) from a purely mathematical standpoint, it wouldn't make sense to bet that horse.  (Of course lots of other factors could sway the bettor.)

OTOH what was the spread in the Greatest Upset Ever?  41, 42 points?  If one was betting on SC that day, not much predictive value there.  Of course, after the fact, that's easy to say.

[JustAnotherFan]

Well I'll bet against Love all day every day. Not because I do not think he might deserve it. But because he's a black running back from Stanford. Heck, not even a once in a generation superstar white quarterback from Stanford can win it.

Love the frontrunner at 5/1 for the H-word.

[JustAnotherFan]

Well I'll bet against Love all day every day. Not because I do not think he might deserve it. But because he's a black running back from Stanford. Heck, not even a once in a generation superstar white quarterback from Stanford can win it.

Love the frontrunner at 5/1 for the H-word.

[Snorlax94]

I was in Vegas earlier this week. The Boyd chain of casinos (Sam’s Town, Gold Coast) were offering 60:1 odds on Stanford. Planet Hollywood (which uses Caesar’s odds) and the Westgate Sports Book were offering 50:1.

Although I could see how Stanford could open 0-2, I do think this year offers a rare alignment of the stars (particularly of offensive firepower), even with the tough road schedule, and I did put my money where my mouth is by placing a larger-than usual wager.

So you can probably guess how this gambler sees it, though I should probably disclose I have never won any of my longshot Vegas bets.

[Snorlax94]

I was in Vegas earlier this week. The Boyd chain of casinos (Sam’s Town, Gold Coast) were offering 60:1 odds on Stanford. Planet Hollywood (which uses Caesar’s odds) and the Westgate Sports Book were offering 50:1.

Although I could see how Stanford could open 0-2, I do think this year offers a rare alignment of the stars (particularly of offensive firepower), even with the tough road schedule, and I did put my money where my mouth is by placing a larger-than usual wager.

So you can probably guess how this gambler sees it, though I should probably disclose I have never won any of my longshot Vegas bets.

[qwerty49]

I was in Vegas earlier this week. The Boyd chain of casinos (Sam’s Town, Gold Coast) were offering 60:1 odds on Stanford. Planet Hollywood (which uses Caesar’s odds) and the Westgate Sports Book were offering 50:1.

Although  I could see how Stanford could open 0-2, I do think this year offers a rare alignment of the stars (particularly of offensive firepower), even with the tough road schedule, and I did put my money where my mouth is by placing a larger-than usual wager.

So you can probably guess how this gambler sees it, though I should probably disclose I have never won any of my longshot Vegas bets.

60:1 is not bad -- maybe even a slight overlay.  There are most likely no more than 30-40 schools who have a shot at it on paper at this point.  But the path for the likes of Bama and Clemson is always helped by their brands.  And they both find and play a lot of true frosh, especially at the so-called skill positions.  It's like the NBA lottery; schools like that have several ping pong balls in the fishbowl.  And then there's the Domers, who always have a shot due to their chronically lame schedule and ridiculously inflated brand.

[qwerty49]

I was in Vegas earlier this week. The Boyd chain of casinos (Sam’s Town, Gold Coast) were offering 60:1 odds on Stanford. Planet Hollywood (which uses Caesar’s odds) and the Westgate Sports Book were offering 50:1.

Although  I could see how Stanford could open 0-2, I do think this year offers a rare alignment of the stars (particularly of offensive firepower), even with the tough road schedule, and I did put my money where my mouth is by placing a larger-than usual wager.

So you can probably guess how this gambler sees it, though I should probably disclose I have never won any of my longshot Vegas bets.

60:1 is not bad -- maybe even a slight overlay.  There are most likely no more than 30-40 schools who have a shot at it on paper at this point.  But the path for the likes of Bama and Clemson is always helped by their brands.  And they both find and play a lot of true frosh, especially at the so-called skill positions.  It's like the NBA lottery; schools like that have several ping pong balls in the fishbowl.  And then there's the Domers, who always have a shot due to their chronically lame schedule and ridiculously inflated brand.

[CowboyIndian]

But the path for the likes of Bama and Clemson is always helped by their brands. 

It's also helped (immensely, IMO) by the fact that they only play 8 conference games in a 14-team conference. This is ridiculously unfair...no matter how good they actually are...and allows them to play a high school team in November when we, and others, are limping into brobdingnagian, late-season conference games. 

Until that is remedied I will always call BS on any $EC or ACC team that gets into the playoff ahead of equally deserving teams from another conference. And last year....TWO teams from the $EC!?!

[CowboyIndian]

But the path for the likes of Bama and Clemson is always helped by their brands. 

It's also helped (immensely, IMO) by the fact that they only play 8 conference games in a 14-team conference. This is ridiculously unfair...no matter how good they actually are...and allows them to play a high school team in November when we, and others, are limping into brobdingnagian, late-season conference games. 

Until that is remedied I will always call BS on any $EC or ACC team that gets into the playoff ahead of equally deserving teams from another conference. And last year....TWO teams from the $EC!?!

[qwerty49]

But the path for the likes of Bama and Clemson is always helped by their brands. 

It's also helped (immensely, IMO) by the fact that they only play 8 conference games in a 14-team conference. This is ridiculously unfair...no matter how good they actually are...and allows them to play a high school team in November when we, and others, are limping into of immense proportions, late-season conference games. 

Until that is remedied I will always call BS on any $EC or ACC team that gets into the playoff ahead of equally deserving teams from another conference. And last year....TWO teams from the $EC!?!

Excellent point. And the reverse of the “4-cupcake” effect is that the optics make it very hard for a (non SEC) 2-loss team.

[qwerty49]

But the path for the likes of Bama and Clemson is always helped by their brands. 

It's also helped (immensely, IMO) by the fact that they only play 8 conference games in a 14-team conference. This is ridiculously unfair...no matter how good they actually are...and allows them to play a high school team in November when we, and others, are limping into of immense proportions, late-season conference games. 

Until that is remedied I will always call BS on any $EC or ACC team that gets into the playoff ahead of equally deserving teams from another conference. And last year....TWO teams from the $EC!?!

Excellent point. And the reverse of the “4-cupcake” effect is that the optics make it very hard for a (non SEC) 2-loss team.