[mdfizzle]

East Carolina +3
Army +7
Purdue +3.5
Tulane +3.5
South Alabama +4.5
North Texas +5
USC +7

Will bump on SAT night

[Murray Rothbard]

I like Ark St and Oregon this week.

[mrsolodolo21]

Not sure how anybody can take Purdue at this point. Doesn't mean they have to fade them, just not bet them.

[HoulihansTX]

Sprinkle some fairy dust on these plays. Will take some magic to profit.

[SamDiamond]

Those are some ugly teams you're willing to wager on.

I think Oregon may hang 60 on USC.

ECU just got destroyed by Navy, and Army looked awful on defense.

[mdfizzle]

I heard the same thing last week with Nevada over Air Force. Air Force was the play!

I know the plays look ugly and they sound illogical. You can think of a million reasons to play the other side, but at the end of the week you will be broke.

I had a thread last year, but didn't keep up with it this year. Am too interested in learning the ins and outs of tennis betting.

I know it is after the fact, but these would have been my plays for Week 9:

Air Force +3.5
Arizona +8.5
Minnesota +2.5
Miami Ohio +6.5
Buffalo +7.5
Tulane +5.5
Florida Atlantic +7
Washington +3
Army +6
Marshall +2
Florida International +7

Out of 11 plays that is 3 losers and 73% winners. But go ahead, doubt the plays =)

[possum11]

the question is - why?

I mean how do you determine that these are the ones that look ugly?

[SamDiamond]

the question is - why?

I mean how do you determine that these are the ones that look ugly?

,

THIS. I mean, you're not giving us any particular reason. It sounds like dart throwing. And here's a bigger question---Purdue, ECU, and Tulane, all ugly dogs, with a number at or on 3, if they are such strong plays, why not play them on the ML? Do you realize how infrequently a number around 3 comes in? Play the ML, it would have more value.

[mdfizzle]

No justifications needed. I am NOT trying to convince you of anything. It will all be supported this Saturday when the results come in. And yes SamDiamond your intuition is spot on... some of these plays will win outright. Still, I'll take the points. Had Army been able to put up a score late in the 4th quarter, they would have lost but still covered. Having more value and losing accomplishes little.

[rainmaker82]

So you are saying you believe 6 out of those 7 cover? I can tell you right now that ain't happening.

[possum11]

I am not asking for justification, just clarification - not arguing or dissing. Just want to understand. Why is USC an ugly play but LSU or Texas not this week?

[tailin junkie]

mdfizzle, I think u r on to something here. To me, an ugly play is something that doesn't look right for the favorite. It doesn't mean I play the underdog, but I'll definitely try to stay away from the favorite no matter how enticing it looks. Case in point, last week i wanted to bet ohio. when I saw the line, something just seemed weird about it so i stayed away. Wish i'd taken mia oh tho. BOL. I will be watching and prob playing some so we will see what happens.

[tailin junkie]

You might want to add the no qb +7 Maryland to that list against Georgia tech

[mdfizzle]

That would be 85%. 80% as the title says is likely too good as well. I expect 5/7 or 70%. What I meant by ugly play is the team is usually bad. Outside of USC, you don't really look at the other teams as teams you want to place money on. Who in there right mind would put money on Purdue? What I'm telling you is that these teams DO cover! And they do it at about 60-80% of the time in any given week.

How do I determine what the play is? I usually look for spreads between 3-10.... if it is too high it means that the real bad team is playing the real good team. Again, it sounds simple and that's because it is. But it works.

[Hilljacademics]

I too was looking hard @ South Alabama as home dog, but Jake Medlock is now probable for FIU.....I'm staying away. GL

[indio]

I can say this about Tulane. I watched them play UTEP with starting QB Ryan Griffin returning after missing 3 games, and said, hey, this guy looks pretty good, and this team is a whole different squad when this guy plays QB for them. When I saw they were getting points from a terrible UAB team (at home to boot), I got down on the Green Wave, but the best part of the story is actually watching the Tulane vs UAB game. The Tulane announcers are the most enthusiastic I've ever heard, it's hilarious. Tulane recorded a sack in the first quarter and the announcer practically shouts " Green Wave sack attack !". The best line of the day though, was when Griffin threw a pass to his receiver that was thrown and caught to the back shoulder. The announcer says " Griffin throws that back shoulder pass as good as Drew Brees".

I watched Tualne play UAB and I also watched most of the Rice vs. So. Miss game last week. Now Tulane host Rice, and UAB travels So. Miss. Iv'e formed the following conclusions. So. Miss receivers will be wide open all day, but that won't matter if Arsenio Favor plays QB because he couldn't hit an aircraft carrier with a pass from 20 yards out. I'm leaning UAB +3 with their competent QB and RB's.

