Bounce Back Theory (33-23 ATS - 59%) Teams on Deck for Week 6.

RambleOn

RambleOn

The Law of Winning
I had heard about the "Bounce Back Theory" for NFL, where you play teams that failed to cover the spread by 14 or more points the previous week. Last year, those plays hit above 60% in the NFL.

I decided to do some research of my own:

Teams that failed to cover the spread by 14 or more the previous week this year in college football are 34-23 (60%) ATS the next week.

Here are the teams on deck for Week 6. I have the teams in bold that are plays, all the rest are playing each other, so they are no plays. It is also important to note that teams that fail to cover the spread by 14 or more points, and then follow that week by a bye or an unlined game, are 1-6 ATS (14%) the following week.

Play On:

West Virginia -26.5
Akron +8.5
Northern Illinois -4
Tulsa -3
Houston +11
Minnesota +14
San Diego St +13.5
Buffalo +4
Miami -6.5
Iowa +9
Rutgers -3
Iowa St +24.5
Fla Int +18
Wash St +9
North Texas +8

Fade:

New Mexico St. (Take Boise -22.5)


Thought this info was interesting, and wanted to share it. Not sure if all these teams are playing, they are just the ones that fit the system if they have a game this week. :shake:
 
Last edited:
BAR I know, I thought so too. Seems to work in the NFL and College, maybe not a strict play on every time, but it could definitely help in your capping.
 
Yup, this is very interesting thread.
Not surprisingly the MAC is all over the list, this week.
This could be very helpful each week if you keep it updated, Ramble.
People tend to just remember the last game a team played and it effects the lines for their next game, likely the reason this hits at such a high percentage. good stuff.

Confused why Northwestern is a fade after covering vs michigan last week.
 
VK thanks for pointing that out, I missed that game in my research. Makes the trend 34-23 ATS.
 
Be careful. I know this works most years for NFL. I am aware of this theory and pretty much historically it has hit at about 58% in NFL. Historically, however in NCAA this system does not work. Historically this hits at about 49%. So I would not use this in NCAA, you have a small sample size. It has worked so far this year, and it might even continue, but in the long run again this system has historically been a loser. Sorry to burst your bubble.
 
Sirwinz - just throwing it out there.

Do you have numbers or research to support this contention? If not, what you have to say doesn't really help.
 
I have a book in which this stuff was researched, in the book from 1993 to 1996 this system went 745-773 ATS. Having one year within that sample size, 1996, when it went 209-187 for 53% ATS. I don't want to play a system that does not win year after year. The authors state there are reasons it works in the NFL and not in NCAA. Even in the NFL it has not worked every year. I researched this earlier this year in NFL to see if it was a winner every single year, and most years it is, but there have a been a couple where it wasn't.

So in summation............NFL it is a good angle, but I would not play games solely based on it, but in NCAA overall it is a losing angle as a four year sample size resulted in 49% ATS.

Take my thoughts for what they are worth.
 
sirwinzalot said:
I have a book in which this stuff was researched, in the book from 1993 to 1996 this system went 745-773 ATS. Having one year within that sample size, 1996, when it went 209-187 for 53% ATS. I don't want to play a system that does not win year after year. The authors state there are reasons it works in the NFL and not in NCAA. Even in the NFL it has not worked every year. I researched this earlier this year in NFL to see if it was a winner every single year, and most years it is, but there have a been a couple where it wasn't.

So in summation............NFL it is a good angle, but I would not play games solely based on it, but in NCAA overall it is a losing angle as a four year sample size resulted in 49% ATS.

Take my thoughts for what they are worth.
Click to expand...
It's obvious you have done some research in the area of system plays. Would be curious to find out if you have found anything that works consistently.
 
sirwinzalot said:
I have a book in which this stuff was researched, in the book from 1993 to 1996 this system went 745-773 ATS. Having one year within that sample size, 1996, when it went 209-187 for 53% ATS. I don't want to play a system that does not win year after year. The authors state there are reasons it works in the NFL and not in NCAA. Even in the NFL it has not worked every year. I researched this earlier this year in NFL to see if it was a winner every single year, and most years it is, but there have a been a couple where it wasn't.

So in summation............NFL it is a good angle, but I would not play games solely based on it, but in NCAA overall it is a losing angle as a four year sample size resulted in 49% ATS.

Take my thoughts for what they are worth.
Click to expand...

good research...When i first saw this post, I thought how has this done im yrs past? u gave me a quick answer
 
Well I did not do the research in NCAA. I have a book and it is a bit dated, but in one of the chapters they discuss this very theory and apply it to NCAA and NFL. The authors state that it works in the NFL (I believe because the teams are so even), whereas in NCAA it doesn't work because the teams are of varying strength. So again, until someone can show me long-term success of this I would never use it in NCAA. Again in NFL I have researched it to see if it works every year, because I know in the book they had a 4 year sample size and just using this bounce back theory (Play against any team that beat the spread by 14 or more, and Play on any team that lost to the spread by 14 or more) alone resulted in 58% ATS and had a decent sample size. I researched recent years prior to the start of the season, and it has had mostly good years, but I found 2 years where it would have lost money. I do think it is a solid angle to consider in NFL, and in some years playing it alone will make you money, but you can't do it every year and make money. So the way I use it is to be aware of it and use it as a tool.
 
West Virginia -26.5
Akron +8.5
Northern Illinois -4
Tulsa -3
Houston +11
Minnesota +14
San Diego St +13.5
Buffalo +4
Miami -6.5
Iowa +9
Rutgers -3
Iowa St +24.5
Fla Int +18
Wash St +9
North Texas +8

3-3 ATS so far.......
 
West Virginia -26.5
Akron +8.5 ( SU dog winner)
Northern Illinois -4
Tulsa -3
Houston +11
Minnesota +14
San Diego St +13.5 (SU dog winner)
Buffalo +4 (SU dog winner)
Miami -6.5
Iowa +9
Rutgers -3
Iowa St +24.5
Fla Int +18 push
Wash St +9
North Texas +8 (miss cover by 1)


6-8-1 : not spectacular, but hell, it did better than my capping!

Dogs 5-4-1 (including 3 SU dog winners)
Faves: 1-4
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bookieassassin
WEEK 10
Replies
31
Views
2K
HUNT
HUNT
Administrator
  • Sticky
<<<< 2024 College Football Underdogs Contest -- Presented by BetAnySports!! >>>>
Replies
21
Views
2K
B.A.R.
B.A.R.
pressitup
NFL schedule
Replies
7
Views
107
2daBank
2daBank
DOUBLEUP4LIFE
MARVELOUS MONEY$$ to be MADE on the MAC FUTURES + CFB PREDICTIONS + EURO24/COPA+OLYMPICS
2
Replies
80
Views
2K
DOUBLEUP4LIFE
DOUBLEUP4LIFE
M.W.
A couple angles
Replies
1
Views
277
B.A.R.
B.A.R.
Back
Top