Can someone please remember the Big Ten went 5-0...

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ Can someone please remember the Big Ten went 5-0...
Rotinaj's avatar

Rotinaj

Senior Member

7,699 posts
Jan 3, 2011 8:02 AM
lhslep134;622283 wrote:How does the difference in spreads matter if they still lose as underdogs? So in your head, underdogs should win all the time? What's your thought process here? Because mine seems pretty logical. The team that was picked to lose lost. Nothing illogical there.

My thought process is that if a team is picked as a 3 point dog the game is considered a toss up in the eyes of vegas(since thats apparently what we go by these days, and they have to make the line at something) Whatever, you wanna say NW and MSU SHOULD lose just because the spreads were 9 and 8 points then go ahead. But NO WAY is a team that is less than a TD dog SUPPOSED to lose.
Jan 3, 2011 8:02am
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Jan 3, 2011 11:15 AM
Rotinaj;622778 wrote:My thought process is that if a team is picked as a 3 point dog the game is considered a toss up in the eyes of vegas(since thats apparently what we go by these days, and they have to make the line at something) Whatever, you wanna say NW and MSU SHOULD lose just because the spreads were 9 and 8 points then go ahead. But NO WAY is a team that is less than a TD dog SUPPOSED to lose.

No, if a game is considered a toss up, then the oddsmakers make it a toss up. Such things do exist.
Jan 3, 2011 11:15am
thedynasty1998's avatar

thedynasty1998

Senior Member

6,844 posts
Jan 3, 2011 11:41 AM
Is this thread just completely ignoring spreads?
Jan 3, 2011 11:41am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Jan 3, 2011 3:05 PM
I'm not sure what this thread is doing.
Jan 3, 2011 3:05pm
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Jan 3, 2011 3:21 PM
I think he's saying the big10 won the games they were supposed to win and lost the games they were supposed to lose.
Jan 3, 2011 3:21pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Jan 3, 2011 3:32 PM
FatHobbit;623231 wrote:I think he's saying the big10 won the games they were supposed to win and lost the games they were supposed to lose.

I'm pretty sure Iowa with all their suspensions/issues were not favored against Missouri (#12).

I also don't know if Illinois was favored to beat Baylor.
Jan 3, 2011 3:32pm
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Jan 3, 2011 3:36 PM
SportsAndLady;623237 wrote:I'm pretty sure Iowa with all their suspensions/issues were not favored against Missouri (#12).

I also don't know if Illinois was favored to beat Baylor.

I was just trying to understand/guess what the thread was about. :)
Jan 3, 2011 3:36pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Jan 3, 2011 4:16 PM
thedynasty1998;622948 wrote:Is this thread just completely ignoring spreads?

Yes. There is a favorite and an underdog. Obviously with a much higher spread the underdog is expected to get destroyed, but an underdog is "supposed" to lose regardless of what the spread is.
Jan 3, 2011 4:16pm
lhslep134's avatar

lhslep134

why so serious?

9,774 posts
Jan 3, 2011 4:19 PM
thedynasty1998;622948 wrote:Is this thread just completely ignoring spreads?

Yes. There is a favorite and an underdog. Obviously with a much higher spread the underdog is expected to get destroyed, but an underdog is "supposed" to lose regardless of what the spread is.
Jan 3, 2011 4:19pm
athlete37's avatar

athlete37

Senior Member

992 posts
Jan 3, 2011 4:22 PM
I'm pretty sure if I would have bet on the money line on all of the Big Ten teams New Year's day I would've lost all five bets. You're saying the money line is what should be accounted for. Well, if I bet money on the favorite on the moneyline and they win, I win money... It's easier to win against the spread as an underdog than the moneyline. Not sure if any of the Big Ten teams did that
Jan 3, 2011 4:22pm
athlete37's avatar

athlete37

Senior Member

992 posts
Jan 3, 2011 4:24 PM
Notre Dame was underdogged against Michigan State and Stanford, therefore they won those games and actually finished the year 10-3... LOL
Jan 3, 2011 4:24pm
karen lotz's avatar

karen lotz

TuTu Train

22,284 posts
Jan 3, 2011 4:57 PM
athlete37;623271 wrote:Notre Dame was underdogged against Michigan State and Stanford, therefore they won those games and actually finished the year 10-3... LOL


