Originally posted by no1marauderOh, so Vegas picks handicappers who know what the public thinks, and don't care about results? Vegas would be out of business if that were true.
Wrong. Point spreads are to get 50% of the bets on one side and 50% on the other. So they usually merely reflect what the bookies think the betting public believe. All that a 6 point spread in a hypothetical game is saying is that Vegas believes a 6 point spread would even out the bets of the suckers.
These guys get awards for being right, and lose their jobs if they are wrong too often.
P-
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitDo you think handicappers set the point spreads?????
Oh, so Vegas picks handicappers who know what the public thinks, and don't care about results? Vegas would be out of business if that were true.
These guys get awards for being right, and lose their jobs if they are wrong too often.
P-
Vegas doesn't care about the game results; if the money is bet evenly, the bookies win. Why do you think the point spreads change? Because the handicappers change their minds?
Originally posted by no1marauderGood point... the lines change depending how people bet.
Do you think handicappers set the point spreads?????
Vegas doesn't care about the game results; if the money is bet evenly, the bookies win. Why do you think the point spreads change? Because the handicappers change their minds?
Hmmm... that's jacked up.
P-
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderLOL! Very instructive, N1M. It's amazing what people who bet do not know about the actual mechanics of gambling. Maybe we need a gambling forum.
Do you think handicappers set the point spreads?????
Vegas doesn't care about the game results; if the money is bet evenly, the bookies win. Why do you think the point spreads change? Because the handicappers change their minds?
Successful professional gamblers never gamble, at least not intentionally.
Originally posted by no1marauderUSC ain't nothin. They lost to two unranked teams, one of them being Oregon St. I never even heard of Oregon State until then!
Only two teams from a conference are allowed in BCS games. Wisconsin doesn't deserve crap with the ridiculous out of conference schedule they played. Teams that can't even win their conference don't deserve a title shot. If you crybaby Big Ten fans don't like the fact that Michigan lost at OSU, get your weak sister conference to play a title game at a ne ...[text shortened]... ences do.
You can always watch Michigan getting hammered by USC in the Rose Bowl.
I think an eight team playoff would be doable. Take the CHAMPIONS of the 6 BCS conferences - SEC, Big 12, ACC, Big East, Pac-10 and Big Ten - and add two conference champions from the mid-majors and/or the highest rated independents by the BCS formula. Have top seed play weakest seed, etc. etc. This year it would look like this:
Ohio State v. Wake Forest
Florida v. Notre Dame
USC v. Oklahoma
Louisville v. Boise State
2nd round would be highest rated v. lowest rated survivors, etc.
Don't know how you could fit the pre-existing bowls in, though.
Originally posted by no1marauderThat is the most moronic list I have ever read.
I think an eight team playoff would be doable. Take the CHAMPIONS of the 6 BCS conferences - SEC, Big 12, ACC, Big East, Pac-10 and Big Ten - and add two conference champions from the mid-majors and/or the highest rated independents by the BCS formula. Have top seed play weakest seed, etc. etc. This year it would look like this:
Ohio State v. ...[text shortened]... ted survivors, etc.
Don't know how you could fit the pre-existing bowls in, though.
Where's Michigan???
Boise State should give you an award for talking them up. LOL
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd Michigan isn't even in there?
I think an eight team playoff would be doable. Take the CHAMPIONS of the 6 BCS conferences - SEC, Big 12, ACC, Big East, Pac-10 and Big Ten - and add two conference champions from the mid-majors and/or the highest rated independents by the BCS formula. Have top seed play weakest seed, etc. etc. This year it would look like this:
Ohio State v. ...[text shortened]... ted survivors, etc.
Don't know how you could fit the pre-existing bowls in, though.
2 edits
Originally posted by Red NightSpeaking of morons ........ what part about the CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS did you miss? Boise State's playing in a BCS bowl, in case you missed it. In fact, that "moronic list" contains 8 of the 10 BCS bowl teams, numbnuts.
That is the most moronic list I have ever read.
Where's Michigan???
Boise State should give you an award for talking them up. LOL
Originally posted by no1marauderThe entire controversy surrounds the question of whether Michigan, which got passed over twice, should have gotten a chance at the title game.
Speaking of morons ........ what part about the CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS did you miss? Boise State's playing in a BCS bowl, in case you missed it. In fact, that "moronic list" contains 8 of the 10 BCS bowl teams, numbnuts.
Michigan or Florida: that is what the whole country is debating.
And you come up with a "solution" that leaves Michigan out???
You hae redefined the word ridiculous
2 edits
Originally posted by Red NightDo you actually have an argument, you retard? The people that count decided a rematch FOR THE NATIONAL TITLE was stupid. I agree. If the Big Ten wants rematches, let them play a conference title game on a neutral site. Otherwise, you idiots should STFU.
The entire controversy surrounds the question of whether Michigan, which got passed over twice, should have gotten a chance at the title game.
Michigan or Florida: that is what the whole country is debating.
And you come up with a "solution" that leaves Michigan out???
You hae redefined the word ridiculous