Bo Inspires Cover/ND Voodoo to Bring Same?
Last week's game of the century turned out to be the game of the season for me, as Michigan covered the seven point spread, not to mention my teased 14 point spread, while Ohio State covered my teased spread as a pick, and BOTH teams covered the teased over (the tease brought the over from 42 down to 35--Michigan scored 39 and OSU topped them with 42; maybe I shoulda kept it simple and just bet the over...). That made three won bets for me on one game. Auburn's 22-15 victory over 'Bama covered the ridiculously low 2 point spread, while Indy lost to Dallas, 21-14, failing to cover the ridiculously low 1.5 point spread. The fuck do I know?
So, Bo Schembechler's expertly timed death inspired Michigan to keep the game close enough to cover the spread. What did you expect? Anyway, the key to Michigan's season could be a Notre Dame victory at 'SC in a few hours, assuming voters (and the BCS computer) will remember the trouncing the Irish suffered at the hands of the Wolverines. Word is an 'SC victory will be enough to bump up the Trojans, even if it is too close to impress the public. Should Bo have waited a week to die? Clearly this would not have done any good, as the Fighting Irish are not about to be inspired by his death. If Coach Holtz isn't willing to step up the way Bo did, there probably isn't anybody else that could do the job. Maybe Ara Parseghian....the Irish may love Charlie Weis, but he hasn't been around long enough to whip them into a frenzy by uncannily dying the day before the big game.
Which isn't to say he hasn't given it some thought. Charlie Weis is all about motivating the troops. Apparently he's been making his team listen to "Fight On," and "Conquest," both USC fight songs, or hymns, as ESPN calls them. (There is a song that the 'SC band plays that I think really kicks ass. I'm guessing it's one of these. I never wondered about the title before; now I'm wondering if it has words, and whether or not the words are really gay.) Meanwhile, Uncle Chuck already busted out the Kelly Green last week for the big game against Army. Army? Apparently the last home game for the '06-'07 seniors was reason enough for the special occasion gear. Some may speculate that Weis used the greens last week because he can't do it this week on the road. You may have heard that Chuck would dress his team in sequined green bananna hammocks with matching vests and bow ties if
a.) it would inspire them to win,
and
b.) it was allowed.
Especially if it helped them beat 'SC. Don't you believe it. Weis is way too much of a traditionalist. So much so that he hasn't even checked to see if fetish gear is within the rules. Ditto for kazoos and party hats. Weis is so traditional that he just may run certain traditions into the ground. As for rumors that somebody recieved a briefcase full of Euros to croak the pharmacist that writes Pete Carroll's ritalin perscription, well, there's no proof that any such perscription even exists. You heard it here first.
Cynics among you may speculate that Pete Carroll's perscriptions (or lack thereof) are utterly irrelevant. It is probably next to impossible to recruit 90+ blue chip pro-football prospects in this day and age without attracting more ADD cases, sterroid addled freaks and drug users running the gamut from caual and/or experimental to abusive and/or highly connected. Take such a mix of addicts, chemically enhanced monsters and other criminals and set them down in the middle of Los Angeles and you're looking at a situation that makes Lord of the Flies look like Head of the Class. Given the obvious potential for disaster, Pete Carroll's track record shapes up as ranking him somehwere between Abraham Lincoln and Moses. If Coach has a thing for Ritalin, or a thing for Utah crystal methanphedamine, cooked in a bathtub in a brothel run by defrocked Morman Clergy, and hand delivered by a flotilla of rabid bikers, chased with high-grade horse-tranquilizers for that matter, who would dare to complain? His mother or a victim of a 12-step program, that's who. Only they would ever show such distorted priorities. Anyone else would hang their head in shame.
................................................................................
I stayed up all night to watch SC-ND, and was watching it as I finished writing the above. I was pretty burnt by the time the game ended, so I neglected to deliver my picks, not that you would want them.
I did two three-bet teasers. My intent was to give myself a situation like last week where I had OSU and the over, and Michigan and the over. Then I found out that three bet teasers paid out better odds; a six point tease paid 9 to 5, a 6.5 point tease paid 8 to 5, a 7 point tease paid 7 to 5, and a 10 point tease paid 10 to 11.
In the end I had a 6 point tease on Notre Dame, the over, and the Louisville-Pittsburgh over, and I had a 10 point tease on USC, the over, and Louisville. These worked out to
notredame(+14.5)
nd-USC OVER51
lou-PITT OVER53
and
USC(+1.5)
nd-USC OVER47
louisville(-.5)
I took the 6 point tease on Notre Dame because I wanted to move the 8.5 point spread to 14.5. I wanted to be able to win even if ND lost by 14. I went for a ten point tease on the other because I wanted to turn Louisville into a pick in case Pittsburgh kept it close. Unfortunately, I would have turned a profit if I'd gone for the 6 point tease on both, as my latter bet didn't need so much help (actually, none of these bets needed to be teased at all). Meanwhile, Notre Dame got within the 14.5 point spread for only a play, scoring a touchdown to close to being down 13, 37-24, only to let their onside kick be returned for a score on the next play. At the end of the game I was in the money for about 6 seconds of game time, until Notre Dame gave up their flukeish score. Ick. My SC bet covered the other, while if I'd won the other bet instead I would have turned a profit. Obviously if I'd won both I'd do better yet. If I'd bet each outcome individually, I'd win on Louisville and that game's over, and on the other over. If I was betting on the individual outcomes I wouldn't have taken both Notre Dame and USC, barring strange fluctuations in the spread. I'm not sure what the implications of these considerations are but...
