What Did We Learn From Week 5?

Frank Costanza

Frank Costanza

Co-Inventor of the Man's Bra
No sense in waiting. When a QB scramble is your best option on offense, you're sorta screwed (see Jerrod Heard).

Trust me folks, that OU line won't be high enough. Charlie has lost our team.
 
Frank Costanza said:
No sense in waiting. When a QB scramble is your best option on offense, you're sorta screwed (see Jerrod Heard).

Trust me folks, that OU line won't be high enough. Charlie has lost our team.
Click to expand...

Until Tunsil is cleared Ole Miss' OL cannot be trusted....and Hugh Freeze needs to hire an offensive coordinator.
 
Frank Costanza said:
No sense in waiting. When a QB scramble is your best option on offense, you're sorta screwed (see Jerrod Heard).

Trust me folks, that OU line won't be high enough. Charlie has lost our team.
Click to expand...


Ahhh this one Frank...

Yes. I never thought it would work. Tough go. Charlie will land on his feet and he will be fine. But this ship has sailed I think.
 
Les will continue to do what he did today(play down.....and I mean by just going ignorant). I still really like this team, although the defense worries me a bit.

These WRs are a bit worrisome as well.

The Wild wild west.......
 
West Virginia is really, really good. Smallwood is a beast and the right side of their oline is physical. The defense is a run stopping unit with some playmakers in the secondary though they gamble a little too much sometimes. Have all the parts except QB and he will get better as he learns. Right now he just isn't valuing the football.
 
Busy day so saw very little but it ended uo being a very solid day betting-wise...

Obviously noticed the unders as VK pointed out but wow when you look deeper...

Sparty and OSU underwhelmed again. Elliot was great after halftime and LJ Scott will be a force for 2+ more years in Big though.

Sparty fans should be ashamed with leaving that game in third. Kind of a joke how that stadium looked.

Still impressed with UM adjustments and as I have said the defense would be real good. Two games in a row with 105 yards given up on defense. Yes, I know, it is Maryland but we lost to them in A2 last year.

Minnesota can't score.

Iowa, very sneaky in west this year. My favorite play of day and it worked out.

Bama, that was a pretty win. You saw that 45 yd TD late in half coming. Who did not? But they still executed perfect.

That Baylor game was going over even if they lined it in mid-90's...that is hilarious...

ASU, pretty impressive.

Favored Florida with points but was shocked at outcome.

Someone stop the bleeding in Austin.

This CFP is gonna be such a cluster this year and I look forward to it. Shit(sorry Dwight), I was even rooting for ND tonight because I want this whole system to get fucked up.

Oh yeah ND, that was cute on 2 point convo.
 
Spav still puts the Ag offense in a lull with his play calling.
Nothing I hate worse than getting a comfortable lead and the OC can't tell that the other team has thrown caution to the wind.
I agree with getting Kirk every chance to touch the ball, but he's already in decoy status. MSU had two on him sometimes.
Kyle Allen is going to be a wonderful NFL QB.
The word "targeting" should only be used in terms of terrorism or kidnapping. It has no place in football.
RSJ gets tossed for targeting , blocking a guy that's 5'10 and he's 6'5". Absolutely no way he can hit the guy low--wait that's illegal too, isn't it?
Targeting-- the PC of American football.
 
I decided to focus nearly all my capping this week on games involving top 25 teams. I was pleased with the general outcomes.

In college it seems we get more consistency out of the actual capping comparison of information available involving better teams..

Buckeyes are still coasting after blowing out VT. Meyer was interviewed and looked like it was comical that they didn't blow away Indiana. Jumbo ran for 240 yards in the 2nd half!
Indiana (4-1, 0-1) hung around despite losing the nation's leading rusher, Jordan Howard, in the second quarter with an ankle injury, and later, starting quarterback Nate Sudfeld in the third quarter, also with an ankle injury. Indiana could be a good play in the remaining games.


