Countdown To NCAAF

BriGuy · 07-08-17, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by homie1975

hawaii plays at umass on sat 8/26. meaningless game so who gives a hoot anyway

It won't be meaningless to all of us betting on it since it is one of the only games being played.

crackerjack · 07-08-17, 04:35 PM

Some of the easiest games to bet are the "meaningless" games where you can find some soft lines.

BigdaddyQH · 07-08-17, 06:52 PM

It is very difficult to call ANY line a "soft" line in week one because no one knows exactly what to expect from any given team

BriGuy · 07-09-17, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by BigdaddyQH

It is very difficult to call ANY line a "soft" line in week one because no one knows exactly what to expect from any given team

Week 1 (the true week 1, not this year's week 1) is my favorite week of the year. Plenty of donks to drive a line in the wrong direction because they think a team will be like last year, and they don't know the superstar QB/RB/WR didn't return.

BigdaddyQH · 07-09-17, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by BriGuy

Week 1 (the true week 1, not this year's week 1) is my favorite week of the year. Plenty of donks to drive a line in the wrong direction because they think a team will be like last year, and they don't know the superstar QB/RB/WR didn't return.

What do you consider to be the "True" week 1? If you are saying to disregard the 4 games on 8/26 and start the "True" Week 1 on 8/31, I will buy that.

homie1975 · 07-09-17, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by crackerjack

Some of the easiest games to bet are the "meaningless" games where you can find some soft lines.

Soft lines went by the wayside about 15-20 yrs ago. Way back when I was crushing MAC and WAC soft lines but then the Internet amd phil steele annuals became all the rage and the market became too efficuent. The line value these days is razor thin even on small conf gms like the sun belt etc

BriGuy · 07-09-17, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by BigdaddyQH

What do you consider to be the "True" week 1? If you are saying to disregard the 4 games on 8/26 and start the "True" Week 1 on 8/31, I will buy that.

Yes that's what I meant. I don't consider those small handful of games "week 1". In fact, I believe they aren't even going to take polls until after the weekend of September 2. So there will be an official AP/Coaches preseason poll, but the "Week 1 Poll" won't come until after Sept. 2.

BriGuy · 07-09-17, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by homie1975

Soft lines went by the wayside about 15-20 yrs ago. Way back when I was crushing MAC and WAC soft lines but then the Internet amd phil steele annuals became all the rage and the market became too efficuent. The line value these days is razor thin even on small conf gms like the sun belt etc

I disagree. I made a fortune betting against Oregon last year at the start of the season. People saw Oregon and thought "oh that's the team that always wins by a ton of points". Well not only was Mariota gone, but his decent replacement was gone. Oregon was WAY overvalued at the start of the season.

homie1975 · 07-09-17, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by BriGuy

I disagree. I made a fortune betting against Oregon last year at the start of the season. People saw Oregon and thought "oh that's the team that always wins by a ton of points". Well not only was Mariota gone, but his decent replacement was gone. Oregon was WAY overvalued at the start of the season.

Oh sure, you can always find huge dogs to bet against top ranked preseason teams. BTW, no one should have really been too high on Oregon at the start of LY because they lost tons of starters. i had a huge position on Nebraska -3 over them in game three but pushed it.

my point is that a game like buffalo vs toledo used to have value 20 yrs ago but now everyone and their mother knows the number of starters these teams have coming back, who the quarterbacks are, etc, etc, so the lines on these small conference games are much tighter these days. the internet changed everything. i come from the days where you could not see a box score until the next day's newspaper.

temple2010 · 07-09-17, 06:14 PM

Can't wait- watching baseball is like watching paint dry except 4.5 hours long

BigdaddyQH · 07-09-17, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by homie1975

Oh sure, you can always find huge dogs to bet against top ranked preseason teams. BTW, no one should have really been too high on Oregon at the start of LY because they lost tons of starters. i had a huge position on Nebraska -3 over them in game three but pushed it.

my point is that a game like buffalo vs toledo used to have value 20 yrs ago but now everyone and their mother knows the number of starters these teams have coming back, who the quarterbacks are, etc, etc, so the lines on these small conference games are much tighter these days. the internet changed everything. i come from the days where you could not see a box score until the next day's newspaper.

