Seems high to me, but Vegas knows best. What do you think?
stupid Pistons and their refusal to tank properly
UM -13 vs NW
November 4th, 2012 at 8:05 PM
#1
UM -13 vs NW
November 4th, 2012 at 8:06 PM | 
Weren't we 10 pt favorites
Weren't we 10 pt favorites
November 4th, 2012 at 8:12 PM |
Lol what?
Lol what?
?
He only got the job because he's a Michigan Man not because he was the best. Is that what Michigan is all about? You do the best, you get the job. This MM meme is crap.
November 4th, 2012 at 8:53 PM |
He's saying uninformed
He's saying uninformed
He's saying uninformed people will take Michigan to cover because they are Michigan-fer-god-sakes not knowing that Michigan is not quite itself and northwestern is a little more than you would normally consider NU to be.
Not that I loved Rich Rod less, but that I loved Michigan more.
November 5th, 2012 at 3:01 AM |
I think many more people that
I think many more people that
I think many more people that bet on sports would be informed, though, and would take NWU to cover, making easy money in the process. This tactic would lose them money, I would think.
Mike Martin told me he loves me. My life is quite possibly complete.
Join the bone marrow donor registry today: www.dkmsamericas.org (do it.)
November 4th, 2012 at 8:12 PM |
I like NW here at anything
I like NW here at anything
I like NW here at anything over 10
November 5th, 2012 at 12:31 AM |
It's already at 11. Can't see
It's already at 11. Can't see
It's already at 11. Can't see it going below 10. Got it at 13 so thank you quick poster! If it does magically go below 10 I have a nice middle shot for Saturday.
November 4th, 2012 at 8:15 PM |
exactly.
exactly.
Vegas isn't trying to do anything more than get the most action on every bet. The more people who throw down cash the more the house makes on the extra 10% or whatever the sportsbook charges these days. That being said, I think we need to jump on this NW team early. They have the firepower to put up a ton of points, and our offense is not that prolific. Who is starting for us at QB, BTW?
November 4th, 2012 at 8:30 PM |
Who is starting at QB for NW
Who is starting at QB for NW
Who is starting at QB for NW is also a good question. I doubt either one will be able to air it out against us, so as long as we can contain the Colter and Mark read option attack we should be fine.
Edit: NW is 113th in passing yards per game, and 13th in rushing yards per game. Hopefully our front seven comes to play and we see a lot of Kovacs rolling into the box.
November 4th, 2012 at 8:53 PM |
Um, I'm not sure you
Um, I'm not sure you
Um, I'm not sure you understand how sports betting works. Vegas needs (or at least wants) an equal amount of action on both sides so that no matter who wins, Vegas wins by means of their rake. They do not want to be betting against you that a team will or will not win.
November 4th, 2012 at 9:21 PM |
People say this all the time
People say this all the time
People say this all the time but it's not necessarily true. If Vegas knows the public has a strong lean one way they're willing to take a side against it as long as they feel the odds are well in their favor. What you're saying is generally true but not always and probably not as often as you think.
Whatcha gonna do, little brother?
November 4th, 2012 at 9:32 PM |
You're right, and there are
You're right, and there are
You're right, and there are people who make a living off betting against popular teams because of that. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the effect is only in the 1-2 point range. That's enough to cheat the odds in their favor a little without making ridiculously unrealistic lines that sharps would jump all over with big money. Generally though, Vegas would prefer to have equal money so they don't depend on the outcome of the game.
I'm really curious how the 'Denard is uncertain/Denard is staring/jk, Denard's not starting now five minutes before kickoff' played out from Vegas's perspective. I assume a bunch of people jumped on Minnesota last minute and then got burned when Devin Gardner decided to be awesome.
November 4th, 2012 at 11:52 PM |
I'm missing something
I'm missing something
I don't think I'm getting the difference between the two positions being argued.
If there's a public bias in favor of a particular big-name team, wouldn't the bookie need to slide the line a bit in that team's direction to get the money aligned on both sides?
The sharps might get to take a bit advantage of the public bias but if I'm the bookie I just want my rake. If I put up the line I actually think, I'm going to end up with too much money placed on the bigger name.
