can you handicap some of these crazy covers/misses beforehand?

[gojetsgomoxies]

is college football just inherently volatile?

would a good handicapper (not me) have seen that 1) wisconsin would kill michigan 2) ohio state destroy nebraska and 3) UNC would be a 2 point conversion away from most likely beating clemson? ..... even add penn state destroying maryland.

obviously no one will have seen the magnitudes..... but do you think the team's strengths/weaknesses and psychology lined up for these general results?

i'm thinking psychology is huge in college football........ some teams come up big after a terrible performance and other just fall into the abyss.. maybe the opposite (probably the effect is weaker though) on outstanding performances.

i posted a thread about this already....... but i think situations that were expected to improve alot have often been outright disasters this year. i mean, nebraska won't win just because of the excitement scott frost brought to the program (hindsight comment, as my tendancy is to like these situations. but i'm really starting to wonder. transfer QB's too, although i'd say the highest profile ones going to huge football schools have been awesome)

[Fred The Hammer]

is college football just inherently volatile?

would a good handicapper (not me) have seen that 1) wisconsin would kill michigan 2) ohio state destroy nebraska and 3) UNC would be a 2 point conversion away from most likely beating clemson? ..... even add penn state destroying maryland.

obviously no one will have seen the magnitudes..... but do you think the team's strengths/weaknesses and psychology lined up for these general results?

i'm thinking psychology is huge in college football........ some teams come up big after a terrible performance and other just fall into the abyss.. maybe the opposite (probably the effect is weaker though) on outstanding performances.

i posted a thread about this already....... but i think situations that were expected to improve alot have often been outright disasters this year. i mean, nebraska won't win just because of the excitement scott frost brought to the program (hindsight comment, as my tendancy is to like these situations. but i'm really starting to wonder. transfer QB's too, although i'd say the highest profile ones going to huge football schools have been awesome)

Yes and No. I prefer totals because the pace/style of the game is more predictable imo then the point spread. My big play today was Minnesota/Purdue Over 53.5 and it hit in the 3Q despite Purdue losing their starting QB/best receiver on the same play early 2Q. Sometimes I'm wrong. I had Pitt vs Penn St and got an easy cover so Maryland +7 last night sounded good. Other times just fade the public if the line sounds off. I had no interest in Auburn until knuckleheads bet Miss St down to +7.5....so I threw Auburn ML into some parlays. Kentucky/SC tonite....line went up from 54 to 55.5. Why? Both offenses suck. Took Under and its a layup. I'm killing CFB this year. 5-1 today and 6-1 if Houston/North Texas can get Over 59.5

[gojetsgomoxies]

Fred, thx. good stuff

i used to play totals and i think i did well. but i got away from it for a few (stupid) reasons.

i found a few things, some of which you mentioned.

1) low totals go UNDER. high totals go OVER....... that is, i think, counter to basic human common sense.

2) i'm not sure the market properly discounts two OVER or two UNDER teams playing each other.. army-navy being such a no-brainer. not sure how that game could ever go OVER some of the very early totals i have seen on that game. not sure how much $$$$ you could get down on early totals.......... if both teams eat up the clock with running plays and low powered offense. few turnovers or big special teams plays and these games can't be high scoring.

3) killersports.com shows my stated ideas are correct but not that powerful...... BUT, if you exclude non-BCS, these ideas have been powerful

4) high totals going OVER hasn't worked last 2 years, but worked like a charm before that..... i am pretty much an UNDER bettor myself. never really played OVER's.



3)