ESPN's "Vegas" ranking likes UM, OSU, and Nebraska; MSU and Iowa not so much
ESPN (yeah, yeah, yeah...) seems to have rolled out a new way of ranking the teams based on "a Vegas perspective." I'm not quite sure I fully understand the methodology, but here's the quick summary:
| Team | AP | Coaches | "Vegas" |
| Ohio State | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Michigan | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| Wisconsin | 9 | 12 | 14 |
| Michigan State | 12 | 8 | NR (>30) |
| Iowa | 13 | 11 | 20 |
| Nebraska | 33 | 29 | 19 |
Link to ESPN article (Insider)
September 14th, 2016 at 11:03 AM ^
"They are the composite power ratings of the Massey-Peabody Analytics ratings, Phil Steele and ESPN's Football Power Index"
Quit trying to push FPI on us ESPN.
September 14th, 2016 at 11:06 AM ^
Yeah, I saw that too but I'm not quite sure how that equates to "Vegas." Maybe chalk it up to ESPN doing ESPN things?
September 14th, 2016 at 12:21 PM ^
An actual Vegas ranking should be 8 guys with silk suits, greased-back hair and lots of facial scar tissue discussing which teams they think will cover...
September 14th, 2016 at 12:51 PM ^
... but, it being Vegas, I expect those 8 guys to be surrounded by a bevy of barely-dressed, size-0 hotties with massively, fakely inflated bosoms and all under blaring lights and big-band sounds. VEGA$, BABY.
September 15th, 2016 at 5:19 AM ^
I have always said that Vegas should do the rankings. They know best. If a consensus group of linesmakers isn't doing the rankings, then it isn't Vegas.
September 14th, 2016 at 11:08 AM ^
Would rather they listed S&P+ and FEI over Coaches and AP, though those are still relying on last years data.
September 14th, 2016 at 11:09 AM ^
State is sitting at +7.5 at ND. I think I'll pick State in that one as they seem to play well there. Hopefully a soul-crushing last minute loss. 28-27 ND.
OSU went from +9 at the beginning of the season to -2. Not so sure they should be favored here. Tulsa gifted that game in the first half with two pick-sixes and an 0-fer on a goal line stand. I'd pick OU as a slight favorite at home, and they are getting points. Boomer Sooner 37-33.
Michigan -20.5. I think this is a fair line. I like the hook under 3 TDs for Mich. It'll be close, but Mich for the cover in a 38-17 type game.
Oregon +3 at Nebraska. I really don't know what to make of this one. Nebraska will score at will it seems (even though they were only up 7 against Wyoming before getting a few bounces for the cover). I think they can slow Oregon enough to cover this in a 45-35 type game.
September 14th, 2016 at 11:18 AM ^
OSU was never +9 versus Oklahoma. +6 is about as high as that line got.
September 14th, 2016 at 11:29 AM ^
I would pick ND. MSU struggled against Furman but they're going to storm into South Bend and keep it close with a top 10 quarterback?
September 14th, 2016 at 11:40 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 14th, 2016 at 12:49 PM ^
Yeah, like against Alabama in CFP?
September 14th, 2016 at 12:52 PM ^
Alabama says hi
September 14th, 2016 at 1:10 PM ^
September 14th, 2016 at 3:48 PM ^
you're absolutely right that this seemed to be their MO last season before the playoff and seemed to be that way in 2013 early in the season when they were barely getting by poor teams with a new QB before turning it up for conference play. Ton of close games against both good and bad teams means you're playing to the level of competition. Struggled badly last year with a lot of weak teams but obviously beat the three toughest teams on the schedule, all in absurdly close fashion.
September 14th, 2016 at 11:51 AM ^
"I think I'll pick State in that one as they seem to play well there."
If that is your reason for picking a team, i hope you do not actually put money down on games. This game has ND kicking the shit out of MSU in every statistical category.
September 14th, 2016 at 12:29 PM ^
State has played one game and it was a scrimmage without a starting Linebacker and down another they are now getting back. Notre Dame lost to a previously unranked Texas team, giving up nearly 40 points in regulation and took almost two quarters to score a touchdown against Nevada. ND is also down their best receiver and is now not getting Crawford back as they originally assumed they would. I like State to win that game outright.
September 14th, 2016 at 1:00 PM ^
Sate played a scrimmage but you left out the part about how it was against a bad fcs team and how Furman had the ball down a td late in the 4th quarter. It cracks me up how so many people think you can justify that game with bs like they always start slow or it was just a scrimmage. State is going to lose by at least 2 touchdowns, and Oconner is going to get exposed as a bad qb.
September 14th, 2016 at 1:29 PM ^
September 14th, 2016 at 1:49 PM ^
would be horrible for us. I would like that to be a big win in October.
September 14th, 2016 at 1:15 PM ^
Did you actually watch the Furman debacle? MSU looked awful and their QB locked on to receivers all night. They didn't actually put the game away until less than five minutes were left in the game. The secondary looked rotten and the rest of the defense was a hot mess except for Malik. Before the game, the MSU defense was spouting off about not letting Furman get any first downs. They gave up 18...while MSU's offense converted 19 first downs. This game was closer than the final score showed and it is unlikely that a bye week solved all those issues.
