RR v. Carr: The Point Spread
Does anyone know a website that point spread histories?
I can't think of a game from 2005-2007 where we covered in a Big Ten game.
I think RR would cover more often because his spread offense creates more scoring opportunities in garbage time because the run-option as a standard running play has the potential for more yards per play vs. a straight Power-I where everyone knows the play is Hart Left for 3 yards.
Is there any place to find this info?
April 24th, 2009 at 12:12 AM ^
but I remember reading a long time ago that Michigan was one of the worst teams against the point spread. In defense of the Wolverines, the bigger the team name, the more likely they are to be over-rated, and therefore worse against the spread. Some evidence of that phenomenon can be found here, where they show the most over/under rated teams since 1989...
http://preseason.stassen.com/over-under/all-teams.html
The rating is based on difference between pre-season rank and end of year rank. Obviously, the teams that are ranked high every year are the ones that are most frequently over-rated. Unfortunately the MOST overrated team in that stretch is Michigan (ND is number 2, Texas is 3). Not coincidentally, those three are number 1, 2, and 3 all time in college football wins.
covers.com and research the team pages on their college football menu. Look for 'Past Seasons' and you'll find seasons with point spread results going all the way back to 1985.
Advice on how to bet on UM:
Always take them as an underdog, especially if its not against OSU.
Always take the dog in the UM/ND series, although the favorite covered 2 in a row.
Always bet against Michigan as a favorite in their first road game of the year.
In fact, strongly consider betting against them as a road favorite anytime, although this has cooled in recent seasons, in large part to the Henne/Hart/Long class last couple of seasons being good road warriors.
nothing to see here
April 24th, 2009 at 10:23 AM ^
(Without putting much thought into this post:) Wouldn't it seem that if a team is consistently beating or losing to the spread, that it means the spread sucks to begin with?
I'm not a gambler (cause I dont have any $ to start with, otherwise I might be!) but I thought the idea of the spread was to make beat/losing to the spread a 50-50 proposition...no?
April 24th, 2009 at 12:07 PM ^
The actual reason for a spread being set where it is is to ensure that the money being bet comes out 50-50 on either side. That way no matter which team wins, the casinos/bookies win. Because there are tons and tons of Michigan fans out there who just bet on Michigan all the time, Vegas has to push the spread farther out than it would be if everyone were making a rational decision. This (combined with Carr's very conservative philosophy) has made Michigan terrible against the spread over recent years.
April 24th, 2009 at 12:10 PM ^
You did read Jamie Mac's post that stated that Michigan was above .500 ATS in Carr's last three years before posting this, right?
April 24th, 2009 at 12:52 PM ^
He takes three years, going to go ahead and call that a small sample size (I realize he does this in response to the original poster, who was clearly wrong, but I'm talking bout the whole Carr era). Check out the years before that (not including bowl games). We had one year in which we beat the spread pretty well, three where we broke even, three where we just missed, and three where we got killed.
2004: 4-8
2003: 8-3
2002: 3-9
2001: 6-6
2000: 5-5
1999: 5-6
1998: 4-8
1997: 6-6
1996: 5-7
1995: 5-7
Over the Carr era, we were -11 against the spread (admittedly only works out to -1 per year which is by no means terrible, but it certainly isn't good, and that's looking at every game, when really I'd argue you should only be looking at games in which we're the favorite, since that's when Carr's conservatism hurts against the spread).
Just to avoid any confusion, I'm not trying to knock Carr as a coach in anyway (I was a huge Carr fan). Looking at how he did against the spread would be a totally stupid way to judge his career. But in response to the question, we generally did badly ATS under Carr, and there's certainly a logic that suggests that will not be the case under RichRod.
Really, all that's somewhat beside the point, though, I just wanted to explain to Blue_Bull why a spread isn't necessarily set in such a way that every team should (in theory) be going .500 against the spread. There are always some teams that will do worse against the spread, because they're huge programs that many people bet on regardless of whether it's a good bet. Which is why, as jamiemac pointed out, it's hard to for a big program to be a "moneymaker" ATS.
Thanks, Tater. I guess I forgot that our fanbase tends to be larger than that of our opponents, which probably pushes our spread a little higher than it should be!
April 24th, 2009 at 10:57 AM ^
I would encourage you to get your research groove on. Go to Covers.com, as pointed out, or some other site.
Last 3 years under LC, all records are Against The Spread (ATS)
2005: 5-7 overall, 4-4 in Big 10
2006: 7-4-1 overall, 6-1-1 in Big 10
2007: 7-5 overall, 5-3 in Big 10
Man, those last two years overall about as good as you can be from an ATS standpoint. Its hard for "big time" programs to be profit makers in this arena becuase of the heavy chalk they have to lay.
But, anyway, to your point of having a hard time remembering UM covering a Big 10 game from 2005-07, you might want to try a memory trick or two.
In those years, UM was 15-8-1 ATS vs Big 10 foes....or, if you wagered 110 to win 100 in all of those games, you would have won $620 bucks. BTW, that includes a 8-4 ATS record in 12 games vs ND, PSU, MSU and OSU, the biggest rivals on the slate.
Most teams flucuate between just below, at, or just above .500 against the spread.
Its why you should never, always bet on the same team every week. Find situations within the .500 record to have better success.
Thus, the three betting tips specifically on Michigan that I gave out above.
UM has always struggled covering those big numbers when they play like the IUs of the Big 10 or the MAC foes on the OOC slate. But, they've always been a decent Big 10 bet, especially at home and in certain situations.
They were 8-6-2 in the 03 and 04 Big 10 seasons, so we can expand the sample size a couple more years and still find UM pulling a Big 10 profit the last few years of Carr.
The 2002 team, though, was so bad against the number that when they beat Wisco that year after a defensive stand, I was excited and ordered shots for my drinking/cfb cronies. But, our book was so flabbergasted that he said, in a thick Boston accent, Fawk Michigan until those fuckers cover at least one spread.
Good stuff.
Jamiemac
In a program that has been so historically consistent with regard to results, the suggestions make sense, but given the sort of 'ground up' re-build of the whole program, does it still make sense to bet that way? I can see trends being somewhat consistent if the team is in a re-building year with regard to player turnover, but the coaching staff (and thus schemes and philosophy) remains largely intact, or even vice versa if a team returns 22 starters but gets a new head coach and some staff members. However UM is in the throes of both, an almost complete change-out of coaching staff (installing an almost diametrically opposite scheme/philosophy) AND an almost complete turnover in players.
Either way, UM is a VERY tough bet all-round for this season and next given the lack of any trending whatsoever.
Tater:
One other point with regard to the logic that RR should perform better against the spread. Given that a spread is set to equalize the money on the back end, won't the gamblers' knowledge of his system/philosophy take into account his propensity to score more points when they place bets for or against and sort of render it moot, or does the propensity to score more create a greater variance (propensity to score more, but maybe not likelihood to score more, if that makes sense) that would allow him to beat the spread statistically? There is the logic that his scheme/point potential will consistently shift where the spread is set and give him a 'higher hurdle' and possibly result in his performing poorly against the spread over time.
Quite frankly, I wish UM would finally do well against any kind of spread ;)