Rd One--Playoff Picks
It's more or less past time to pick the firt round of the NFL Playoffs. Two years ago I managed to somehow go 4-0 in the first round. After that I manged to lose more or less all of the rest of the games. I think I finished 6-5 for the playoffs. Last year I got off to a quick start, but after a few weeks everything unraveled. This year I started out losing, and shortly gave up on the enterprise. I think the last time I bet was on Cleveland(-2) at Arizona. Naturally the Cardinals won and covered, 27-21. The time before that was Indy at San Diego. Again, the home dog Chargers won and covered, 23-21.
Other than that, I haven't been betting on football at all. I considered taking Boston College (-3.5) over Michigan State in whichever bowl it was that they played in.* I figured 3.5 was an insult to Boston College, who worked their way up to #2 in the polls this year before losing three of their last five. Then I considered how tight most of BC's games were this year. Other than Bowling Green, they didn't blow anybody out. I mean, they didn't humiliate anybody (other than Bowling Green). This is a bad sign, since college football is all about humiliation. (This season the NFL was all about it as well, at least when the Patriots were playing.) Among it's other uses and side effects, humiliation serves to ensure that the favorite covers the spread--sometimes. Sometimes humiliating the other team just gives you a shot at covering--a thirty or forty point spread can be quite an obstacle to overcome, even if the game is essentially a downhill struggle. Sometimes the favorite is the one humilliated, THE Ohio State University's loss to Florida last year, for instance, or Michigan's season openng loss to Appalachian State this year. Most of Notre Dame's season would probably qualify, depending on who you asked.
On the flip side, Michigan State entered the ___________Bowl with five losses, but none by more than seven points. Nothing special, but not too humiliating. Here's the thing. Boston College has won about 5 or 6 bowl games in a row. My belief is that BC keeps winning because they are getting crap matchups--no respect in other words. Contrast this with Notre Dame's recent bowl record. Notre Dame keeps getting beat because they keep playing teams that are better than they are. The problem with all these wins against crap teams is that they seem to invariably be closer than you'd expect...as in, not covering or barely covering the spread. So my gut told me not to bet this one--MSU will lose by three but cover the spread. And they did--24-21. They even scored late to make the game look closer than it was...same as they did against Ohio State.
Boston College is content to squeak by in games they should win handily against mediocre teams...Michigan State for example. That's the problem with humiliation. It doesn't extend to the favorites you bet on when they fail to cover the spread. And it should. Seattle has this same annoying tendancy, if less so than BC. Perhaps this is because they are quarterbacked by Matt Hasselbeck, a BC grad, as well as an underachieving slacker--Oh wait, that's me, except that I dropped out of Boston College....
NOTE: I never got to my picks, but they are in my next post....If I was lying, my record would be much better. Trust me on this, if nothing else. I blame Matt Hasselbeck for scaring me with his underachieving tendancies. In fact, I blame the entire NFC for their underachieving tendancies, since, as I recall, the favorite won but failed to cover in 4 out of 5 playoff games last year....
* I don't know which bowl it was, and I don't care enough to look it up. I don't think anybody cares, now that the BCS system has rendered the bowls that much more meaningless than they already were. If you don't think my apathy is significant, realize that these were the two colleges that I attended, so this was one of about three bowls I had any interest in. This was one of those rare games where I REALLY want both teams to win, as opposed to games where I have a rooting interest in one of the teams, but also would like to see one of the other team's veteran players win a championship before he retires. The Green Bay-Denver Super Bowl would fall into this category. Last year's probably would too, were Peyton Manning closer to retirement. The other games I took interest in were one where I wanted both teams to lose [Florida-Michigan] and one where rooting for the Big Ten clashes with my pride as a handicapper (such as it is), LSU-Ohio State. I am of the mind that 4.5 points is not enough if you want to go against the mighty Tigers, as you may have guessed. Unless I have a compelling reason to root for one of the teams I also like to root for whichever team will make for a messier, more arbitrary NCAA Championship picture, and since an OSU loss would eliminate the only major program with one loss, creating a glut of two loss teams at the top of the polls, an LSU win seems just the ticket. Of course, this game is also the BCS Championship Game. The purveyors of this abomination have succeeded in creating interest in this singular game, but at the expense of all the others.