What is happening now, is that college teams are starting to play more effectively on defense, much like the focus in the NFL. Thats give a better picture of what side to count on IMO. Better coaches are creating and recruiting more high quality defensive players.


Clemson played out of their minds with only 3 returning starters on defense from LY. That was my main reason for playing the Tigers. It proved out.

The VT defense that was highly touted by many this year (not me) has finally dropped off to the realistic levels that I thought they were...

Duke and BC have the most under rated defenses in college this season based on their competition. Good "under teams" in conference games. allowing only 8 and 11 points per game !!!!!
 
Frank Costanza said:
No sense in waiting. When a QB scramble is your best option on offense, you're sorta screwed (see Jerrod Heard).

Trust me folks, that OU line won't be high enough. Charlie has lost our team.
Click to expand...

MY friend who went to high school in Tulsa says he will be loading up on Texas next week. We'll see.
 
M.W. said:
MY friend who went to high school in Tulsa says he will be loading up on Texas next week. We'll see.
Click to expand...

Only way you can make a case to put hard earned money or not so hard earned money on texas right now is if you think they are tanking on their coach but will show up for Oklahoma no matter what. They will be receiving a large number of points. There were running opportunities for Howard of WVU yesterday if had chosen to take them which is the horns only offense right now, so they have that goinf for them ....
 
No capping here...well maybe some.

Good for Tulane to get that win. I walked over to the game(so nice that they are back Uptown), really a great thing to be able to walk my 4 year old son over to see D1 football.

The score wasn't as close. Tulane looked really good. UCF sure has fallen here.....they used to beat the SHIT outta Tulane
 
Among the power 5, the ACC is the only conference that isn't at least a 3 team race
 
Houston is damn good, and as others have mentioned, Tom Hermann will have his pick of nice jobs after 1 year if he wants to leave.

Speaking of Hermann, indulge me on this: If I'm a hot coach looking to move up, isn't any school in the Big Ten West more attractive now than ever? Is there anyone in that division that scares anyone long term, or even short term for that matter? It's in a state of flux. As constituted now, 3-4 years ago the West was probably better than the East with Michigan and Penn State down, but now? I think your path to the Big ten title game is pretty manageable. Wisconsin may or may not get back where they were with Paul Chryst, Iowa is decent but Ferentz's days are probably numbered, Nebraska scares nobody with Mike Riley at the helm. Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue and Minnesota are left. If you are a coach who believes in your abilities and you're considering the Illinois job(which is likely to be open), aren't you pretty enthused at your abilities to compete with that group? Now of course, that wouldn't be the case with a Rutgers or Indiana or Maryland, but I think it's a pretty optimistic picture for anyone in the West.
 
[TABLE="width: 590"]
<tbody style="box-sizing: border-box;">[TR]
[TD="class: logo, align: left"]
i
[/TD]
[TD="class: game-details, align: left"]TD
14:13
C.J. Prosise 56 Yd pass from DeShone Kizer (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)
4 plays, 80 yards, 1:48


[/TD]
[TD="class: home-score"]9[/TD]
[TD="class: away-score"]21[/TD]
[TD="class: video active, align: left"]<figure data-video="native,640,360,13802601" class="iframe-video article-figure video " data-source="espn" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; margin: 0px; position: relative; clear: both; overflow: hidden; width: 25px; padding: 0px; height: 25px;">Play
</figure>[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
Why would you ever go for two for here and leave yourself on 12? I'm shocked that Kelly isn't getting crucified for that decision. That was an "Al Groh" coaching move....
 
That freshman who stepped in for Kiel at Cincinnati is as good as any freshman in the country and that includes Rosen. He's a redshirt and Rosen is a true freshman, but the kid has looked like an All-American in two straight games.

UCLA is totally unreliable. And it makes no difference if they are at home or away. Even Mora said today he has no idea why they are great one game, average the next.