ND should win big.
September 14th, 2016 at 1:50 PM ^
year, the Michigan State sucks crowd comes out early and often. How many games are they going to lose? They looked so bad! They barely beat ___________!? Can you believe it? Last year they needed a last minute touchdown and a last second mental breakdown to beat Rurgers the week before we played them. Yeah, the Michigan State sucks crowd was out big that night. Guess what? They didn't suck.
No, Michigan State does not suck. They have not sucked the last 7 years that we have declared their suckiness after week 1, and they don't suck now.
(No, I am not a troll nor a Sparty, it is just ridiculous how many times that has played out before almost exactly the same way).
September 14th, 2016 at 1:54 PM ^
what happened the last time they lost as many players as they did this year? They went 7-6.
I'm not saying they're going to be Purdue all of a sudden, but D'Antionio isn't Nick Saban and MSU sure as shit doesn't recruit like Alabama.
They're taking a step back this year. Maybe a big one.
September 14th, 2016 at 1:58 PM ^
is slightly overrated and that Michigan State is better than most people think. I'm not saying that State is a playoff contender this year but I expect them to beat ND.
September 14th, 2016 at 3:58 PM ^
MSU or ND (or most teams, for that matter), but I don't think this year's MSU team is up to previous years standards.
I think their Vegas ranking is about right.
September 14th, 2016 at 3:12 PM ^
They had a top five defense in 2012. It took an incredibly bad QB and a lot of very close losses for them to be 7-6. Looking at record only is reductive. You're dumb.
September 14th, 2016 at 2:04 PM ^
September 14th, 2016 at 2:04 PM ^
and MSU plays like they did against Furman, MSU is getting blown out. I expect the Spartans to play better, but they need a functional passing attack or a torrential rain.
September 14th, 2016 at 4:29 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 14th, 2016 at 8:16 PM ^
September 14th, 2016 at 2:22 PM ^
I will be betting on MSU and OSU as I think both will win.
September 14th, 2016 at 4:55 PM ^
but you can see certain things from skill positions that might make you change your mind. If qb play is solid, its not a bad idea to go with the spartans on a given day. However, if he continues to telegraph throws and locks in a questionable ND defense might be given all the help it needs. On offense, no questions. ND is clearly superior and Kelly's qbs, much like Harbaughs, have always produced at a high level. Careful with this one amigo.
September 14th, 2016 at 11:18 AM ^
But doesn't Vegas typically speak more to betting lines, which can be driven by fandom more than hard analysis?
Large "name" schools always seem to get bought into looking more favored than they should be. All this from someone who has never placed a bet with a bookie or a betting service ... .
September 14th, 2016 at 11:39 AM ^
You hear this all the time: "Betting lines are NOT (they always seem to all-caps that) what Vegas thinks the game outcome will be, it's the incentive to bring more bettors into the pool and have it even on both sides."
I understand this is true. But my argument has always been, don't the sharps hammer the lines if the un-sharps get the line too far out of whack? I think they do, it's arbitrage of a sort for them is it not? And in that case they would be betting the actual outcome of the game.
September 14th, 2016 at 11:44 AM ^
To continue the discussion, the sharps should be buying value, but I would not be surprised if they only buy when the lines are WAY out of whack. Why should they buy it back to even - especially since they like to spread their bets.
Again, from a guy who doesn't really bet more than an occasional t-shirt, lunch, or trophy dollar bill.
September 14th, 2016 at 12:00 PM ^
argument. There are sharps out there --- but there are ALSO smart people setting the lines. And those people want to maximize their returns too.
Let's take an average week of college football. 50 games one can bet on:
Scenario 1: There is $110 bet on each team in each of the 50 games. Assuming no "pushes", the Books are guaranteed to win $10 on each game, and $500 in aggregate.
Scenario 2: Now assume each of the 50 games has slightly unbalanced betting: $115 on Team A and $105 on Team B. If the side with $105 on it wins in 26 of the 50 games (52% of the games), Vegas would have an aggregate win of $519.10. That's a 3.8% increase over Scenario 1. 3.8% is by no means insignificant.
Winning 52% of the games where there is disproportionate money on one side seems like an achievable hit rate for the Sports Books. Of course - not all football games are created equal - there will be more $ bet on this week's OSU/Oklahoma game vs. the UNLV/Central Michigan game. So it does become vitally more important for the Sports Books to not lose the higher profiel games.
September 14th, 2016 at 12:16 PM ^
Part of it depends on who "Vegas" is. I think, as a bystander, that people tend to conflate the bookie/betting service with the sharps. I suspect that's a mistake.
If I'm a bookie/betting service, I probably do just want equal money on both sides. That way, with the juice, the house always wins. I have a steady stream of income for managing the lines, and always get fat and never get slaughtered.
