SIAP, initial Vegas line has us 19.5 point underdogs
It has dropped in literally the past 5 minutes to as low as 18 points (Leroy's).
I know Vegas doesn't offer an overt prediction, but shit, that's depressing.
http://www.vegasinsider.com/college-football/odds/las-vegas/
November 21st, 2010 at 9:41 PM ^
They realized their line for the Wiscy game was....well it was a bit off.
November 21st, 2010 at 9:45 PM ^
Wiscy's offense was our defense's worst matchup.
I expected double digits, but near 20 is too much. Wiscy can score on every possession. tOSU, no.
November 21st, 2010 at 9:45 PM ^
that I'd take UM. It should be closer to 14, maybe 13.5, IME.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:22 PM ^
I can see us pulling a 35-21 upset
take THAT vegas!
November 21st, 2010 at 10:31 PM ^
Like I said, maybe only 34.5 - 21.
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:20 AM ^
Sorry buddy.
November 22nd, 2010 at 9:19 AM ^
you may have missed what he did there.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:11 PM ^
Yah, I have been thinking somewhere around 14 for the spread. But then again, we have been pretty unpredicatable this year to be truthful. Vegas might just be saying they are done trying with us. 19.5 seems pretty steep.
November 21st, 2010 at 9:50 PM ^
that always has me interested is that as glamorous as the city and night life are, when it comes to betting lines, fluff takes a backseat. Vegas doesn't listen to Herby, or the freep, or Scout/Rivals and their predictions. These are serious people who know what they are doing. Granted, the initial line is drawn halfway in between what they think everyone is going to do, the idiots and the well informed. We all understand that. But to see a line this big is . . . well, sobering.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:03 PM ^
I was born and raised in Las Vegas. There is nothing about the city that is glamorous. Glitzy? yes. Glamorous? Hardly.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:08 PM ^
I realized after I posted, since my best understanding of Vegas is through crappy Travel Channel documentaries and Hollywood movies, that it's probably more of a strived for ideology than actuality.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:25 PM ^
November 22nd, 2010 at 1:28 AM ^
I keep seeing this posted here but it not true. In a perfect world they would take a guaranteed win with equal money on each side but that doesn't happen. In the NFL with the amount of volume bet they probably want that. They adjust the line throughout the week and up to the game so some people could get a Team -2 and could bet the Other team at +4 before the game and hope for a middle to win both. The Books take positions on games sometimes and want more action on one team if they have an edge with the other team. They are roughly 60 some college games each week and they take positions on some of those. They don't usually want to be in a position against sharp/pro gamblers but will more readily take positions against public money. Books make more money if they get more money on the losing side of more games than the winning side.
November 22nd, 2010 at 9:12 AM ^
In the end, the house, casino, book or whatever it is called makes money from their percentage for making the bet - yes, they might make a score every now and then when the betting is lopsided but in the long run, you are right about how they make their money.
I saw that Wisconsin was given a -4 line for the UM game - clearly Wisconsin (and not just with the help of Captain Hindsight) is much better than that. But a -4 line probably drew a lot of Michigan bets. The line is about splitting the bets - so it is about perception. The posts by Mathathlete and others which try to figure out predictive statistics are really meant to judge objective relative strength beyond the perception.
November 21st, 2010 at 9:53 PM ^
against the spread this year? J-mac?
November 21st, 2010 at 9:59 PM ^
We haven't covered the last 7 games. I would say we are due.
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:22 AM ^
That that's a pattern.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:01 PM ^
I'm not jamiemac, but we are 3-8 ATS this year. OSU is 8-2-1. We are 10-25 ATS in our last 35 games. OSU is 13-3 ATS at home.
Gulp.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:52 PM ^
Isn't that a kick in the nuts. Thanks for making me cry with your numbers.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:07 PM ^
I bet a 6 pack on every game UM plays and every game OSU plays with a buddy of mine. It's been a rough year
November 21st, 2010 at 9:54 PM ^
Anything can happen. Last game of the year!
November 21st, 2010 at 10:32 PM ^
can't hold anything back, brent.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:41 PM ^
Absolutely love the Waterboy reference!
November 22nd, 2010 at 8:37 AM ^
We know.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:01 PM ^
I'd go with 16.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:05 PM ^
Sounds about right. Here's hoping the actual game is 20 or more points better than that (our way), but at this point, it sounds about right.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:05 PM ^
One of these games the offense is going to be explosive in both the first and second half. If so, this could be one hell of a game even with a poor defense. I'll be able to watch this game and will be rooting for the team!
November 21st, 2010 at 10:14 PM ^
So Illinois game?
November 21st, 2010 at 10:09 PM ^
and winning (sigh), I'd actually take Michigan as the dog this week. that's a BIG number in a rivalry game, and all it would take is one Pryor arm punt in the first half for Tressel to bring out the 1974-era offense and try and run it down our throats (keeping the game closer).