Kelly got badly outcoached against Clemson and made the mistake many coaches make--he started the game uptight and conservative and his players played that way while Clemson came out playing their usual game. Once Kelly let the players play the way they normally play in the last third of the game they played much better.

Baylor has more fast guys than any team I have ever seen. Even Barry Switzer's best teams didn't have as many speed burners as Baylor has. And unlike many spread teams, Bayor is filled with tough guys. A high school coach from Texas told me this summer that when a Baylor coach arrives he says, "who's your fastest guy and who's your toughest guy. And if they are the same guy we want him."

Excellent handicapping point, Capping Genius. You are right. It is easier to handicap good teams because teams with the most talent and the best coaching are also the most consistent and the deviation from the mean is less when those factors are present.
 
Moore can definitely sling it and I love Shaq Washington .. if they have all weapons available .. Holton, Morrison, McKay, C Moore and Washington then they are going to test the depth of opposing secondaries.

Agree that nd came out flatter than Clemson but that was an environment that I thought it was ok for ND to come out conservative as Clemson had a lot of adrenaline (and let's face it, Clemson gassed badly at the end).... I was probably wrong given what happened at the beginning. I did think a lot of the end game shenanigans were the result of the Clemson defense just running on fumes. ND was the better team and I suppose you have to give dabo the coaching edge since he won with the lesser team.

Baylor speed is definitely unrivaled at the skill positions.

I agree with the point that it is easier to handicap good teams, which is why I bet those games less frequently. So much harder to find value in a Bama/lsu game than in a unlv/Nevada game, at least for me.
 
Timh said:
[TABLE="width: 590"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="class: logo, align: left"]
i

[/TD]
[TD="class: game-details, align: left"]TD
14:13
C.J. Prosise 56 Yd pass from DeShone Kizer (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)
4 plays, 80 yards, 1:48


[/TD]
[TD="class: home-score"]9
[/TD]
[TD="class: away-score"]21
[/TD]
[TD="class: video active, align: left"]<figure class="iframe-video article-figure video " style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; width: 25px; height: 25px; line-height: 0; overflow: hidden; clear: both; position: relative; box-sizing: border-box;" data-source="espn" data-video="native,640,360,13802601">Play
</figure>[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
Why would you ever go for two for here and leave yourself on 12? I'm shocked that Kelly isn't getting crucified for that decision. That was an "Al Groh" coaching move....
Click to expand...


I didn't get that either but with an under ticket I was pretty happy when it failed thinking overtime was extremely unlikely from there ... who knew they would be going for two to force overtime an hour later?
 
clowncar said:
Only way you can make a case to put hard earned money or not so hard earned money on texas right now is if you think they are tanking on their coach but will show up for Oklahoma no matter what. They will be receiving a large number of points. There were running opportunities for Howard of WVU yesterday if had chosen to take them which is the horns only offense right now, so they have that going for them ....
Click to expand...
... which is nice.

Never miss a chance to quote movies, Kyle ... never. Kind of like "Dr. Beeper has been club champion 3 years in a row, and I'm no slouch myself." Then you'd say Ty Webb's line ...
 
A&M...Kyle Allen is really making great strides as QB - making all the throws and his decision making just keeps getting better. That's an embarrassment of talent they have on offense, and we've still yet to see Speedy Noil. The only thing A&M is missing on offense is a fast / elusive back, similar to what TCU has in Aaron Green and Tre Johnson. Defense is a work in progress under Chaves but still ions better than last year.

Should be a helluva game with Bama in 2 weeks.
 
Judge Smails said:
... which is nice.

Never miss a chance to quote movies, Kyle ... never. Kind of like "Dr. Beeper has been club champion 3 years in a row, and I'm no slouch myself." Then you'd say Ty Webb's line ...
Click to expand...

Don't sell yourself short, judge, you're a tremendous slouch.