Tulane vs. Rice should be fun with a lot of points. Rice should have some success running the ball, but I have to ride the Ryan Griffin wagon at home getting points again. He really is a good looking QB with some decent receivers to throw to and I think Tulane has more talent on the field, so I'm taking the dogs, Tulane and UAB in two of the most god forsaken games on the weekend, and I'll enjoy watching them.

The country will be riveted, switching back and forth between Oregon vs. USC, Alabama vs. LSU, and K-State vs. OSU. I'll be watching UAB vs. So. Miss.

[SamDiamond]

That would be 85%. 80% as the title says is likely too good as well. I expect 5/7 or 70%. What I meant by ugly play is the team is usually bad. Outside of USC, you don't really look at the other teams as teams you want to place money on. Who in there right mind would put money on Purdue? What I'm telling you is that these teams DO cover! And they do it at about 60-80% of the time in any given week.

How do I determine what the play is? I usually look for spreads between 3-10.... if it is too high it means that the real bad team is playing the real good team. Again, it sounds simple and that's because it is. But it works.

Are you sure about this theory of yours?

Army's ATS record: 2-6
USC ATS record: 2-6
North Texas ATS record: 3-5
Purdue's ATS record: 4-4
Tulane's ATS record: 5-3
ECU's ATS record: 5-4
South Alabama ATS record: 3-4

Not one team is covering at 80%, and 4 of your teams having losing ATS records.

In fact, only 2 of the 7 have winning ATS record.

[mdfizzle]

Yes, if only I was playing these teams every single week. Nice try.

[SamDiamond]

Yes, if only I was playing these teams every single week. Nice try.

Those were your words crackpot.

You made the claim that ugly teams do cover at 60-80% of the time.

And one would assume that based on YOUR OWN WORDS, one could expect the teams you are playing this week would in fact, have a winning ATS record.

You are trying to tell us that the worst teams in 1-A football are covering at high rates, and that simply isn't true. I can use actual facts and refute that claim of yours.

I want to see you backpedal out of this one. Using BCS rankings--- these are the bottom 25 teams in 1-A football, with their ATS records.

Guess how many have an actual winning ATS record? 2 UNLV and Tulane. All the other garbage teams, are that-- GARBAGE.

There are roughly 42 teams with winning ATS records out of 124 1-A teams. And almost all of those 42 teams have a winning record, and wouldn't be called UGLY.

BC: 2-6
Virginia: 0-7-1
Kansas: 4-4
USF: 3-5
UTEP: 3-6
Southern Miss: 2-6
UAB: 2-6
Memphis: 3-5
Tulane: 5-3
Illinois: 2-6
EMU: 3-5
Akron: 4-5
Mass: 2-6
Buffalo: 4-4
Wyoming: 4-4
Hawaii: 2-5
Colorado: 1-7
New Mexico State: 4-4
UNLV: 7-2
Idaho: 1-7
Kentucky: 2-7
Auburn: 2-6
Army: 2-6
Colorado State: 2-6
FIU: 3-6

[mdfizzle]

I will say nothing more... I will be back Saturday night. That will do the talking for me.

[mdfizzle]

But yes, taking all of the ugly teams and not a weekly sample size of all the ugly teams will make you look wonderful and me the idiot.

[adila1401]

I don't see how USC stays even close to Oregon..Oregon keeps slipping polls despite winning convincingly..I think they will be looking to make a statement, things could get ugly for USC..BOL though

[mdfizzle]

Saying things like "they want to make a statement" is meaningless. Every team wants to make a statement.

[SamDiamond]

But yes, taking all of the ugly teams and not a weekly sample size of all the ugly teams will make you look wonderful and me the idiot.

Dude, slow down. I'm not trying to bust your balls. I love discussing theory/angles but you have to use facts.

You seemed to have a theory that the worst teams have the best ATS records, or the "ugly" teams do, and I've just proven that isn't true. The worst teams, are also the worst teams ATS. I demonstrated to you that 23 of the 25 lowest ranked teams in college football have losing ATS records, on the other hand..

If you look at the Top 25-- 20 of the Top 25 BCS teams have a WINNING ATS record.

Bottom line. It would be entirely more profitable for you to bet on teams in the BCS Top 25, instead of the Bottom 25, and it isn't even open for debate.

