The Illinois Game Dilemma
I've read recently on this board (included in the poll post on the front page) that Michigan is coming into the Illinois game as an underdog.
Well don't tell Vegas that.
Currently we are 3 point favorites to beat Illinois this Saturday.
I know, I know - that doesn't make much sense. Michigan looks awful and Illinois is now the undisputed "underrated team of the Big Ten - 2010 season". We've lost to Iowa and MSU at home, and just had 41 points put on us by Opie Freaking Taylor. Illinois has just beat Indiana and Purdue by a combined score of 87-23.
So why in the hell are we favorites in this game? Unfortunately, I don't have the answer. What I can provide, however, is this:
Have you ever bet on a sporting even thinking "that's an unholy lock - they are feeding me free money with this line"? I know I have. How many times do you actually win that bet? I'd say less than 50% for me (I am a terrible gambler). Perhaps this game on Saturday is one of those games. Thinking Illinois should be the favorite, only they are getting three points, ultimately to have them lose to Michigan by 3 points or more.
Then again - perhaps this Saturday is NOT one of those games. One of those lines that makes you think "I have never bet against my team, but....".
Is this a game where Vegas knows more than we don't, or is this the game that says "I'm going out in a blaze of glory, Rich Rod era, time to lay the benjamins on Illinois"?
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:12 PM ^
Hard. If you're going to bet on Illinois, get it in sooner than later.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:14 PM ^
As much as I hate to say it, Beavis, I'd argue for betting on the other team. BlueITF makes a good point, too.
I'm honestly surprised that they're not favored.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:15 PM ^
This is with out a doubt a sucker bet. I bet on football a good bit and I really like our chances on Saturday regardless but based on this line from Vegas things are looking good. We have a common opponent based on PSU and based on this we should be about a 2 TD dog. Howeva we are a 3 point favorite which BTW is often the amount of points given to the home team. UM this week end large. Book it.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^
Although they played Indiana at home, it's tough to say playing at Indiana offers any significant advantage for the Hoosiers.
We beat IU by a TD, and the Illini beat them by 30 points. Another data point to add.
I do like where your head is at - this is about 60% of the way I'm leaning right now (Illinois as a sucker bet). Unfortunately the other 40% in my brain just keeps repeating "Greg Robinson" over and over again.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^
I agree completely it's a hard bet to make but I will give you an example. Last week Mizzou was getting 8 points from Nebraska. Mizzou beats Oklahoma the previous week and Oklahoma has laid a beating on Nebraska. If it looks to good to be true then more than likely it is. Just it is hard to talk the logical side of your brain into seeing it that way.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:44 PM ^
Michigan State got destroyed by Iowa... we lost, but it was close... are we on par with MSU? I hate these transitive arguments.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:20 PM ^
You think having "Party in the USA" playing in the background isn't an advantage for the team that can practice listening to that? Crowd noise is one thing, but that's just cruel.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:15 PM ^
I think that people are overestimating the chances we lose based on a horrid performance last week (that was far off the norm, even for this defense). Illinois is another team that Michigan should have an easier time stopping than say Indiana, MSU and Iowa, they just need to show up and get 4 or 5 stops and we definitely have a good chance.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:22 PM ^
I'd agree, they're at our house, they start a freshman QB (which certainly didn't matter last week). But they've got a hell of defense. I don't know that we'll carve these guys up that easily.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:28 PM ^
Illinois has a solid D but they're no better than Iowa. If we don't turn the ball over we should get to our season average of 35
November 3rd, 2010 at 1:35 AM ^
Record scoring game at 50 something.
Ugh.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^
would go a long way toward helping make that possible. Nice how an illegal block can take out your best defensively player. Just another reason to hate Sparty.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^
I don't get how you get to the reasoning above. Any of it.
Points against PSU:
- Illinois: 33; Michigan: 31
Points against Indiana:
- Illinois: 43; Michigan: 42
Points allowed for PSU
- Illinois: 13; Michigan: 41
Points allowed for Indiana
- Illinois: 13; Michigan: 35
This is a pretty open and shut case that basically reads: Illinois' offense has been as effective in B10 play as Michigan's offense. Illinois' defense has been significantly better in B10 play versus Michigan's (based on comparable opponents).
While the MSU games between both schools don't paint as similar of a picture as the PSU / Indiana games, both teams lost to MSU... so we suck equally using that metric.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:32 PM ^
As I said, the PSU game was an anomoly, even for our defense.
