Classic example of when a "backdoor cover" is NOT a 'bad beat"

[StackinGreen]

I've put it on other threads, everyone whining and writing articles about the "meaningless" score that covered the spread is on crack, I watched the entire game and Alabama was absolutely lucky to win, let alone being in the gift position to actually cover that line, which was a bad line. Clemson backers absolutely were on the right side and deserved the cover.

-Clemson's star shut down CB goes out in the 2nd quarter.
-There are two blown coverage ~50 yd TD pass walk-ins.
-Coker's heave prayer on 3rd and 13 to get into FG position and tie the game leading to ...
-An onside kick executed with perfection (Saban admitted they couldn't stop Clemson)
-Alabama still needs a 95 yard kickoff return for TD?

And Alabama backers act like they shouldn't have been thanking God for even a chance at cover? Ingrates.

I feel bad for Clemson backers, I believe Clemson wins 6 out of 10 times they play, at least. At +220 or higher money line, that means the ML was a great great play.

If you had Clemson, be happy you had the right side on both ML and spread, regardless of result.

[iheartAlabama]

I've put it on other threads, everyone whining and writing articles about the "meaningless" score that covered the spread is on crack, I watched the entire game and Alabama was absolutely lucky to win, let alone being in the gift position to actually cover that line, which was a bad line. Clemson backers absolutely were on the right side and deserved the cover.

-Clemson's star shut down CB goes out in the 2nd quarter.
-There are two blown coverage ~50 yd TD pass walk-ins.
-Coker's heave prayer on 3rd and 13 to get into FG position and tie the game leading to ...
-An onside kick executed with perfection (Saban admitted they couldn't stop Clemson)
-Alabama still needs a 95 yard kickoff return for TD?

And Alabama backers act like they shouldn't have been thanking God for even a chance at cover? Ingrates.

I feel bad for Clemson backers, I believe Clemson wins 6 out of 10 times they play, at least. At +220 or higher money line, that means the ML was a great great play.

If you had Clemson, be happy you had the right side on both ML and spread, regardless of result.

That's football for u Oregon had a 31 point lead over tcu One guy goes down then tcu comes back to send the game to overtime and pull out the victory my fault without Boykin behind center.....bama won the game Watson is a beast but running a kickoff back for a 95yd td is football recovering an onside kick is football goddammit a starter getting hurt is football...get your head out your ass and be mad that this shit is over for 8 months

[jtoler]

No its not a bad beat at all, they were down 2 scores and trying to win the title game.

[StackinGreen]

That's football for u Oregon had a 31 point lead over tcu One guy goes down then tcu comes back to send the game to overtime and pull out the victory my fault without Boykin behind center.....bama won the game Watson is a beast but running a kickoff back for a 95yd td is football recovering an onside kick is football goddammit a starter getting hurt is football...get your head out your ass and be mad that this shit is over for 8 months

iheart, it's clear that you need to get your head out of your a$$, I'm not complaining I won my bet (sounds and looks like you didn't).

What don't you understand that gambling is about probability analysis, not stupid comments like "that's football" as if I couldn't figure that out myself, of course it's football. So let me distill the point for you:

If you had to rely on what I said above to cover a game, you made a bad bet. It's a fact, and you still lost, which proves the point even more because if they were that much better AND all that happened they should have won by 20+, spread shouldn't have even been in question. But we all know that wasn't the case, because Clemson was every bit as good.

The TCU example just proves my point, thank you again for supporting it unbeknownst to you, no one betting TCU that game felt like they deserved the cover. Give me a break, some people (you) don't even realize it when they give reasons that support the other guy, it's hysterical

[StackinGreen]

No its not a bad beat at all, they were down 2 scores and trying to win the title game.

Exactly, if they get in a bit quicker and get the onside and they have at least a theoretical shot at deep pass/hail mary

Some people just don't get it. Oh yeah, I forgot, only Alabama is supposed to get onside kicks, how silly of me

[Walulu]

Great post Stackin! If only they would of won. I definitely think Clemson was a better team this year and would of loved to see them 'finish.'

[squarenfl]

clemson was the right side, totally agree with SG

[dmncnlou]

Sure is funny how they were 15 -0 and still lost. Stop making excuses. The better team always wins!

[mikeak]

OP - agree 100%

You sometimes lose betting on teams and you should look at your bet as was it the right or wrong bet. A lucky fumble on the last snap / a heaved ball that gets 3pts etc can win / lose bets but they don't change if it was the right bet.

Clemson at -5 and greater yesterday was clearly the right play. ML is a closer argument since despite everything they lost.

[StackinGreen]

By the way, I believe also that we should be honest when we skank a win. If I were on Alabama, I would admit that I was lucky to even win, let alone cover, to be honest.