November 5th, 2012 at 1:28 AM |
I'm pretty sure we're all
I'm pretty sure we're all
I'm pretty sure we're all saying the same thing.
Keep in mind though that sharps are typically willing to bet a lot more than the general public, so a very small contingent holds a lot of sway over the line. Hence my assertion that Vegas can't really move the line more than a point or two to account for public bias.
November 5th, 2012 at 9:06 AM |
"Vegas isn't trying to do anything more than get the most action
"Vegas isn't trying to do anything more than get the most action
on every bet." Simple fact that underlies the entire system. And Vegas can go on betting forever that grown men will ignore it.
November 4th, 2012 at 8:19 PM |
Seems about right to me
Seems about right to me
Based upon last year's game on the road against the Cats, and our ability to defend them pretty well. I'll take that line.
November 4th, 2012 at 8:20 PM |
Vegas is just baiting bettors
Vegas is just baiting bettors
Vegas is just baiting bettors to take NW.
I reckon the line will dip down to -7 by gametime.
North Campus' resident Sport Management major
Michigan Concrete Canoe Team - http://umich.edu/~concanoe
November 4th, 2012 at 9:35 PM |
No chance a Vegas line will
No chance a Vegas line will
No chance a Vegas line will move that much for a marquee team like M unless there is a significant injury.
"Ack ack!"
November 4th, 2012 at 8:23 PM |
Regarding This Line...
Regarding This Line...
The latest Massey numbers, which will be updated tomorrow, would have Michigan by a touchdown right now, I believe, and the Sagarin rankings (82.40-77.20 plus the 3 points for home field advantage) would tell a similar story. I assume the line on Saturday might actually be closer to this.
Having said that, I think we should be able to stunt Northwestern's rushing attack enough to get at least a push on that opening line, just looking at stats (we could play well enough on defense to win by 2 TDs, in other words). We're closely matched when it comes to offensive production by the numbers, but superior on defense (except in rushing defense, but as others have pointed out, scheduling can skew these stats - in the conference, we've done quite well). The key will likely be getting out to a fast start in this one, I think.
"Funny isn't it, how naughty dentists always make that one fatal mistake."
Follow the random tweets of a Michigan alum - http://twitter.com/#!/LorneEC3
November 4th, 2012 at 8:28 PM |
I'll take Michigan. I've
I'll take Michigan. I've
I'll take Michigan. I've expected every conference game, except for MSU, to be a blow out so far this season and it has. I don't think that changes for these next two games.
November 4th, 2012 at 10:31 PM |
You really expected us to get
You really expected us to get
You really expected us to get blown out by Nebraska before the Denard injury? I thought it would be pretty close but a tossup (before the injury).
November 4th, 2012 at 8:45 PM |
We have beaten the spread for
We have beaten the spread for
We have beaten the spread for every game except for MSU. I expect this to be the same. We have one of the best defenses in the big ten that can limit teams to around 10-15 points a game. (see all of our opponents from ND to Minn besides Nebraska) I believe we'll win 35-14.
903 wins most in college football
November 4th, 2012 at 8:57 PM |
We did not beat the spread
We did not beat the spread
We did not beat the spread against Nebraska.
November 4th, 2012 at 9:32 PM |
Or bammer
Or bammer
Or bammer
"Ack ack!"
November 4th, 2012 at 9:33 PM |
Or air force
Or air force
Or air force
"Ack ack!"
November 4th, 2012 at 9:43 PM |
Or Notre Dame
Or Notre Dame
Or Notre Dame
November 4th, 2012 at 11:07 PM |
sadness
sadness
sadness
For the record, I'm not a eugenicist.
November 4th, 2012 at 8:44 PM |
Seems too high
Seems too high
Michigan has always had trouble with Northwestern for some reason.
"But in the tire fire that was last year's secondary he showed a little spark." - Brian Cook
November 4th, 2012 at 9:05 PM |
last year's results say
last year's results say
last year's results say otherwise
November 4th, 2012 at 10:44 PM |
me thinks
me thinks
you didn't watch the first half last year.