Not true! They were underdogs against Miami and won the game but lost the moneyline. 9.5-3.5. Mindfuck.
Jan 3, 2011 4:57pm
D

dat dude

Senior Member

1,564 posts
Jan 3, 2011 5:02 PM
This is the most backwards betting logic possible.
Jan 3, 2011 5:02pm
Rotinaj's avatar

Rotinaj

Senior Member

7,699 posts
Jan 3, 2011 5:05 PM
If someone is picked to lose by 3, are they really considered an underdog?? I only use the term underdog if the teams are obviously on different levels. Am I alone in thinking this?? I mean you seriously considered wiscy as an underdog in that game?
Jan 3, 2011 5:05pm
karen lotz's avatar

karen lotz

TuTu Train

22,284 posts
Jan 3, 2011 5:06 PM
dat dude;623303 wrote:This is the most backwards betting logic possible.


To be honest, I don't think there is any logic being used at all. Just say something random about the moneyline or underdogs and winning or losing and you're good here.
Jan 3, 2011 5:06pm
athlete37's avatar

athlete37

Senior Member

992 posts
Jan 3, 2011 5:24 PM
karen lotz;623296 wrote:Not true! They were underdogs against Miami and won the game but lost the moneyline. 9.5-3.5. Mindfuck.

Haha the funny thing is they still won the moneyline. The winner of the game is the winner of the moneyline. The money line is essentially betting who you think is going to win the game. Not sure what lshelp even means here haha. But if you bet 100 on ND and the money line at +135 (assuming that's what it was) you profit 135 dollars. LMAO at your 9.5 karen, that's too funny man
Jan 3, 2011 5:24pm
athlete37's avatar

athlete37

Senior Member

992 posts
Jan 3, 2011 5:26 PM
karen lotz;623308 wrote:To be honest, I don't think there is any logic being used at all. Just say something random about the moneyline or underdogs and winning or losing and you're good here.

+1
Jan 3, 2011 5:26pm
athlete37's avatar

athlete37

Senior Member

992 posts
Jan 3, 2011 5:27 PM
Could probably even get away with saying something random, unrelated, and incoherent too. I like peanut butter, can you swim?
Jan 3, 2011 5:27pm
C

cbus4life

Ignorant

2,849 posts
Jan 3, 2011 5:30 PM
athlete37;623336 wrote:Could probably even get away with saying something random, unrelated, and incoherent too. I like peanut butter, can you swim?

I can swim, but can you go to Paris?
Jan 3, 2011 5:30pm
chicago510's avatar

chicago510

Original Chatterer

5,728 posts
Jan 3, 2011 5:32 PM
LOL this dude covers sports? He must be BFF with that guy with a 10 year olds voice who called the Buckeye game with Matt Sylvester.

Dumbest thread ever.
Jan 3, 2011 5:32pm
karen lotz's avatar

karen lotz

TuTu Train

22,284 posts
Jan 3, 2011 5:35 PM
athlete37;623332 wrote:Haha the funny thing is they still won the moneyline. The winner of the game is the winner of the moneyline. The money line is essentially betting who you think is going to win the game. Not sure what lshelp even means here haha. But if you bet 100 on ND and the money line at +135 (assuming that's what it was) you profit 135 dollars. LMAO at your 9.5 karen, that's too funny man


Yeah I know what the moneyline is supposed to be, was just following the logic and terminology used in this thread, hence the mindfuck.
Jan 3, 2011 5:35pm
athlete37's avatar

athlete37

Senior Member

992 posts
Jan 3, 2011 5:40 PM
karen lotz;623348 wrote:Yeah I know what the moneyline is supposed to be, was just following the logic and terminology used in this thread, hence the mindfuck.

I know you do, I mostly put that hoping lshelp would see it and understand. That's why I thought your 9.5-3.5 was hilarious. I liken lshelp's use of "line" and "moneyline" to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIP6EwqMEoE&NR=1
Jan 3, 2011 5:40pm
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Jan 3, 2011 5:42 PM
chicago510;623342 wrote:Dumbest thread ever.

Are you new here? :)
Jan 3, 2011 5:42pm
athlete37's avatar

athlete37

Senior Member

992 posts
Jan 3, 2011 5:43 PM
FatHobbit;623353 wrote:Are you new here? :)

+1
Jan 3, 2011 5:43pm
GOONx19's avatar

GOONx19

An exceptional poster.

7,147 posts
Jan 3, 2011 5:45 PM
I normally just pick whichever team starts the most players with an odd-numbered height (5'9'', 6'3, etc.) on special teams.
Jan 3, 2011 5:45pm