Projected Lines On Michigan Games

Submitted by jamiemac on June 7th, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Hey all. On Monday, the Golden Nugget will be releasing pointspread on upwards of 100 games of the year. Several of Michigan's game will be on the early board and, for sure, I will put together an in depth post breaking those down in the diary section.......

But, why wait until then. Especially when one of my favorite blogs Beyond The Bets came out with their spread projections for every conference game to be played this season. Here is the link to their Big 10 projections......and here are the projected spreads for the MICH games:

UM -7 at Purdue

Illinois +18 at UM

MSU +6.5 at UM

UM +3.5 at Nebraska

UM -14.5 at Minnesota

NW +17.5 at UM

Iowa +14 at UM

UM +4 at OSU

Not gonna lie. That MSU +6.5 looks mighty tempting

Figured this might spark some discussion. Look for something more in-depth in the diary sections on the actual lines released on Monday

And, I plan a series of Michigan player/positional unit/key stat previews throughout the summer here. If all goes according to plan, I'lll have the first up in the diary section sometime tomorrow. You've seen this before where we make up Over/Under prop bets. We debuted this summer's other Big 10 previews over at the JCB with Northwestern.

Carry On and Discuss

Comments

Sopwith

June 7th, 2012 at 4:06 PM ^

and I'm not, but I'd take those points in a heartbeat.  That is a very, very talented, deep, and experienced defense returning something like 19 players off last year's two-deep.  The offensive holes in the passing game are there, but DeAnthony Arnett is a serious talent and Maxwell has all the tools (we'll see if he handles the limelight early enough).  Good backs.  Good line.  This is a tough team.  

On a neutral field, I'd say UM gets a point based on our superior "have Denard" category.  Figuring home field is worth the rule-of-thumb +3, I'd go MSU +2 overall.  Don't know how they got to +6.5 unless they're getting some kind of non-public info on Maxwell and his likelihood of sucking.

beachbum69

June 7th, 2012 at 8:42 PM ^

but I'm flat out of ideas ever since EVERYTHING I post started getting labeled as "trolling".  Over the last two and a half years anything I have posted so much LESS about MSU's talent than this post and some of the others on this thread, which are all great and logical, but everything I post gets destroyed as trolling.  

Sopwith, you have posted many solid points.  Many others on this thread have all posted very solid points and you're all getting "scored", meanwhile every question I posted or fact I state (such as saying MSU has an Elite 11 QB starting next year) gets demolished by people.  
 

If anyone is interested, just a few days ago I posted the following on another thread and, of course, it was labeled trolling.  I see absolutely no part of this as being a troll and I'm eager to discuss the MSU game coming up this fall if anyone will have it..  I'm reposting this here in the hopes that someone actually reads it and sees that this is as objective as it gets:

http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/4th-most-difficult-schedule-nation

 

We'll definitely see and we should be able to tell early on.  I think this season will all come down to the trenches.  ND, MSU, OSU, Nebraska... all teams that if the UM lines hold up against they will have a chance to control the game.  

 

ND has always recruited well but never quite been able to show it on the field, so that's a toss up IMO.

 

MSU returns most of it's O Line and loses Worthy on the D Line.  I think the Lewan/Gholston will be an amazing battle all game and it could come down to the interior play.  No secret Dantonio wants to run so it'll be their O Line versus the UM D line, imo, that will be the key matchup. 

 

OSU and Nebraska are probably the shakiest of those four teams and I really don't know what to expect from them.  They'll probably be a pain because of talent but I don't know what their experience looks like.  

robbyt003

June 7th, 2012 at 4:24 PM ^

I agree their Defense will be solid, but our offense should be just as good as last year if not better.  Their offense will be a huge question mark and our D should be as good as last year or better (pending the progress of the DLine).  I do think 6.5 may be a little high, but I could see 5 or so.  

COB

June 7th, 2012 at 4:52 PM ^

UM scored 14 on that defense last year.  So if you take the logic of "we'll be better on both sides of the ball" you would have to assume that MSU's defense would be better as well, effectively cancelling out the UM gain in O.  I think JM's larger point here is that MSU is talented, plays UM tough and 6.5 is a lot in any tight rivalry.  So, by proxy of "getting while the getting's good" I think the idea of taking the 6.5 is a good bet in that the odds are in your favor that the number will go down as the game approaches. 

jamiemac

June 7th, 2012 at 3:47 PM ^

Nah, I am thinking of taking those points, although I feel when an actual line to bet on is released by the Golden Nugget that line will be closer to a FG than to a TD

I think Michigan is finally rebuilt where they can finally expect to win this game. But MSU is still pretty dang good, they have the better D and they seem to just own Denard. Right now, all I can say for MICH is that I cant believe Denard would go 0-fer against MSU, but you dont gamble because somebody is due. Nobody is due

I also dont like taking teams trying to break a long losing streak against a team when they're favored like that. Example, MICH -8 over Ohio last year

bluewave720

June 7th, 2012 at 8:51 PM ^

That is easily the most succinct and valuable gambling advise I have read.  
 

