USA Today oddsmaker views Michigan State, Michigan, even in Big Ten football title race
Michigan State and Michigan have equal odds of winning the Big Ten football conference this season, according to national oddsmaker Danny Sheridan.
Neither, however, have as good of odds as Ohio State University.
Sheridan put out a tweet from his Twitter account, @DannySheridan1, that states OSU (Ohio State) has 1:1 odds; "MSU & UM 3:1.''
http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2013/05/usa_today_oddsmaker_views_mich.html
ridiculously easy schedule. If they lose a couple of those, they will be a non-factor. Plus, this is year III. Usually seems to be the year players that contributed the prior year make huge, huge strides from 2 to 3. M 2.2-1, at lowest.
I agree that Purdue and Illinois are auto wins. Last year they struggled for much of their games against Indiana and Minnesota. I don't think they're as automatic of a win as you make it sound. Add in Iowa, Nebraska and NW which are three teams they lost to at home in 2012 that they now have to play on the road in 2013.
The hissy fits that get thrown around here when MSU is pegged to do well are ridiculous. And then the excessive schadenfreude when bad stuff happens to them. They have an easy schedule. The people that make these odds are smart and are paid a lot of money to do so. Believe me, they've taken most of your 2-second analyses on offensive losses into account when they say they're just as likely to win the conference as we are.
I'll give MSU credit when they do something but they have done nothing to deserve those odds when Bell and Sims who were the only ones who did anything on offense are gone.
then that would mean the offense didn't look much better after Denard got moved from QB ( 2nd half of Ohio game withstanding). Purdue was favored to win the big ten as far in as week 4 of the season last year.
I think you're giving the media types who make these types of predictions too much credit. These type of columns are tailor-made to generate hits between rival fanbases, nothing more. Suggesting they've done some kind of exhaustive research to come up with these "odds" is ludicrous.
The truth is that the difference between a program like Sparty and top tier programs like Michigan and OSU is not just talent level, but depth. Michigan's woes on the field in recent years correlate pretty closely to the lack of depth in our team (David Molk goes down and the offense implodes, etc). Hoke and Co. have done an excellent job with solving that problem so that now when a player of Jake Ryan's caliber goes down with an injury, it's worrisome, but not a complete disaster.
MSU has some decent talent in their starting line-up but they lack the depth to cover for injuries, etc. Certainly Dantonio and his staff haven't recruited enough talent to plug the holes left when three of their best players leave prematurely for the pros.
So,yeah, count me in the group of skeptics when everyone is showering MSU with love, their soft schedule notwithstanding. And, no, I think the "oddsmakers" put nothing even close to this level of thought into their "analysis" when they came up with their predictions.
He buys twitter followers and is useless, just restating odds from various sportsbooks.
Also, a caution... futures odds shouldnt be taken as an accurate representations of true odds of events happening. The reason why is that a sportsbook doesnt have to offer the other side of the bet to the public. IF you could also bet on Michigan to LOSE the division at around 3 to 1 odds, then the futures odds would hold more weight.
A book is never going to make a popular team have really high odds, just high enough to entice bets while still being profitable ...and futures bets typically have a really high ROI for the house as the implied odds for each team winning always add up to way more than 100%.
They play Michigan , at Nebraska and at Northwestern. They don't play Wisconsin or Ohio but thats still not what i would call an easy schedule.,
What will Sparty's odds be after we pistol-whip them in East Lansing on November 2nd?
So he simulates Vegas.
They also said Northwestern has 12:1 odds and Northwestern had a better recored than MSU last year, beat them in East Lansing, and bring back Mark & Colter. I like thier chances better than the Spartans, and both less than UM's.
They both are 0-0 and have an 8 game B1G slate in front of them. Hell even Purdue has an equal chance.
"Being in an equal position at the present time" is not the same thing as "has an equal chance."
While I also don't agree that Michigan State's chances, based on various factors such as losing 40% of their offensive production in Bell among others, are equal to ours, I do wonder if perhaps they are looking at things such as the very raw Massey prediction for the Big Ten. Below is the table with home field advantage, estimated wins and estimated losses:
| Team | HFA | EW | EL |
|
Ohio St
|
2.71 |
9.01
|
2.99
|
|
Wisconsin
|
2.26 |
8.84
|
3.16
|
|
Nebraska
|
3.37 |
8.81
|
3.19
|
|
Michigan
|
2.88 |
8.27
|
3.73
|
|
Michigan St
|
1.97 |
8.26
|
3.74
|
|
Northwestern
|
2.8 |
7.92
|
4.08
|
|
Penn St
|
2.31 |
7.82
|
4.18
|
|
Minnesota
|
2.85 |
5.32
|
6.68
|
|
Iowa
|
2.46 |
4.96
|
7.04
|
|
Indiana
|
2.33 |
4.65
|
7.35
|
|
Purdue
|
2.61 |
4.64
|
7.36
|
|
Illinois
|
2.7 |
2.77
|
9.23
|
You'll note that we're estimated - based on simulations - to have a similar record to Michigan State, yet if you look at individual probability estimates for games, only twice to we standout as underdogs (i.e., sub-50%) - Notre Dame and Northwestern. Michigan State has four games where they are estimated to have less than a 50% chance of winning. I am forced to wonder how much actual probing about Danny Sheridan did - I don't understand his rationale fully.
What formula (if any) is used to dertermine the "Home Field Advantage" metric? Assuming a high number is good, how on Earth can Minnesota and Northwestern have numbers near the top of the B1G?
I am surprised to see OSU with an expecation of 9-3. That seems like a worst case scenario for them given the strength of their team and the weakness of their schedule.
The number of times a team is a favorite or underdog isn't as important as the estimated percentage of winning each game.
For instance, if MSU has four games in which they are an underdog with a 40% chance of winning in each, they would be expected to go 1.6-2.4 over those four games. If we have two games in which we are an underdog, but are estimated to have only a 20% chance of winning those two games, and another two games in which we are a favorite with a 60% chance of winning, then we would also be expected to go 1.6-2.4 over those four games.
and I can care less of what he says.
of Danny Sheridan.. jus sayin'...