November 5th, 2012 at 10:05 AM |
Suprisingly, games are based
Suprisingly, games are based
Suprisingly, games are based on the results at the end of four quarters, not two.
We ARE Michigan....COME GET SOME!!!
November 4th, 2012 at 8:46 PM |
I'd like to beat Northwestern
I'd like to beat Northwestern
I'd like to beat Northwestern by much more than 13 after Fitzgerald's "Michigan did nothing," comment in regards to last year's game when we shut them out 28-0 in the second half.
The comment was almost on par with Bob Davie's "We have to ask ourselves, did Michigan beat us or did we beat ourselves?" response after the Notre Dame game in '97.
Screw you, Fitzgerald. I hope we beat you by 40.
Go Blue! Always!
November 4th, 2012 at 10:03 PM |
Is this the quote you're talking about?
Is this the quote you're talking about?
On any specific shift in momentum in the game... "I don't think we ever lost control, we just turned the ball over. When you give up scores off those turnovers, that's where you get the swings. We have to play better team football together. We thought we had a good plan coming into the second half. Again, we as coaches didn't think there was anything schematically that we didn't adjust to properly. We feel like we stopped ourselves and that's a little disappointing".
In their postgame quotes archive, this is the only thing similar to what you reference, and Fitzgerald says a lot of the standard postgame compliments to Michigan/Hoke/Denard, including this opening statement:
Opening statement... "Credit goes to our opponent, obviously. They came back in the second half and made the plays that winners make. We turned the ball over and they capitalized on it. Now as coaches, we've got to look critically at a number of things. No. 1, we've got to look schematically to see how we can help our guys. No. 2, make sure we've got the right people in there at the right times. We lost momentum again. We've got to do a better job of picking each other up. There are a bunch of guys in that locker room that are very disappointed in the way we played but we'll stick together and we'll find a way. I'd like to thank our great fans tonight for the support, especially our students. It was absolutely an outstanding environment. We thank them and expect it moving forward and we'll see them back in a few weeks for homecoming."
Go Blue!
November 4th, 2012 at 10:38 PM |
Pat Fitzgerald
Pat Fitzgerald
is a classy guy. If you're looking for opposing coaches to get worked up about, keep looking.
"Better to have died as a small boy than to fumble this football" -- John Heisman
November 4th, 2012 at 8:49 PM |
Line already down to 12. I'd
Line already down to 12. I'd
Line already down to 12. I'd expect to to end around 10.5.
November 4th, 2012 at 8:51 PM |
I don't expect much trouble
I don't expect much trouble
I don't expect much trouble from NW, I think thats a pretty fair spread but I see us winning by a bit more
-UM class of 2018
November 4th, 2012 at 8:52 PM |
Too high
Too high
I think NW is going to be a tough matchup. Fitzgerald is going to have them ready to go coming off a bye week. Keep in mind their only losses are at State College and on against Nebraska on a last minute TD.
Michigan wins a tight one: 27-24.
November 4th, 2012 at 8:58 PM |
It does concern me a little
It does concern me a little
It does concern me a little that they had a week off before playing us. But I am encouraged by how much their defense gives up to opponents: 39 points to Penn State, 29 to Indiana, 29 to Nebraska. Even lowly Syracuse scored 41 on them.
Go Blue! Always!
November 4th, 2012 at 9:00 PM |
But just about every win on
But just about every win on
But just about every win on their resume has been close. They haven't won a single game convincingly yet (except South Dakota)
Rudy watches inspirational movies about Shawn Hunwick
November 4th, 2012 at 9:14 PM |
Good point. To me, it comes
Good point. To me, it comes
Good point. To me, it comes down to coaching, however. Fitzgerald is one of the (few) good ones in this conference. I just don't see him getting blown out with two weeks to gameplan against a team that is not playing their best football right now.
Michigan wins ultimately because they are at home and their defense will slow down the spread attack. This is one of those games, however, where I see the road team come out swinging in the first half. Will Denard be ready to go? Will panic set in if NW takes an early lead?
NW covers, Michigan wins.
November 4th, 2012 at 9:49 PM |
I think the spread is about
I think the spread is about
I think the line is about right. Nebraska is a similar spread style, but much more effective and we played them in Nebraska. We held them to 23. I think it is reasonable to think we would hold NW in the Big House to 14 points or sonething like that.
