UM -9 over SDSU

Submitted by Knappster on

Early line at the Wynn has UM at -9.  Seems high to me, but what say you?

One factor - Game is at noon ET (9:00am SDSU time)

MikeUM85

September 19th, 2011 at 10:49 AM ^

Going into the season I figured we would drop 1 of the non-conference games.  SDSU will be a challenge, but we have a good shot of starting the B1G undefeated.  And we seem to be improving, slowly but surely.  If we can just come out in the spread and use the threat of #16 running to open up the passing and RB game, I think we'll win it.  If we come out and try to establish the Power game we'll likely start slow again and it will be more 4Q drama.

JDNorway

September 19th, 2011 at 11:03 AM ^

We're improving slowly, but surely... during each game. Then at the start of the next game we're back to square 1.

It almost looks like it's by design. It just makes no sense to design it that way, so we know it's not true. -"Let them drive the length of the field on us for the first couple of drives and have a couple of 3 and outs to give them a false sense of security. Then, when we start stopping them, their hearts will be broken and we'll unleash the Denard."

No, I'm not buying it either. Though it does seem like in game adjustments > pre game plans. Maybe improve pregame plans?

bronxblue

September 19th, 2011 at 10:50 AM ^

SDSU looks somewhat scary, but the early start time does them no favors.  I think -9 is a little high, but then again UM was giving 31 and nearly covered save for that early FG by EMU.  Vegas tends to be pretty good on these lines after a couple of weeks.  Of course, usually caveats about lines not being about winning/losing but betting.

SDSU looks solid, and kind of mirror UM's teams in many ways - dynamic playmaker at QB (Lindley more with his arm than legs), okay RB stable, and WRs that can stretch the field if needed.  The defense seems okay but does struggle against the run (Army dropped 400(!) yards on them running the ball, though they held WSU to about 50 on 28 carries), and haven't really been challenged in the air much by any of their previous competition, though WSU put up a bunch of yards (368) in the air when they were behind.  Also, their FG kickers is 1/3 on FGs, so there's that. 

Figure SDSU will be up for this game, but UM is just the better team.  Lindley is good, but a couple of blitzing LBs might make him skittish, and I don't buy that they'll be able to run the ball uber-effectively even against this meh defensive line. Offensively, UM should be able to exploit some mismatches at WR, and I really like Smith and Fitz in the backfield.  Denard is Denard and nobody on SDSU will be fully prepared for him.  Highish scoring game, UM 38 SDSU 21.  Also, career-long 32 yard FG from Gibbons.  Watch out Remy Hamilton!

snowcrash

September 19th, 2011 at 11:13 AM ^

SD's run defense got shredded by Army's QB, but Army runs a triple option that doesn't resemble our offense. Army also did the same thing to Northwestern. SD's win over Wazzu looks good on paper, but it was a lot closer than the score indicated and Wazzu's starting QB was out. I'm thinking M 31 SD 21. 

BigSmooth33

September 19th, 2011 at 3:37 PM ^

But I'd have taken the points with SDSU, EMU, and WMU... ND was the only game I would have gone with the Wolverines... That is, if gambling on sports were legal everywhere... 

WolverineLake

September 19th, 2011 at 4:00 PM ^

Three years of RichRod have conditioned me to believe that we can lose to anybody, no matter how docile and/or cuty and cuddly kitten like they are.  I think I was even nervous before EMU.  EMU, man ... EMU!

 

SDSU has a lot of talent on their team.  They beat a good Navy team last season who had already pounced Notre Dame and came close to beating Maryland (while inexplicably dropping one to Duke).  My fear level is at 2*Pi.