Thursday Morning Dawg Bites
by T Kyle King on Nov 19, 2009 6:00 AM EST
in Football
14 comments
Ere I got to this week’s national games of interest, I wanted to take a moment to point you in the direction of a few items of interest I found worthy of note. These are they:
- So, is Lee Ziemba just a big ol’ honkin’ dufus? His comically exaggerated Robin-Williams-in-"The-Best-of-Times"-style false start at the end of the game might suggest so, but I know the perils of jokingly questioning the intelligence of anyone associated with the Auburn Tigers, so I’ll accept this much more likely explanation, instead.
That should get you up to speed on events in and around the blogosphere. I’ll be back this evening with the NCAA games of note occurring outside SEC territory.
Go ‘Dawgs!
0 recs |
14 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Just to further the gymnastics analogy...
They are also entering the season #1 after losing the head coach (arguably the best in the history of the sport at the collegiate level) and the winningest gymnast in the history of NCAA gymnastics in Courtney Kupets.
I want every college football fan in America to be as miserable as I am.
by RedCrake on Nov 19, 2009 7:47 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Aw, man, don't say this
Still, it’s nice to know that the power of negative thinking works
You’ll have those Secret people coming to troll the blog soon if you keep it up…
by vineyarddawg on Nov 19, 2009 9:31 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
The Spread (not the option)
You’re too kind in merely “fail[ing] to see the relevance” of the SEC’s performance against the spread as a measure of the SEC’s strength.
The spread is the number of points that a gambling institution believes will separate the winning team from the losing team, except that sometimes the spread is sometimes adjusted to attract money towards either the over or under (“daring someone to take the under,” for example).
If anything, a conference’s record against the spread could compare a conference’s actual performance to its expected performance. The fact that hte SEC is over .500 against the spread means that it has outperformed expectations.
by first and thom on Nov 19, 2009 10:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Sort of...
… and by “sort of,” I mean “not really.”
Vegas typically sets the spreads in such a way to as to get equal action on both sides. There are always exceptions, but that’s typically what they want. Casinos take a 10% cut off the top of virtually every line bet, so if they can equalize the money on both sides, they don’t have to pay out any net winnings, and take a 10% cut off of the combined action.
In order to get equal action on both sides, lines are frequently inflated or deflated beyond what the line “should be” based on the situation. For example, a big-name team: Notre Dame always used to get a large amount of action in any game (back when they were good didn’t suck for 20 years straight), so the books would add a few points to every line. Notre Dame -6 might become Notre Dame -10, which is a huge difference.
More frequently, though, the books will inflate or deflate a line based on a teams recent performance against it. Idaho this year is a great example. Idaho went 7-0 ATS (Against The Spread) to start the year. Their spreads against even good teams kept getting narrower and narrower, too, until they got a relatively-close 16.5-point spread against Nevada, and got smacked down by 25. Now, Idaho is 7-4 ATS on the season.
Most teams go about .500 against the spread every year… that’s the way Vegas wants it, and that’s the way they usually get it. The teams that have records more than 1 or 2 games away from .500 are teams that were surprising in how good or how bad they have been… Clemson, for example (8-2 ATS), is the former. Kansas, on the other hand (2-7 ATS) is the latter.
by vineyarddawg on Nov 19, 2009 11:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think we agree...
… and I think that my original point still stands. Subject to the caveat that the spread is adjusted on factors other than “who is going to win and by how much,” being above .500 suggests that a team is out performing the objective expectations of people who have to pay money if they are wrong. If it’s a useful metric (a doubtful proposition), it’s useful to compare actual v. expected performance on a week-to-week basis.
To beat the spread consistently over a season, you have to outperform expectations throughout the season – taking into account the tendency of the line to be affected by recent performances.
ButI’m no gambler. Am I completely wrong about this?
by first and thom on Nov 19, 2009 1:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Almost
It’s not the number of points that a gambling institution believes will separate the winning team from the losing team, it’s the number of points the gambling institution thinks the gambling public believes will separate the winning team from the losing team.
No copy and paste!
by CraigT on Nov 19, 2009 5:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Precisely!
Hence, my stock market analogy. It’s based on the perception of others’ perceptions, which may, but does not necessarily, bear some resemblance to reality.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Nov 19, 2009 7:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Espn, now with humor
A Thursday Morning SEC Bite:
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/4670029/
Great Title.
by TexUGAn on Nov 19, 2009 12:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Kyle, I call it "realism"
Quick and to the point: the one game I thought we would win and didnt was the OSU game. Everything I saw in that game gave me a entirely new viewpoint. In the Vandy game, all I could see adn think was “Florida is going to kill us”. In the Auburn game, all I could see and think was “Tech is going to kill us.”
For whatever reasons, I have a very numb emotional attachment to this season. I wasnt expecting a lot, but what I see is huge failure. It took all seaosn to correct the PF problem. Our D is still wide open. We STILL dont have a QB for next season groomed. The numb feeling comes from a state of shock I believe, because I am a huge, huge CMR fan and I simply find most everything this year to be inexplicable.
SO, all that said, I will try and hone in on the positive against the wildcats. If I have to watch the game on my computer, that will make it all the easier as it is harder to watch and blog. Go Dawgs, Sick um, woof woof woof! Kill the Cats!
by tankertoad on Nov 19, 2009 7:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I hope you didn't take that as a criticism, tankertoad
Your outlook is welcome, warranted, accurate, and appropriate.
Frankly, looking on the bright side hasn’t served me well (in the context of Georgia athletics, at least) since I don’t know when, so I’m trying to be dour. I think the negative energy helps us win, so anything you can do to dispel false hope is to your credit in my book.
Carry on, my friend. Don’t change a thing.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Nov 19, 2009 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if that damned 10 yard post wasnt open every game - especially on the play action
i could easily have a better outlook. ) thanks T Kyle as always.
by tankertoad on Nov 20, 2009 1:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Condolences on UGA
:(
"Hollywood made a movie of my life. The film had me proposing to my wife on the football field. I would never misuse a football field that way." -Crazy Legs Hirsch
by Stuck in the Plains on Nov 19, 2009 7:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Hands down...
Cutest UGA in my 36 years of life, not as ornery as Dad, but a good, good dog.
"Hollywood made a movie of my life. The film had me proposing to my wife on the football field. I would never misuse a football field that way." -Crazy Legs Hirsch
by Stuck in the Plains on Nov 19, 2009 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