:tiphat:
 
Timh said:
[TABLE="width: 590"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD="class: logo, align: left"]
i
[/TD]
[TD="class: game-details, align: left"]TD
14:13
C.J. Prosise 56 Yd pass from DeShone Kizer (Two-Point Pass Conversion Failed)
4 plays, 80 yards, 1:48

[/TD]
[TD="class: home-score"]9[/TD]
[TD="class: away-score"]21[/TD]
[TD="class: video active, align: left"]<figure data-video="native,640,360,13802601" class="iframe-video article-figure video " data-source="espn" style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 0; margin: 0px; position: relative; clear: both; overflow: hidden; width: 25px; padding: 0px; height: 25px;">Play
</figure>[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
Why would you ever go for two for here and leave yourself on 12? I'm shocked that Kelly isn't getting crucified for that decision. That was an "Al Groh" coaching move....
Click to expand...

Totally agree, but all these coaches botch that. First of all, the process should be simple: Keep the "card" in your pocket until the 4th quarter. Once you're in the 4th quarter, then pull it out and follow it, but.....

When you are down more than a score, you NEVER go for 2 until you have to. In this case, an extra point gets you to 11, and you worry about going for 2 when you score the next TD. Obviously, it cost them a chance to go to OT. Seriously....who finds it urgent to get a score to 21-11?
 
Frank Costanza said:
Based upon what?
Click to expand...

Not sure at this point. But from my perspective, I wonder whether the blowout loss in Fort Worth was the result of a giant letdown after two crushing losses at home. It's easier to rebound at home, and the Horns managed to get off the mat to face the Aggies. But it's different on the road. So I'm not inclined to say the coach has lost the team.
 
Br@ssknux said:
Totally agree, but all these coaches botch that. First of all, the process should be simple: Keep the "card" in your pocket until the 4th quarter. Once you're in the 4th quarter, then pull it out and follow it, but.....

When you are down more than a score, you NEVER go for 2 until you have to. In this case, an extra point gets you to 11, and you worry about going for 2 when you score the next TD.
Click to expand...

I disagree. First, I would always go for two when down two It's awfully presumptuous to act like it's a certainty your team will score again. Of course, failing to go for two will bite you in the ass only if (a) you don't score again and (b) the opponent doesn't score again, but you never know. Down 14-12 in the 1Q? Extremely unlikely that it would matter, but I'd still go for two. Down 14-12 in the 3Q? More likely to matter, and again I'd go for two.

As for your second paragraph, I've long been a proponent of going for two when down by 8 late in the game. If you fail, you still get to try to tie it on the next TD. If you make it, you just kick the PAT next time, and you win. The odds make it the expected outcome superior because you are accepting the chance of a two-point loss in exchange for a greater likelihood of a one-point win.
 
M.W. said:
Down 14-12 in the 1Q? Extremely unlikely that it would matter, but I'd still go for two.
Click to expand...

Not me. It's way too early in the game to risk that point. (assuming the kid will make the extra point, that is). We end up seeing way too many instances where coaches were chasing a point from early in the game and they lose by that margin. Also, if you fail in the first quarter and then you give up a TD, now you're down 9(2 scores) rather than just 8. I'd agree though that there could be some leeway in the 3rd quarter if you find yourself in a very low scoring game.
 
M.W. said:
As for your second paragraph, I've long been a proponent of going for two when down by 8 late in the game. If you fail, you still get to try to tie it on the next TD. If you make it, you just kick the PAT next time, and you win. The odds make it the expected outcome superior because you are accepting the chance of a two-point loss in exchange for a greater likelihood of a one-point win.
Click to expand...