So the question is, do we think the offense can put up 26-30 points?
I have not reviewed NW defense this year, but I do not think that is unreasonable. Remember, for whatever reason, the offense does significantly better at home (more than the typical homefield advantage)
November 4th, 2012 at 10:03 PM |
But keep in mind, Nebraska
But keep in mind, Nebraska
But keep in mind, Nebraska didn't have much of a sense of urgency to score in the fourth quarter against us. If they'd needed to, they probably could have tacked on another score (whether FG or TD) on that long possession that killed the clock.
November 4th, 2012 at 10:15 PM |
True, but on the other hand,
True, but on the other hand,
True, but on the other hand, against Nebraska the defense was repeatedly put in poor position by the offense both with turnovers and 3-and-outs. Also, I think that more than the spread style it was the high tempo that bothered us, and NW does not do that (at least not to the extreme that Nebraska does).
November 4th, 2012 at 9:53 PM |
Curious why you say (few)
Curious why you say (few)
Curious why you say (few) good ones. I'd say that more than half of the teams in the conference have good coaches.
“When your team is winning, be ready to be tough, because winning can make you soft. On the other hand, when your team is losing, stick by them. Keep believing” - Bo Schembechler
November 4th, 2012 at 10:49 PM |
Obviously this is a pretty
Obviously this is a pretty
Obviously this is a pretty subjective statement on my part. I think that aside from Urban Meyer, there is no other proven great coach. Then looking at what's left, you have a couple coaches that (IMO) have shown enough to be deemed "rising stars" in the coaching world: Fitzgerald and Hoke. It may be too soon to say anything definitive about O'Brien, but he's had a strong debut. The next tier is made up of average to slightly above average coaches that wouldn't be too high in demand were they to leave their current post: bielema, pellini, dantonio, ferentz.
Keep an eye out on Indiana's coach, however. He's turning that team around. His stock could rise.
November 4th, 2012 at 10:41 PM |
Agreed. In fact, I think 10
Agreed. In fact, I think 10
Agreed. In fact, I think 10 out of the 12 coaches in this league are doing a good job, just not necessarily this year.
Hoke, Meyer, Pelini, Fitzgerald are 4 obvious ones that should need no discussion.
Wilson and Kill have their program's playing much more competitively than they have for years.
O'Brien has done a ridiculously good job considering the offseason turmoil, and has made McGloin look significantly better than expected.
Ferentz is having a down year but it was only a couple years ago he took Iowa to an Orange bowl win, and has done a lot in the past.
Bielema and Dantonio are both gigantic douches but there's no question that they've both led their programs to more success than their programs have seen in awhile.
Honestly Hope and Beckman are the only 2 out of 12 that are "bad" coaches, and I'm not even positive you can make a case for Beckman yet since it's his first year.
November 4th, 2012 at 10:56 PM |
bielema
bielema
you think he has been more successful than alvarez? alvarez is the guy that turned that program around. bielema was brought in to keep it stable.
November 5th, 2012 at 6:07 PM |
beckman is tbd. its his first
beckman is tbd. its his first
beckman is tbd. its his first year, and the man could put up some serious points at toledo. if he's still struggling next year, i'd be more inclined to say he's a bad coach.
It's been a lot. Its been a roller coaster that for some reason seemed like it would never get good. But you know what? We kept fighting. It's like that old saying goes, "Those Who Stay Will Be Champions." -David Molk
November 4th, 2012 at 9:15 PM |
i'd take that
i'd take that
i'd take that
"What" ain't no country I ever heard of. They speak English in What?
November 4th, 2012 at 9:34 PM |
This game
This game
Worries me A LOT... I think we win but it could involve a late, late, touchdown, still this game scares me.
Denard Robinson......They're not going to catch him!
November 4th, 2012 at 9:38 PM |
Michigan wins
Michigan wins
But NW covers.
HAIL.
Weren't we 10 pt favorites for Michigan state? I think Vegas is using the Michigan name to make some cash money.
You know, Dude, I myself dabbled in pacifism once. Not in 'Nam of course.