This notion is really odd. Is there something the school is doing to contribute to a perception that Northwestern plays a *lot* of tight games? Yes, playing a lot of tight games that are, as far as numbers are concerned (and that is what linemakers and the market care about) coin flip games.
6.5 point dogs at Stanford
- Thread starter NTCAT
- Start date
This notion is really odd. Is there something the school is doing to contribute to a perception that Northwestern plays a *lot* of tight games? Yes, playing a lot of tight games that are, as far as numbers are concerned (and that is what linemakers and the market care about) coin flip games.
Anyone who has not attended Autzen in October when the Ducks are good should pencil it in. It is a terrific venue.
Well that’s not what I meant but I think you know that. I guess I shouldn’t expect anything different when some of NU’s own fans don’t give the program the credit it deserves. Coin flip games? Give me a break. 36-17 over the last 4 years. That’s not luck. Show me the coin that generates those results.
How has this thread gotten 43 replies?? I thought we loved being the underdog since it often means that we will beat the stuffing out of the overdog (even if it only by 3 points). We could be the underdog every single game and realistically, still win the B1G. We should embrace being the underdog. When we start being the favorite, I will begin to worry. Overconfidence is not our strong suite. We do not play down well.
If you flip a coin 10,000 times, you will get a 36-17 run a few times. Numbers and probability can be split from fandom. I can, as a fan, believe there is some special ability to play and play well in close games. As a bettor, I am not sure how that’s quantified or wherever it should be.
NU didn’t flip a coin 10,000 times. It went 36-17 in one 53 game stretch. So the question is do you believe their winning streak is one of those random sequences which happened by chance or do you believe that 36-17 record is a product of NU’s talent, hard work, great coaching and preparation. I am in the latter camp.
You're just eliminating the argument for statistical probability in its entirety. That's fine as a fan, but won't help you get to the reason for the line as a bettor.
Please note that as a fan, I tend to agree with you on NU; some of their design *is* to play close games and their gameplanning requires talent, hard work, and preparation.
But that's like a small smidge of a factor in the line. Every decent team has talent, hard work, and preparation.
Again, if this game was at Ryan Field and was a pick 'em line, I don't think we'd even have this thread about "lack of respect." But the line currently reflects that this is almost exactly what the line would be if these two teams played at Evanston in August, so we're really only debating this because posters don't understand how lines are made.
I don’t think I am eliminating the argument for statistical probability. You are arguing that their record of 36-17 over the last four years is more of a statistical anomaly and I am arguing that it’s the product of talent, hard work and coaching (i.e they were better than their opponents). I can’t prove that without a greater sample size. Unless some key variables change (i.e FItz leaves) my bet is that their record over the next 4 years will be close to if not better than the 36-17 mark they have posted over the last 4 years.
We just had the best 2 year run in the B1G since 1995-1996. Not a statistical anomaly, just damn good football.
I guess there was less hard work and preparation in that one, or it was just a statistical anomaly.
Absolutely. It’s called 20 year old kids underestimating their opponent/getting over confident and a coaching staff doing a poor job by letting that happen. Poor job on the part of the players and coaches. It certainly wasn’t bad luck and I hope no NU fan who has paid attention to the team is actually trying to argue that those two isolated performances were representative of the team’s abilities over the last several years. I’ll repeat 36-17 over the last four years. That a .680 winning percentage.
Again, do you disagree with a line of pick em if this game was played at Ryan Field?
I do. If we were at home we should be -4 I think. And pick-em on the road. But this line is right about what I would have expected. I'm certainly not bothered by it. Early season lines are a crapshoot anyways, especially in week 1. Let's go play.
But a line would never be -4 at home and pick em on the road. It would be -4 at home and +2 on the road.
I think you're both sort of setting up straw men against each other, and both are partly true.
Corbi- I don't think anyone is suggesting that our 36-17 record over the last 4 years (or whatever) is pure happenstance, and that each game is a complete tossup. Fitz keeps talking about coin flips, but I don't imagine he actually means every game is a coin flip (if so then I have misinterpreted). There are many games where we are clearly the better team and deserved to win (like almost every recent game against U of I, for instance), and sadly there are also an assortment of games where we are the worse team and deserved to lose (Tennessee, 2015 Iowa and Michigan, etc).
But it's factual that we have won more than our fair share of close games during that span. That Athletic article quoted that we've gone 8-1 of our last 9 decided by 4 pts or fewer (or in OT). The #'s on 7 pts or less games over the last 5-10 years would say something similar, I've seen them cited before. I think this is partly a function of preparation, Fitz's approach, good defense, not making mistakes, making clutch plays... but also partly a function of luck. Normally a team's close game % is about 50% - maybe for us it can go up to 55-60% because of all those factors, but realistically it shouldn't be like 70%+ which it has been, depending on time horizon. The only teams in NFL history that have sustained winning >60% of close games over a number of years had Peyton or Tom Brady as their QBs.