This week I took the over for USC-UCLA and Oklahoma-Nebraska, and the under for Florida-Arkansas, as a three game tease. All three lost. Had I bet on them individuallly, all three would have lost, and I would have lost three bets. Ewwwww!
So, Bo Schembechler's expertly timed death inspired Michigan to keep the game close enough to cover the spread. What did you expect? Anyway, the key to Michigan's season could be a Notre Dame victory at 'SC in a few hours, assuming voters (and the BCS computer) will remember the trouncing the Irish suffered at the hands of the Wolverines. Word is an 'SC victory will be enough to bump up the Trojans, even if it is too close to impress the public. Should Bo have waited a week to die? Clearly this would not have done any good, as the Fighting Irish are not about to be inspired by his death. If Coach Holtz isn't willing to step up the way Bo did, there probably isn't anybody else that could do the job. Maybe Ara Parseghian....the Irish may love Charlie Weis, but he hasn't been around long enough to whip them into a frenzy by uncannily dying the day before the big game.
Which isn't to say he hasn't given it some thought. Charlie Weis is all about motivating the troops. Apparently he's been making his team listen to "Fight On," and "Conquest," both USC fight songs, or hymns, as ESPN calls them. (There is a song that the 'SC band plays that I think really kicks ass. I'm guessing it's one of these. I never wondered about the title before; now I'm wondering if it has words, and whether or not the words are really gay.) Meanwhile, Uncle Chuck already busted out the Kelly Green last week for the big game against Army. Army? Apparently the last home game for the '06-'07 seniors was reason enough for the special occasion gear. Some may speculate that Weis used the greens last week because he can't do it this week on the road. You may have heard that Chuck would dress his team in sequined green bananna hammocks with matching vests and bow ties if
a.) it would inspire them to win,
and
b.) it was allowed.
Especially if it helped them beat 'SC. Don't you believe it. Weis is way too much of a traditionalist. So much so that he hasn't even checked to see if fetish gear is within the rules. Ditto for kazoos and party hats. Weis is so traditional that he just may run certain traditions into the ground. As for rumors that somebody recieved a briefcase full of Euros to croak the pharmacist that writes Pete Carroll's ritalin perscription, well, there's no proof that any such perscription even exists. You heard it here first.
Cynics among you may speculate that Pete Carroll's perscriptions (or lack thereof) are utterly irrelevant. It is probably next to impossible to recruit 90+ blue chip pro-football prospects in this day and age without attracting more ADD cases, sterroid addled freaks and drug users running the gamut from caual and/or experimental to abusive and/or highly connected. Take such a mix of addicts, chemically enhanced monsters and other criminals and set them down in the middle of Los Angeles and you're looking at a situation that makes Lord of the Flies look like Head of the Class. Given the obvious potential for disaster, Pete Carroll's track record shapes up as ranking him somehwere between Abraham Lincoln and Moses. If Coach has a thing for Ritalin, or a thing for Utah crystal methanphedamine, cooked in a bathtub in a brothel run by defrocked Morman Clergy, and hand delivered by a flotilla of rabid bikers, chased with high-grade horse-tranquilizers for that matter, who would dare to complain? His mother or a victim of a 12-step program, that's who. Only they would ever show such distorted priorities. Anyone else would hang their head in shame.
................................................................................
I stayed up all night to watch SC-ND, and was watching it as I finished writing the above. I was pretty burnt by the time the game ended, so I neglected to deliver my picks, not that you would want them.
I did two three-bet teasers. My intent was to give myself a situation like last week where I had OSU and the over, and Michigan and the over. Then I found out that three bet teasers paid out better odds; a six point tease paid 9 to 5, a 6.5 point tease paid 8 to 5, a 7 point tease paid 7 to 5, and a 10 point tease paid 10 to 11.
In the end I had a 6 point tease on Notre Dame, the over, and the Louisville-Pittsburgh over, and I had a 10 point tease on USC, the over, and Louisville. These worked out to
notredame(+14.5)
nd-USC OVER51
lou-PITT OVER53
and
USC(+1.5)
nd-USC OVER47
louisville(-.5)
I took the 6 point tease on Notre Dame because I wanted to move the 8.5 point spread to 14.5. I wanted to be able to win even if ND lost by 14. I went for a ten point tease on the other because I wanted to turn Louisville into a pick in case Pittsburgh kept it close. Unfortunately, I would have turned a profit if I'd gone for the 6 point tease on both, as my latter bet didn't need so much help (actually, none of these bets needed to be teased at all). Meanwhile, Notre Dame got within the 14.5 point spread for only a play, scoring a touchdown to close to being down 13, 37-24, only to let their onside kick be returned for a score on the next play. At the end of the game I was in the money for about 6 seconds of game time, until Notre Dame gave up their flukeish score. Ick. My SC bet covered the other, while if I'd won the other bet instead I would have turned a profit. Obviously if I'd won both I'd do better yet. If I'd bet each outcome individually, I'd win on Louisville and that game's over, and on the other over. If I was betting on the individual outcomes I wouldn't have taken both Notre Dame and USC, barring strange fluctuations in the spread. I'm not sure what the implications of these considerations are but...
This week I took the over for USC-UCLA and Oklahoma-Nebraska, and the under for Florida-Arkansas, as a three game tease. All three lost. Had I bet on them individuallly, all three would have lost, and I would have lost three bets. Ewwwww!
posted by roQQ | 9:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home