I'd heard this theory before but hadn't given it a lot of thought, but the numbers say you are right. It at least maximizes your ability to at minimum extract a tie. From good old Wikipedia:

There is a relatively common game situation in which the two-point conversion can be an optimal strategy even if its likelihood is under 50%. A team down fourteen points in the final minutes must score two touchdowns while keeping its opponents scoreless in order to tie or win the game. In this situation, a team could choose to go for two after the first score, because if successful, the team could then kick an extra point in following the next score to secure a win, while if it fails, the team still has a chance to make the next two-point conversion to get to fourteen. Though the logic seems counter-intuitive, this maximizes a team's win probability. The odds of converting a two-point try either on the first attempt (securing a win) or the second (securing a tie and sending the game into overtime) are higher than the odds of missing both (securing a loss), as long as the expected probability is higher than about 38 percent.[SUP][8][/SUP] Notably, Texas Longhorns coach Darrell Royal successfully used this strategy to defeat Arkansas in 1969's Game of the Century.

I was talking more about Kelly's, "get to 11 or get to 10" scenario, but I can agree with what you're saying there. You also have to weigh, however, that by just kicking the extra points, your chances are getting a tie are almost 100%. If you're a team that has no interest in going to overtime, though (like an Indiana/Ohio State scenario), it makes a lot of sense.
 
Many mathematicians have analyzed this problem--you can find the math in many mathematics journals if you are interested--and you are right, Knux and MW is correct about the percentages late in the game.

It is never a good idea to chase a point early in the game because you have no idea how the game is going to work out. Take the point early, wait until late in the game to go for two. At that point many of the variables have been eliminated and you can make an intelligent decision based on mathematical possibilities.

The one exception to the above is the rare team--Oregon under Kelly for instance--that practices the two-point conversion all the time and goes for two every chance they get based on how the opponent lines up

One other thing I learned this week is that Baylor has the best rushing attack in the nation. Georgia Southern is barely ahead of Baylor--by 18 inches per game--but Baylor is averaging a yard more per rush. Baylor is also first in total offense, more than 100 yards ahead of the TCU, the #2 team, and first in scoring offense.

Boston College is first in total defense, first in rushing defense, third in scoring defense (behind Northwestern and Michigan)
 
M.W. said:
I disagree. First, I would always go for two when down two It's awfully presumptuous to act like it's a certainty your team will score again. Of course, failing to go for two will bite you in the ass only if (a) you don't score again and (b) the opponent doesn't score again, but you never know. Down 14-12 in the 1Q? Extremely unlikely that it would matter, but I'd still go for two. Down 14-12 in the 3Q? More likely to matter, and again I'd go for two.

As for your second paragraph, I've long been a proponent of going for two when down by 8 late in the game. If you fail, you still get to try to tie it on the next TD. If you make it, you just kick the PAT next time, and you win. The odds make it the expected outcome superior because you are accepting the chance of a two-point loss in exchange for a greater likelihood of a one-point win.
Click to expand...

He said you don't go for 2 "when down more than one score" until you have to. That is 100% the correct way to look at it. It just happened in an NFL game yesterday where a team went for 2 when down 15 (I think it was), didn't get it, then were down 9 and needed to score twice as opposed to only needing to score once with a 2 pt conversion.
 
M.W. said:
As for your second paragraph, I've long been a proponent of going for two when down by 8 late in the game. If you fail, you still get to try to tie it on the next TD. If you make it, you just kick the PAT next time, and you win. The odds make it the expected outcome superior because you are accepting the chance of a two-point loss in exchange for a greater likelihood of a one-point win.
Click to expand...

I'm confused with this...are you saying you go for 2 when you're down 8, and score to cut it to 2 late in the game? Yeah, that would make sense, because it's late in the game. I'm confused because you say that you still get to tie it on the next TD, so I'm not sure what you mean...what is the score in this hypothetical? It seems like you're saying they were down 15 coming into the score, which would mean they are now down 9, and can cut it to 7 with the 2 pt conversion. You should kick the XP there and cut it to 8...then you go for 2 on the next TD.

Sorry, not trying to start an argument, but the way you've written this is very confusing.
 
Lareux said:
He said you don't go for 2 "when down more than one score" until you have to. That is 100% the correct way to look at it. It just happened in an NFL game yesterday where a team went for 2 when down 15 (I think it was), didn't get it, then were down 9 and needed to score twice as opposed to only needing to score once with a 2 pt conversion.
Click to expand...