On the flip (pun!) side, you saying that Corbi is completely disregarding statistical probability is misinterpreting his point too, and I think you know that.
Btw, incidentally the one-sided probability that a team would win 36 or more coin flips out of 53 is 0.6%. One-sided, meaning that there is also a 0.6% chance that they would win 17 or fewer.
You apparently didn't read my stats above on NU's performance ATS at home vs on the road, and comment that I think Ryan Field is prob only like a 2 pt HFA (maybe less). Home field varies by team, opponent, time of game, time of year, etc. Sagarin had it at 2.29 pts for the full season in 2018. So your supposed certainty here is misplaced.
I was stating what I think the lines should be, not what Vegas would set it at. NU +6 @ Stanford is just about exactly what I would have expected. If it goes above 7 I'll be surprised, if it were to go below 4 I would also be surprised.
I said I thought the line should be Stanford -3.5 or 4. Stanford -5 is still within the realm of reason. Stanford -6.5 is uninformed.
OK, thanks for the clarity.
I'd like to see where the bets are falling, but if it gets to +7, I'm on NU.
Wow, I just read the CFN preview for Stanford, and I can't see how they can be favored here. We should smoke them. Their D looks like it will be a shambles. I'm assuming enough improvement on the OL and the addition of HJ and some talent in the WR ranks to go nuclear on what seems to be a very inexperienced Cardinal defense that returns just 5 starters from a mediocre performance last year. The relative inexperience will probably hurt them in the first game of the year. The Stanford O is probably going to be pretty decent with a very good to great and experienced QB, though the run game is unproven, perhaps some questions on the OL, and a relatively inexperienced WR corp. Still nothing our staunch D shouldn't be able to handle.
I can't see how we shouldn't be favored here.
I can't see how we shouldn't be favored here.
Because the opponent isn't some cakewalk. Your subjective approach does not take into account how lines are made.
There are two arguments going on here and they are getting confused. The first is arguing the true point spread based on matching up the teams. The second is arguing the Vegas odds based on understanding bettors and maximizing profits. They are related but you have to understand how Vegas uses the "favorite factor".
The opening odds posted by Vegas are not the odds for winning but the odds for maximizing casino profits (you all know this but it is worth saying). Vegas is much smarter at using betting tendency than most realize. They make the points favor the underdog while the game still favors the favorite.
I once thought that point spreads were meant to keep betting even but I read a few articles that explained this really is not the goal. Instead, Vegas sets the odds to collect a lot more money than they pay out. They do this by adding an additional 1-3 points to the favorite team's expected spread knowing that the favorite team will receive up to 65% of the betting dollars even with the added points (the favorite factor). People want to bet on the winner so if the spread is -4, the odds-makers can raise the spread to something like -6 knowing the money will still favor the favorite. While the spread actually favor the underdog, the money is bet on the favorite and the casinos reap the profits. Not convinced? If you just took our record against the spread, we were 7-5-2 ATS, but you need to look deeper into those numbers. If you bet on the underdog in all our games last year, you would have won 11 bets, lost 1 (Ohio St), and tied 2 (Nebraska & Notre Dame). We were 7-1-1 ATS as underdog and 0-4-1 ATS as the favorite.
For the Stanford game, we are probably evenly matched on a neutral field but we are always underestimated, so maybe Vegas has Stanford by 1. When you add in the 3 point home field, the game favors Stanford by 4. The actual -6.5 bet is a tease to entice more money from the Stanford side since winning by 7 is the second most popular score. The money will greatly favor Stanford.
Last edited:
I'm in Vegas and just put $20 on NU to win the National Championship, 175/1 odds. Free drinks for everyone if they win!
By the way, the Illini are 1000/1. Didn't bet on that one.
Also, Adrian Martinez is 10:1 to win the Heisman and Nebraska is 30:1 to win the National Championship. What a joke. Even more so is Justin Fields at 12:1 to win the Heisman.
I just don't understand the Nebraska love this year. I mean, Adrian Martinez is a *good* QB, but he's not a can't-miss superstar. They lost a bunch of close games last year, so I guess they're going to win them this year? Maybe, but I don't see going from 4-8 to 9-3 or whatever people are predicting, even with their favorable schedule.
I get that they lost a lot of close games last year and are likely to be improved this year. But 30:1 to win the national title? The sports book here has only 11 teams with better odds.
Our win total over/under is 6 (-125). Does anyone still think that isn’t disrespectful? No way this team doesn’t win at least 6. We should be viewed a soon legitimate contenders in the West even with a tougher schedule.
Maybe Hunter Johnson would be up there too if our coach wasn’t telling everyone that he’s neck and neck with a former walk-on for the starting spot.
Nope. HJ has not taken a snap at NU. Even if he had been named the starter coming out of spring ball he would still be an unknown quantity. Martinez has a year of experience under his belt.