The BCS system is killing interest in college football. Will anybody cover the funeral?
Other than that, I haven't been betting on football at all. I considered taking Boston College (-3.5) over Michigan State in whichever bowl it was that they played in.* I figured 3.5 was an insult to Boston College, who worked their way up to #2 in the polls this year before losing three of their last five. Then I considered how tight most of BC's games were this year. Other than Bowling Green, they didn't blow anybody out. I mean, they didn't humiliate anybody (other than Bowling Green). This is a bad sign, since college football is all about humiliation. (This season the NFL was all about it as well, at least when the Patriots were playing.) Among it's other uses and side effects, humiliation serves to ensure that the favorite covers the spread--sometimes. Sometimes humiliating the other team just gives you a shot at covering--a thirty or forty point spread can be quite an obstacle to overcome, even if the game is essentially a downhill struggle. Sometimes the favorite is the one humilliated, THE Ohio State University's loss to Florida last year, for instance, or Michigan's season openng loss to Appalachian State this year. Most of Notre Dame's season would probably qualify, depending on who you asked.
On the flip side, Michigan State entered the ___________Bowl with five losses, but none by more than seven points. Nothing special, but not too humiliating. Here's the thing. Boston College has won about 5 or 6 bowl games in a row. My belief is that BC keeps winning because they are getting crap matchups--no respect in other words. Contrast this with Notre Dame's recent bowl record. Notre Dame keeps getting beat because they keep playing teams that are better than they are. The problem with all these wins against crap teams is that they seem to invariably be closer than you'd expect...as in, not covering or barely covering the spread. So my gut told me not to bet this one--MSU will lose by three but cover the spread. And they did--24-21. They even scored late to make the game look closer than it was...same as they did against Ohio State.
Boston College is content to squeak by in games they should win handily against mediocre teams...Michigan State for example. That's the problem with humiliation. It doesn't extend to the favorites you bet on when they fail to cover the spread. And it should. Seattle has this same annoying tendancy, if less so than BC. Perhaps this is because they are quarterbacked by Matt Hasselbeck, a BC grad, as well as an underachieving slacker--Oh wait, that's me, except that I dropped out of Boston College....
NOTE: I never got to my picks, but they are in my next post....If I was lying, my record would be much better. Trust me on this, if nothing else. I blame Matt Hasselbeck for scaring me with his underachieving tendancies. In fact, I blame the entire NFC for their underachieving tendancies, since, as I recall, the favorite won but failed to cover in 4 out of 5 playoff games last year....
* I don't know which bowl it was, and I don't care enough to look it up. I don't think anybody cares, now that the BCS system has rendered the bowls that much more meaningless than they already were. If you don't think my apathy is significant, realize that these were the two colleges that I attended, so this was one of about three bowls I had any interest in. This was one of those rare games where I REALLY want both teams to win, as opposed to games where I have a rooting interest in one of the teams, but also would like to see one of the other team's veteran players win a championship before he retires. The Green Bay-Denver Super Bowl would fall into this category. Last year's probably would too, were Peyton Manning closer to retirement. The other games I took interest in were one where I wanted both teams to lose [Florida-Michigan] and one where rooting for the Big Ten clashes with my pride as a handicapper (such as it is), LSU-Ohio State. I am of the mind that 4.5 points is not enough if you want to go against the mighty Tigers, as you may have guessed. Unless I have a compelling reason to root for one of the teams I also like to root for whichever team will make for a messier, more arbitrary NCAA Championship picture, and since an OSU loss would eliminate the only major program with one loss, creating a glut of two loss teams at the top of the polls, an LSU win seems just the ticket. Of course, this game is also the BCS Championship Game. The purveyors of this abomination have succeeded in creating interest in this singular game, but at the expense of all the others.
The BCS system is killing interest in college football. Will anybody cover the funeral?
posted by roQQ | 4:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home