If a Star Wars knockoff was created with a gambling undertone, Yoda would say that all day to the Jedi/gambler in training.  Well, probably more like "Due, nobody is." 

I actually like Michigan -7 at Purdue.  But, I also have some stupid penchant for taking road favorites.

 

Lac55

June 8th, 2012 at 6:10 AM ^

Wow. I know its Bama but 13.5 means they think Bama is going to win by two touchdowns or even more. It can go down and probably will as we get closer to game time. I will feel a lot better if it goes down to 7 or 8.

snowcrash

June 7th, 2012 at 3:33 PM ^

I agree with posters who said the Iowa and MSU spreads are too high. Our offense really struggled against Iowa last year, and I don't see us being that much better or them being that much worse. 8 would be a more realistic spread. For MSU I'd say 3, and only because we're at home. That game is going to be a defensive struggle.

On the other hand I'd take the points against OSU. Miller is still fairly raw, and the rest of their offense doesn't impress me at all. That looks like a betting line for people who think OSU's offense is going to turn into Florida under Leak or Tebow just because Meyer is the coach now.

COB

June 7th, 2012 at 4:59 PM ^

how much can be gleaned from last year with respect to games played at the end of November of this year.  That is a long way off to be talking about what will or will not work w/r/t a new offense.  Keep in mind, these are estimates, not casino numbers.  No one is "enticing bets" or any other chicanery with these numbers, simply guestimates. 

jamiemac

June 7th, 2012 at 3:41 PM ^

Yes, you are correct

I listed road team's line in each case. If its too difficult, I'm open to suggestions to make it more reader friendly. Its second nature to me, so i would never know when I've made something like this too complicated to read

justingoblue

June 7th, 2012 at 4:17 PM ^

It took me a minute to see how you were listing these. I'm not a betting guy but I didn't have too much trouble figuring it out, but if you're looking for ideas...

You could list it as:

Alabama: Michigan +13.5
Northwestern: Michigan -17.5

or list the odds for each opponent

Alabama -13.5
Northwestern +17.5

 

canzior

June 7th, 2012 at 4:06 PM ^

but 18?  That's kinda high for a non Minnesota conference game isn't it?  3 td victory over Ill...I'd gladly take it, but it seems like a lot

cazzie

June 7th, 2012 at 4:41 PM ^

that we will be unstoppable this season if: 1-Denard can pass, and 2-our defense is strong or stronger.

if so, we go 12-0 (that is a poem)

LSAClassOf2000

June 7th, 2012 at 6:50 PM ^

I could see 6-2 for a realistic estimate of the in-conference record if these panned out on simply a win / loss basis. I must say that I also agree that the 6.5 versus MSU would be tempting if the game were to be played this weekend, and I think the +4 versus Ohio may not change a whole lot, but of course, it's a long time until November. 

Perkis-Size Me

June 7th, 2012 at 11:25 PM ^

This MSU game next year is really a toss-up. If MSU can replace Jerel Worthy, their defense will be scary good. Like maybe one notch below an Alabama or LSU defense. Their offense will, in all liklihood, take a step back, given Maxwell has 0 significant playing time, WR corp is gutted, and LeVeon Bell will be relied on very heavily. But if DeAnthony Arnett can step up, that's where I begin to have concerns.

I think we will have a better offense than them, especially since we have a go-to RB in Touissant for this game, unlike last year's game. And Denard has apparently been improving his mechanics and footwork significantly. But MSU will still have a better defense, and will continue to for at least another year or two. I don't care how highly touted guys like Pip, RJS and Bolden are coming onto campus. They will still just be freshman. But this game is in Ann Arbor, and UM will be motivated to put an end to the losing-streak in front of a home crowd.

I hate making predictions, but this game will come down to the wire.

snarling wolverine

June 8th, 2012 at 7:22 AM ^

MSU should again have a good defense, but the loss of Worthy could be bigger than you think.  He was maybe the best player on that unit.  They return a lot of solid players, but Gholston might be the only real difference-maker.  Last year they had two of them up front with him and Worthy, and it made blocking assignments tough for opposing OLs.  If no other DL steps up to replace Worthy, teams can double Gholston and suddenly that MSU pass rush might not be so fierce.

In 1998, we returned nine starters from the legendary '97 D, but no Woodson or Steele, and we remember how that turned out.