But it's all perspective. Would you rather be down 9 with 8 minutes left in the game and craft your gameplan from there and have that time to adjust? Or would you rather get the first score (kick the xp) to make it 8 and then score like ND did with 20 seconds left and need that 2 just to tie? Most coaches say always wait until the end...I think that is just flat out stupid and in the above scenario if I'm going to miss the 2pt conversion, I'd always rather have the 8 minutes left in the game to adjust rather than the 20 seconds to pray like ND had.

I think the dumbest thing about what Kelly did was that he did it on a number (12) that still would leave him down 2 scores if he got it. If he was down 15 and got the TD, I completely agree with the thought of going for it on the first TD rather than the 2nd.
 
scarf31 said:
But it's all perspective. Would you rather be down 9 with 8 minutes left in the game and craft your gameplan from there and have that time to adjust? Or would you rather get the first score (kick the xp) to make it 8 and then score like ND did with 20 seconds left and need that 2 just to tie? Most coaches say always wait until the end...I think that is just flat out stupid and in the above scenario if I'm going to miss the 2pt conversion, I'd always rather have the 8 minutes left in the game to adjust rather than the 20 seconds to pray like ND had.

I think the dumbest thing about what Kelly did was that he did it on a number (12) that still would leave him down 2 scores if he got it. If he was down 15 and got the TD, I completely agree with the thought of going for it on the first TD rather than the 2nd.
Click to expand...

I'd rather be down 8 and only need to score one more time to tie the game (with the 2pt conversion). This whole idea of "knowing you need 2 scores" makes little sense...if you have a chance to stay within one score you should always do that. It seems very simple. You can "craft a gameplan" all you'd like, but you still need to score twice, and the other team is most likely in clock chewing mode at that point...why would you not just make it one score and make it easier on your team to tie the game?

Yes, I would always rather need the 2pt conversion at the end, as opposed to needing to score twice. If the odds of getting the 2pt conversion are 50%, I'd take my chances with that everytime...there's no chance that the odds of scoring twice in the last 8 minutes, in a game you're losing, and most likely needing an onside kick in there somehwere (and not allowing the other team to score at all), are anywhere near 50%. Math wins imo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Feel like every time I try the favorite in the Red River the dog rises up and covers or wins SU. Would not surprise me at all if this Texas QB runs wild for like 300 yards and its a close game. Obviously dont love the Texas players fighting on twitter but on a college team when you have 90 guys its not as big of a deal IMO.
 
Right, it was Kelly who did it. Had he not gone for 2 when he did, and shouldn't have, they simply needed an XP at the end to tie it.
 
It's a delicate divide between gameplanning like scarf suggested (which I agree with, adjust with 8 minutes left) and keeping the team believing that they're still in the game. Being down by one score with 5 minutes left, everyone thinks they can win. Being down 2 scores, not so much. Got to be able to keep the team believing they're still in the game.
 
kjohnson109 said:
It's a delicate divide between gameplanning like scarf suggested (which I agree with, adjust with 8 minutes left) and keeping the team believing that they're still in the game. Being down by one score with 5 minutes left, everyone thinks they can win. Being down 2 scores, not so much. Got to be able to keep the team believing they're still in the game.
Click to expand...

Well you can adjust the game plan with 8 minutes left, but the other team is still a factor in this, and there's nothing saying you will even get the ball twice to be able to score twice to win. I understand the concept, but it doesn't seem to make much sense when you can simply be down one score (like you said, keeping your guys in the game believing they can win, because it's only one score).

If the odds of the 2pt conversion are 50%, I'd take my chances with that every single time at the end of the game as opposed to having to score twice. The odds of scoring twice in the last 8 minutes of a game in which you're trailing can't be anywhere near 50%. Especially if an onside kick has to be recovered to score twice (it doesn't always, but with that much time left, it's likely). It's just math I think at that point.
 