The Indiana game is also hard to judge bc 1) we played them on the road (Illinois at home), 2) they were confident and brought the fire (like everyone seems to do against M) and 3) they have faced a myriad of problems on the offensive line and lost Darius Willis since we've played them. They were definitely a different team against Illinois.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^
I think that people are overestimating the chances we lose based on a horrid performance last week (that was far off the norm, even for this defense).
How so? We've given up 35, 34, 38 and 41 points in our four Big Ten games. Out of conference, we gave up 37 to UMass. Where is the evidence that the performance against PSU was an outlier?
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:25 PM ^
That comment was based on The Mathlete's graph in his latest diary, which shows a negative that's almost double of any other defensive performance
Further to that point, I think a better measure of this defense is the number of stops rather than points. When opponents score it's almost always a td. The key is that PSU was successful on 8/10 drives which is just insanely atrocious for any defense.November 2nd, 2010 at 6:29 PM ^
I think a better measure of this defense is the number of stops rather than points.
Why? The game is about outscoring the other team. What could be more important than points? And even if the Mathlete's numbers were worse than usual for this game, the bottom line is that we can't seem to hold anyone under 35 points. Whether it's a "good" or "bad" 35, it's a lot of points all the same.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:28 PM ^
Any stop is huge for our defense bc it gives our offense the chance to get back on the field without giving up points to the other team. In the end, wouldnt you say that outscoring your opponents depends on having more successful possessions than the other team?
I just say score doesn't matter as much as stops bc there are a different number of possessions each game. And when the other team is successful on 80% of their drives then you're screwed unless their defense is garbage (see UMass).
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:41 PM ^
Okay - but when you're giving up between 34 and 41 points to every Big Ten opponent, you're not going to be getting many stops. I get the sense that it really doesn't matter what our opponent's offense is like; we're going to end up giving up 35+ points and a lot of yardage regardless.
November 2nd, 2010 at 10:25 PM ^
What I'm getting at can kinda be seen here:
Iowa scored on 6/12 drives (essentially 50% success rate) for 38 points.
Penn st scored on 7/10 with one to run out the clock drives (80%) for 41 points
Let's say that in the Penn St game we get 2 stops and they still score 44 points (count the last drive as a FG FWIW) in 12 possessions. The key is that our offense has 20% more possessions and a much better chance to score the 14 points needed to win. Right now each stop by our defense is HUGE in terms of net points. Our offense scores a lot and the more chances they get with the ball the better.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:19 PM ^
Michigan looks awful and Illinois is now the undisputed "underrated team of the Big Ten - 2010 season".
I wouldn't say Michigan looks awful. The offense is still firing on all cylinders, and judging by the post-game press conferences the players aren't giving in.
The defense obviously looks horrible, though... Eh whatever I'm probably rationalizing...
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^
Unless M gets at least +2 TOM, there is no way this game is even close.
Illini: # 12 ranked Defense, #63 Offense (PSU had the #99 ranked Offense).
Without TOs, Illini by 17
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:25 PM ^
one could argue a running oriented spread is something this team will be better prepared for than conventional offenses or passing-oriented spreads like Indiana
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:48 PM ^
This is what I am hoping for.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^
I believe the record against the spread is pretty awful for the season. M benefits from name brand recognition that the betting public values.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:29 PM ^
UM is 3-4 ATS this season. Losing the last 4.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:33 PM ^
That avatar is creepy. Is that a dude getting hugged-mauled by a bear?
Also agree that the name recognition typically makes Mich a bigger favorite than we should be - but coming off that PSU game? There is more at work here than the Michigan brand.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:26 PM ^
The oddsmakers must be taking into account the non-trivial chance that Zook finds a way to muck things up. Either that or they just can't believe Michigan can continue to lose as often as we have been in Big Ten play.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:34 PM ^
It's because they lik how our offense can put up insane numbers if prompted to and for some reason they may be thinking that the defense may click and force more than one punt in the game.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:38 PM ^
We still have many who bet with their heart. Oddsmakers know this. To attract money on the other side, especially in a game that isn't a big game, you have to give a premium to Michigan's opponent. Michigan's spread is almost always distorted by a few points because of this.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:40 PM ^
Might this be Vegas' way of saying "We really have no clue what is going to happen?"
I'm as pessimistic as anyone about the season right now (I don't expect to win another game), but for all we know, Scheelhaase could suddenly decide he loves throwing into triple coverage and we could have Minnesota '08 all over again. I doubt it, but crazy shit happens in college football.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:48 PM ^
it's b/c i told vegas i'm going to will michigan to win...all the way from the 86th row.
November 2nd, 2010 at 5:51 PM ^
How many times do you actually win that bet? I'd say less than 50% for me ...