[Murray Rothbard]

I can say this about Tulane. I watched them play UTEP with starting QB Ryan Griffin returning after missing 3 games, and said, hey, this guy looks pretty good, and this team is a whole different squad when this guy plays QB for them. When I saw they were getting points from a terrible UAB team (at home to boot), I got down on the Green Wave, but the best part of the story is actually watching the Tulane vs UAB game. The Tulane announcers are the most enthusiastic I've ever heard, it's hilarious. Tulane recorded a sack in the first quarter and the announcer practically shouts " Green Wave sack attack !". The best line of the day though, was when Griffin threw a pass to his receiver that was thrown and caught to the back shoulder. The announcer says " Griffin throws that back shoulder pass as good as Drew Brees".

I watched Tualne play UAB and I also watched most of the Rice vs. So. Miss game last week. Now Tulane host Rice, and UAB travels So. Miss. Iv'e formed the following conclusions. So. Miss receivers will be wide open all day, but that won't matter if Arsenio Favor plays QB because he couldn't hit an aircraft carrier with a pass from 20 yards out. I'm leaning UAB +3 with their competent QB and RB's.

Tulane vs. Rice should be fun with a lot of points. Rice should have some success running the ball, but I have to ride the Ryan Griffin wagon at home getting points again. He really is a good looking QB with some decent receivers to throw to and I think Tulane has more talent on the field, so I'm taking the dogs, Tulane and UAB in two of the most god forsaken games on the weekend, and I'll enjoy watching them.

The country will be riveted, switching back and forth between Oregon vs. USC, Alabama vs. LSU, and K-State vs. OSU. I'll be watching UAB vs. So. Miss.

LOL I so happened to watch that Tulane/UAB game as well (unfortunately I took UAB on a 3 team parlay and the two other teams covered smdh) and the announcers were SO enthusiastic about Tulane. I also watched that LA Tech vs New Mexico State and the announcers had the same enthusiasm for their Aggies.

UAB has a really good looking running back (forget his name) but their pass D was horrendous which prevented UAB from totally coming back. I'm not familiar with Rice or So. Miss but seeing as you watched that Tulane game and reached similar conclusions to me I may have to tail you on these picks.

BOL this weekend indio!

[BlitzTheBooks]

East Carolina +3
Army +7
Purdue +3.5
Tulane +3.5
South Alabama +4.5
North Texas +5
USC +7

Will bump on SAT night

East Carolina, North Texas and South Alabama

[Chief Wahoo]

Not sure how anybody can take Purdue at this point. Doesn't mean they have to fade them, just not bet them.

I actually am looking hard at Purdue for a 1st half play. Penn St. coming off tough loss which was basically their Super Bowl. Purdue is an extremely ugly place to play and I still don't think Penn St. is that great to begin with. Best win was a come from behind win at home versus Northwestern with losses to Virginia & Ohio U. Purdue played Notre Dame and OSU to the wire and both better than Penn St. Throwing out loss to Minny as how do you come back from loss to OSU previous week. Purdue is thick on the line of scrimmage and match up well in this one. Have no opinion on the other games, except I think Kiffin is a tool and will never waste money on one of his teams again.

[Inkwell77]

Purdue does not seem like a play to me, just looking at it....

Tough to tell by last years result, Penn State favored by 12 and wins by 5 at home. Is this years Purdue team better than last years team? Tough to tell, but if they are they have not shown it so far.
Is Penn State better than last year? Probably not on defense, but their offense seems improved.

Obviously this Penn State team is not short of effort and the coaching staff has done a great job.

Ohio State was favored by 17 points at home vs Purdue and were only favored by 1 at Penn State? Would that not say this line should be something like Penn State -6?

In games that should have been very competitive Purdue has been blown out (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota). Are they due to play a good game and beat a team where on paper it should be competitive?

[SamDiamond]

"

[bane]

Thanks SamDiamond!

[SamDiamond]

That would be 85%. 80% as the title says is likely too good as well. I expect 5/7 or 70%. What I meant by ugly play is the team is usually bad. Outside of USC, you don't really look at the other teams as teams you want to place money on. Who in there right mind would put money on Purdue? What I'm telling you is that these teams DO cover! And they do it at about 60-80% of the time in any given week.

How do I determine what the play is? I usually look for spreads between 3-10.... if it is too high it means that the real bad team is playing the real good team. Again, it sounds simple and that's because it is. But it works.

Again mdfizzle, I am NOT busting on you.

I just re-read this thread, and can you explain your statement that I placed in bold?

What are you trying to say with that line?

[esulima]

he is tring to say that those lines he said look like sucker bets thats why the line is that low

Again mdfizzle, I am NOT busting on you.

I just re-read this thread, and can you explain your statement that I placed in bold?

What are you trying to say with that line?

[esulima]

just listen to the man he knows what hes talking about

[pokeraddict2012]

army wont cover the +7

[esulima]

army +7half and they will cover/ line to low should be 12