Archive

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

  • Rotinaj
    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.
  • lhslep134
    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.
  • thedynasty1998
    Is this thread just completely ignoring spreads?
  • WebFire
    I'm not sure what this thread is doing.
  • FatHobbit
    I think he's saying the big10 won the games they were supposed to win and lost the games they were supposed to lose.
  • SportsAndLady
    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.
  • FatHobbit
    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. :)
  • lhslep134
    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.
  • lhslep134
    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.
  • athlete37
    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
  • athlete37
    Notre Dame was underdogged against Michigan State and Stanford, therefore they won those games and actually finished the year 10-3... LOL
  • karen lotz
    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.
  • dat dude
    This is the most backwards betting logic possible.
  • Rotinaj
    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?
  • karen lotz
    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.
  • athlete37
    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
  • athlete37
    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
  • athlete37
    Could probably even get away with saying something random, unrelated, and incoherent too. I like peanut butter, can you swim?
  • cbus4life
    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?
  • chicago510
    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.
  • karen lotz
    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.
  • athlete37
    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
  • FatHobbit
    chicago510;623342 wrote:Dumbest thread ever.

    Are you new here? :)
  • athlete37
    FatHobbit;623353 wrote:Are you new here? :)

    +1
  • GOONx19
    I normally just pick whichever team starts the most players with an odd-numbered height (5'9'', 6'3, etc.) on special teams.