That's because they are professionals. They know what they are doing.
FWIW, a 3 point spread is not very big. It is basically a toss-up game but UM has home field advantage. If you think UM losing is a lock, bet it all baby.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:27 PM ^
That's a composition fallacy. Just because oddsmakers do a good job overall doesn't mean they can't make individual mistakes setting betting lines. It's the same way that RR does a good job with offense overall but doesn't seem very good with the whole "3rd and 1" concept.
I assumed the spread would be something like favoring Illinois by 7. I typically feel like the more complete team will often outperform the team with extreme strenghs and weaknesses, but maybe there's some Zook antimagic left in that team. Also, I work at Illinois and I was at the Illinois game last year, so a win this year would be really nice.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:39 PM ^
1) I was commenting on the point that you lose "50% of the time" not the specific line in the IL-UM game this weekend. If Vegas did not win more than 50% of the time they would not be in business very long.
2) Maybe, "I work at Illinois and I was at the Illinois game last year, so a win this year would be really nice" is part of the problem. The oddsmakers in Vegas do not work at Illinois and couldn't care less who wins so long as they make money. I would love to see UM win this Saturday, but my gut tells me it will be much like ND, IN, IA and PSU, pretty much a coin flip.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:32 PM ^
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:00 PM ^
I thought Iowa was a lock as well although it was closer than I thought it would be - we were 6.5 point dogs. M only wins this week if the TO battle goes our way. Maybe it will, maybe it wont. Our 4 Big 10 opponents have only turned it over once against us (pick off Chappelle). While good defenses create turnovers, I would think we would get some eventually - this would be a good time for some luck. But while my heart is with M, I would bet on Illinois +3.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^
They've got all the momentum, and a good defense to boot. We're sinking fast and have one of the very worst defenses among all BCS conference teams. I can't believe any pro sports gambler who's been watching Illinois and Michigan lately really thinks we're the favorite.
But I'll be there cheering for us regardless. Maybe I'll witness a huge upset, which is what it would be in reality if we win.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^
Illinois loses were against Mizzou, tOSU and MSU. Common opponent arguement suggests you are in for a long day. I'll take Illinois -10.
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:45 PM ^
My dad always told me that betting on Michigan football was seriously bad karma (and yes, he was a betting man).
November 2nd, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^
I've bet against Michigan many times, especially in Rose Bowls, and won far more often than I've lost. Most Michigan fans are suckers when it comes to the Rose Bowl. I got the same argument from them in 2007 that I heard in 1972: the PAC 10 is a pussy conference that doesn't play tough football, and we'll just smash 'em in the mouth and they'll run away crying because they don't like to get hit. Funny how it never seems to play out that way, but each Rose Bowl Michigan fans use the same line of reasoning.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:41 PM ^
I didn't read all of the posts so sorry if someone already said this, but here's my take:
In a game like this where you think Michigan should lose by Vegas has them favored, throw some amount of money that isn't a lot to you on Illinois. Let's say that's 25 bucks.
If Michigan wins, we make up for last week (somewhat), we go bowl eligible, and we head into Purdue with confidence and momentum - isn't that worth 25 bucks?
If Michigan loses, that's a bummer no matter what, but in this case at least you have 25 more dollars than you did before.
November 2nd, 2010 at 7:42 PM ^
b) we've got a better chance than all of you negative nabobs are suggesting.
Michigan 20, Illinois 17
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:34 PM ^
that this makes sense.
The Zooker.
November 2nd, 2010 at 9:38 PM ^
Normally Michigan gets a lot of money bet on it by its many fans, and favorites get more action than dogs.
This game is different. The line seems like it is off, that Illinois is playing well enough lately, and Michigan's defense poorly enough, to justify favoring the Illini despite the Wolverines' home-field advantage.
But it is a sucker line, meant to entice those who've watched Michigan lose three straight into betting Illinois. Michigan will win -- and maybe win handily. Illinois has been playing well but they're not that good.
I like betting Michigan giving the points, but I like betting the Wolverines on the money line even better.
November 3rd, 2010 at 1:40 AM ^
If M gets a +2 TOM, Michigan likely wins.
If M gets a 0 TOM, Illinois by 10
If M has any sort of negative TOM, Illinois by 14.
The way we've made Illinois look the past 2 years (remember how many records Jucie set in the Big House in 2008?), and the way our defense looks more and more like a wet tissue paper, the more I see this being a blowout in the Illini favor.
Sure, our offense will score, but everyone's pretty much figured out that you can prevent that by keeping them off the field.