If I'm a sharp, I'm looking for anomalies on lines that equal value in my mind. If I see a line that is out of whack (driven by fandom, recency, undisclosed injury, whatever), I'm buying perceived value. And spreading my bets sufficiently to absorb those instances where popular irrationality is rewarded.
September 14th, 2016 at 12:39 PM ^
ultimately, "Vegas" is not some monolith, but a collection of (1) bookies (small and large), and (2) individual sports books, be they online or actually in Nevada.
I agree with you that the bookies are more desiring of steady income, and thus equal bets on equal sides. The individual sports books have more capital. They'd be thinking more "go for the reward, though it involves more risk."
It's interesting, U-M right now is a 19.5 to 20.5 point favorite, depending on who is taking the wager:
(a) The people who want to "play the middle and win 2 bets", the opportunity is out there. A final margin of 20 points is not that unusual.
(b) There are probably a few sports books that have a strong feel for Michigan in this game. They're probably the ones with U-M as a 20.5 point favorite. Why not try to get some extra $ on what you feel will be the losing side (Colorado)?
September 14th, 2016 at 9:27 PM ^
OK, so you take Michigan -19.5 and Colorado +20.5. You're guaranteed to win one, and you'll win both if Michigan wins by 20.
Except you're paying a 10% vig: Pay $11 to win $10. So, you lay out $22 total and get $21 back in the event that Michigan does not win by exactly 20, or $42 if they do win by exactly 20.
EV: M-C != 20: -$1
EV: M-C = 20: +$20
To break even on this bet, in terms of an EV, you need Michigan to win by exactly 20 one out of every 21 times, or 4.76% of all outcomes. Massey breaks out his simulations by margin: http://www.mratings.com/game.php?gid=694359803 . If you play with the little silder, you can get Michigan -20: it's showing 2.3%. As it stands, this is a sucker bet.
Now, if you can get 19.5 and 21.5, Massey would suggest that you take it; P(-20)+P(-21) = 7.6%.
September 14th, 2016 at 11:57 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
September 14th, 2016 at 4:55 PM ^
September 14th, 2016 at 12:58 PM ^
These statements ("Vegas is simply setting the line such that there is 50% of the money on either side of the equation" and "Fandom doesn't change the odds") are contradictory. If the books don't change the lines in response to fandom, they won't even out the money bet on each side. The fact that they do try to even out the money is why people think large fanbases can move lines.
To demonstrate:
Suppose it is known for a fact that the fair line on the game between Team A and Team B is Team A -7.5; which is to say, 50% of the time Team A will win by 8 or more, and 50% of the time the opposite will be true. So the book sets the line at Team A -7.5. In this situation, we expect sharp bettors not to bet (because there is no edge to be had in the line, so they are just losing money to the juice), and the general public to roughly even out on its own because there are no special reasons to bet either side.
Now add the supposition that Team A has a huge fanbase of homers who will bet on Team A regardless of what the line is, so a ton of money pours in on the Team A side. Unless the books move the line in response, they will wind up with a huge exposure to the 50% of the time Team A -7.5 hits, which means they lose money in the long run.
Accordingly, they **have** to move the line, in order to give sharps a reason to bet to even out the sides. If they leave it static, sharps still aren't betting anything because there's no expected profit; you have to move the line to give them expected profit in order to induce enough bets to counteract the homers' action. And because the books know that's how it will go, and because they don't want to middle themselves, they will try move lines against homer teams from the start.
(and because sharps know this, they may load up against homer teams regardless, which may pull the line back in the other direction because the books can anticipate *that* too, and this process can iterate to infinity, which is why blindly betting one way or another on homer teams based on trying to guess which level of meta-analysis books and sharps are operating on is probably not a profitable strategy)
September 14th, 2016 at 11:28 AM ^
is a pretty cool job title.
Sometimes I wish there was a Polish mafia. I think I would have been a pretty good gangster.
September 14th, 2016 at 11:35 AM ^
Based in Philly. Not joking.
September 14th, 2016 at 1:03 PM ^
It's like a whole new world of possibilities has opened up for me! I need to rethink my entire life. Fuck banking.
September 14th, 2016 at 11:38 AM ^
September 14th, 2016 at 11:42 AM ^
NIce honorific! I think he shoud use that from now on, as long as he's comfortable giving up "Mad."
September 14th, 2016 at 12:04 PM ^
I don't know that he has to give it up. Is there a way to work "Szalony" in there perhaps? The only reasons I know this particular word is from dating a Polish girl at Michigan at one point and having caught onto a few words here and there in her conversations with home. Why I still remember it now is strange, but I think that's word (well, a word) for "mad" or "insane".
September 14th, 2016 at 12:10 PM ^
Good call. Ojciec chrzestny would be his title, not name, so he could still use Szalony as his first name.
September 14th, 2016 at 12:15 PM ^
Okay, Hatter, now we're going drinking ... I think a trip to the Polish American Cultural Center (the bar area, specifically) is in order.
September 14th, 2016 at 12:31 PM ^