November 21st, 2010 at 10:54 PM ^
Normally, rivalry games don't involve the 112th-worst defense on one side and one of the nation's best defenses on the other. When they do, a line like this is very reasonable. I'd take OSU to win and cover, especially given the new injuries to key players such as Roh and Smith. If the Buckeyes don't win by at least three TDs I'll be surprised. Like Michael Taylor said this morning on the radio, OSU doesn't even have to throw the ball to win.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:14 PM ^
...to shock the world and prove that they can actually rebound, it's this game. They need to play like their lives depend on it.
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:30 AM ^
1) To say they "can actaully rebound' implies that they haven't tried to rebound in previous games. Which, is to say you think the team is a bunch of quitters. To that I say, fuck off.
2) "Their lives depend on it" Really? Its football. Thier lives definitely do not depend on it unless they are betting with their lives, and if thats the case, we have bigger problems. If anything, they should play like their coach's job depends on it, and even that may not be true.
I mean, why not just go for the stars and say THE FATE OF THE PLANET DEPENDS ON THE OUTCOME OF THIS GAME!!!
//I am way too bitter and drunk for message boards tonight.
November 22nd, 2010 at 9:19 AM ^
Here lies you. Like, that's your name and this is your tombstone. You're dead.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:20 PM ^
Man, this shit is depressing. We're talking about being almost a 20 point underdg to our arch rival. WTF is happening to Michigan footbal? Four years ago we were playing for a chance to go to the national championship. Now, we are all, myself included, happy because we are bowl eligible for the first time under RR. I support RR 100% but I cant take much more of this double digit underdog shit and being medicore at best. But once we get the defense fixed we should be fine. Anyways, sorry for the rant, I just get so pissed how far we have fallen when the opening line for THE GAME is almost +20.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:24 PM ^
Think of it this way: It's no stretch to imagine Michigan losing every game this year but the UConn and BG games. Instead, Michigan is going to a bowl (as you note) despite having the 110th (or whatever) best defense. Considering what could have happened, this season has gone well and it will keep the vultures from circling...The team is coming back. We just have to wait a bit longer.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:37 PM ^
"7-5 will still be a good season"?
Nothing like being hopeful.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:45 PM ^
If you're talking about a 7-5 season ending in two closely-played, competitive games where we're in the game from the very beginning to the end, sure. If you're talking about a 7-5 where our final two games are blowouts in which we only show up for a half, rub stuffed animals in our players' faces, and shoot ourselves in the foot as often as we make plays, then that's going to leave a sour taste in the mouth that will only be remedied by a convincing bowl victory.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:53 PM ^
...I'm willing to agree to disagree. The offense showed against Wisconsin why it should be feared in the future...Remember when a sophomore QB was someone we considered young?...The defense was bad but not that much worse than it was against Massachusetts...My point is that the team didn't get worse this weekend. The competition just got better.
My definition of "good season" this year is and always was going to be a winning record. Others are of course free to have their own definitions.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:48 PM ^
Perspective.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:29 PM ^
I can roll with the anything-can-happen in The Game mentality....but then I got to this "...rub stuffed animals in our players' faces...", and just...sigh. This is what our program has really been reduced to, hasn't it? And we wonder why 7-5 sounds good to dome people. Because one of the proudest traditions in sports has turned into a punchline.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:46 PM ^
I changed that to my signature after the Penn St. loss, I think...My signature is my small attempt to ward off reactions to likely losses that involve renunciations of RR and general "Oh my God, we're all gonna die!" sentiments...I obviously hope that M wins on Saturday but I'll still be pleased with the season if they don't.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:55 PM ^
This is just weird thinking. It used to be that only the hardcore Carr-haters would even talk about us losing out. On this board it's the supposedly loyal fans who lower expectations to the ground.
What's next? "7-6 will still be a good season"?
November 21st, 2010 at 11:02 PM ^
What do you mean, "supposedly?"
There is no inherent contradiction between being a loyal fan and seeing the situation for what it is, which is that we are not really competitive right now with the better teams in our conference, for a variety of different reasons. Pasting a big dreamy smile on my mug and thinking happy thoughts won't impel our kickers to actually convert a chip shot FG, improve our young secondary, our inconsistent linebackers, or persuade GERG and RR that it might be worth a shot to put in a fourth DL against big, physical, smashmouth offensive lines.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:10 PM ^
The team doesn't need my optimism. I'm sure they believe in themselves.
What we as fans need to do is not be so impatient that we strangle the program with negativity before the team can grow up. See ND as a current example of what I mean.
November 21st, 2010 at 11:22 PM ^
See ND as a current example of what I mean.
Are you suggesting that all Davie, Willingham and Weis needed was more time?