Here is a little hint. Oregon's offense had nothing to do with how many games they lost last season. It ranked 27th in scoring and 18th in yards per play. It was their terrible defense, which ranked 126th in BOTH scoring and total offense, that cost them game after game. IF you won any money on Oregon, that is why. Their Offense had little, if anything to do with it. And you guys wonder how come you lose so much on a seasonal basis.

BriGuy · 07-09-17, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by homie1975

Oh sure, you can always find huge dogs to bet against top ranked preseason teams. BTW, no one should have really been too high on Oregon at the start of LY because they lost tons of starters.

Yeah, no one should have been but plenty of people were.

I was in Vegas for week 1 and took UC Davis +46' over Oregon. The final wasn't even remotely close to covering that.

I haven't done any detailed analysis for this year (yet) but I think Clemson might be a good team to bet against to start the season for similar reasons. Everyone remembers them winning the national championship, but the team that won the national championship doesn't exist anymore.

BriGuy · 07-09-17, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by BigdaddyQH

Here is a little hint. Oregon's offense had nothing to do with how many games they lost last season. It ranked 27th in scoring and 18th in yards per play. It was their terrible defense, which ranked 126th in BOTH scoring and total offense, that cost them game after game. IF you won any money on Oregon, that is why. Their Offense had little, if anything to do with it. And you guys wonder how come you lose so much on a seasonal basis.

You can blame whomever you want, but Oregon was 0-6-1 ATS to start the season and finished 2-9-1. And while 27th in scoring is very impressive, it is still far below previous years when they were regularly in the top 2 or 3 (or #1).

Of course, given how atrocius they were last year ATS, the pendulum may swing back the other way this year. They ma be undervalued.

homie1975 · 07-09-17, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by BigdaddyQH

Here is a little hint. Oregon's offense had nothing to do with how many games they lost last season. It ranked 27th in scoring and 18th in yards per play. It was their terrible defense, which ranked 126th in BOTH scoring and total offense, that cost them game after game. IF you won any money on Oregon, that is why. Their Offense had little, if anything to do with it. And you guys wonder how come you lose so much on a seasonal basis.

Where in my post did I blame it on the offense? I said they lost several starters. That covers the starting 22 not just the O. I have already read Phil Steele 2017 cover to cover and could recite it in my sleep. I win most years. I am a spot bettor and know when to hold em and when to fold em.

Ralphie Halves · 07-09-17, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by BriGuy

You can blame whomever you want, but Oregon was 0-6-1 ATS to start the season and finished 2-9-1. And while 27th in scoring is very impressive, it is still far below previous years when they were regularly in the top 2 or 3 (or #1).

Of course, given how atrocius they were last year ATS, the pendulum may swing back the other way this year. They ma be undervalued.

I'm more than happy avoiding a team like Oregon for most of the season. Especially with a new coach.

And conventional wisdom be damned, I like CSU and Hawaii both in "week 1"

tony_come · 07-10-17, 03:26 AM

What's the play

BigdaddyQH · 07-10-17, 12:01 PM

Let's take one game at a time. First, Hawaii @ UMass. Hawaii gets a huge break here in that this is Week 1 and the game is a 7:00 pm Local start. That should be enough to erase any "jet lag" they may have. Now let's look at the teams. Hawaii returns 8 offensive starters from a 7-7 team in 2016. This season they only play 12 games. 6-6 is certainly possible and 7-5 is within reach. UMass returns 7 starters on each side of the ball from a 2-10 effort in 2016. Their 6-5 ATS record of 2016 was misleading because in 4 of those games, they were +21 or more ATS. This team may fight to win 3-4 games. The line in Vegas is currently Hawaii -1. I cannot see UMass pulling an upset here.

Now let's talk about Oregon State @ Colorado State. Oregon State finished at 4-8 overall, but ended last season on a high defeating both Arizona and Oregon. They return 6 starters on offense and 5 on defense. The running game and defensive secondary are good. The problems for Oregon State are these. First, Oregon State has not won an away game since 2014. (0-13). Second, Oregon States weaknesses play into the hands of Colorado State's strengths. Colorado State loves to run the ball, and the defense is good along the front 7. This is Game #1 for the Rams at their new on campus stadium and the joint will be rocking. The biggest drawback for CSU may be the "look ahead" factor as the play Colorado the following week. The Buffs ripped State to the tune of 44-7 last season. CSU -3 1/2 looks reasonable to me, but I like the Hawaii-UMass game a lot better.