Right, KJ. The psychological implications you identified are important. You don't want the team to lose hope because you're down nine instead of eight.

However, there's another psychological component: it's not as important for the defense to stop you if you go for it early. The defense can afford to allow a two-pointer to make it 31-24. They'll try their best, of course, but there's even greater extrinsic motivation to stop a two-pointer when it's 31-29. In other words, you might have a better chance of converting at 31-22 (or 21-9) than at 31-29 (or 21-16), though I've never seen any stats on it.

In other words, you catch the defense when it's still complacent. The fourth quarter was a story of urgency vs. complacency, and Notre Dame dominated. Perhaps you could expect the general domination to express itself in the specific instance of the two-point play.
 
Last edited:
Lareux said:
Well you can adjust the game plan with 8 minutes left, but the other team is still a factor in this, and there's nothing saying you will even get the ball twice to be able to score twice to win.
Click to expand...

That's the point. You adjust the game plan to give yourself a chance at an extra possession. One such adjustment would be a decision to onside-kick when you otherwise wouldn't.
 
M.W. said:
That's the point. You adjust the game plan to give yourself a chance at an extra possession. One such adjustment would be a decision to onside-kick when you otherwise wouldn't.
Click to expand...

But the odds of recovering an onside kick (even a surprise one) are nowhere near 50%. How would you onside kick when you wouldn't otherwise in this situation though? There are 8 minutes left and you need 2 scores...when is that surprise onside kick even going to come into play? If/when you score again, everyone knows you're going to onside kick, or at least that it's likely.

You also still need to stop the other team from scoring any points and keep them from chewing away most of the clock, and score twice. I'm sorry, but the odds of doing that (with or without the onside kick) are not even close to the odds of just converting the 2pt conversion.

Outside of the surprise onside kick (which doesn't seem to factor in with 8 minutes left), what changes in the gameplan would allow you to get an extra possession? The other team isn't going to be complicit in this, and will obviously be trying to chew the rest of the clock up in the first place. The other team would probably be more apt to chew the clock when up by 2 scores as opposed to up one score as well. If they're only up 8, they may feel they need to score again to go up 2 scores and won't simply focus on chewing the clock...if they're up 9, they will most likely just be focused on getting a first down or two and chewing up the rest of the game clock.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just got around to going over various stats for the weekend and one opened my eyes.

College unders went 45-12 this week. I can't recall seeing unders hit that big a percentage.

The Hurricane had something to do with it no doubt, but that is high even considering the hurricane since the totals of games affected by the hurricane dropped at least 4 points as the weather news was disseminated.
 
TahoeLegend said:
Just got around to going over various stats for the weekend and one opened my eyes.

College unders went 45-12 this week. I can't recall seeing unders hit that big a percentage.

The Hurricane had something to do with it no doubt, but that is high even considering the hurricane since the totals of games affected by the hurricane dropped at least 4 points as the weather news was disseminated.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a ton of unders. There were only a handful of games that were affected by the hurricane, not too sure that really had an effect on the slew of unders...if you take those games out, the under still hit at an unreal percentage for one week (still over 75% w/o those games).
 
Over bets will come in at a rapid pace on the correction angle

Watch for a bunch more unders next week
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Carolina Guy
Carolina Guy Week 4 Plays
Replies
15
Views
323
Carolina Guy
Carolina Guy
VirginiaCavs
VC's Week 2 Plays
Replies
5
Views
190
VirginiaCavs
VirginiaCavs
VirginiaCavs
Week 2 Picks Preview Article
Replies
1
Views
183
VirginiaCavs
VirginiaCavs
bones
ESPN's Handicappers Picks Week #10
Replies
40
Views
1K
bones
bones
bones
ESPN's Handicappers Picks Week #9
Replies
48
Views
1K
TahoeLegend
T
Back
Top