2025 CFB Champs & Bowls

[WEDWDW]

Mendoza just won the Walter Camp Award.

Look for him to win the Heisman,etc. as well.

Beating Ohio State wrapped everything up for him.

Just became the first Hoosier to win the Davey O' Brien Award.

 

[RedAngie]

DH and I drove toward Indianapolis this past summer from southern Indiana and detoured thru Bloomington. I always thought that Indiana was strong in basketball but lousy in football. I figured that their stadium would only be half filled, if that.

 

[bcla]

The Vegas spreads aren't set based upon who they think will win. They are set to get 1/2 the betters one one side and 1/2 on the other.

That's been the story, but from what I've heard, it's generally not the case. I've been to a sportsbook and made the occasional bet (I think $30 was the most I ever bet). Certainly when a book has hundreds of games and it's not parimutuel (where it's spread through hundreds of racetracks, legal sportsbooks, off-track betting) the book itself is taking the action, including some really obscure games that might barely get bet on. They might just get one bet on a game (or none) so they won't necessarily get action on both sides that balances each other out. And there are a lot of bets where it's heavy towards one side.

They can't necessarily force the action evenly, but are hoping that it all balances out over multiple games/events that the vig is enough for the casino to make a profit.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/26...r-lines-and-early-tips-on-where-to-beat-them/​

(One note before we begin: A popular misconception is that sportsbooks set their lines in order to get an equal amount of money on each side. Aside from rare exceptions like the Super Bowl or 2017’s Mayweather-McGregor fight, public money is generally not enough of a factor to move the odds. The book typically prefers to keep the line close to the “correct” number and gamble on the result, rather than move to an off-market number and attract a flood of action from advantage players. This means that the popular strategies to look for “sharp vs. square” or “reverse line movement” games will not show an automatic profit.)​

 

[bcla]

That's been the story, but from what I've heard, it's generally not the case. I've been to a sportsbook and made the occasional bet (I think $30 was the most I ever bet). Certainly when a book has hundreds of games and it's not parimutuel (where it's spread through hundreds of racetracks, legal sportsbooks, off-track betting) the book itself is taking the action, including some really obscure games that might barely get bet on. They might just get one bet on a game (or none) so they won't necessarily get action on both sides that balances each other out. And there are a lot of bets where it's heavy towards one side.

They can't necessarily force the action evenly, but are hoping that it all balances out over multiple games/events that the vig is enough for the casino to make a profit.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/26...r-lines-and-early-tips-on-where-to-beat-them/​

(One note before we begin: A popular misconception is that sportsbooks set their lines in order to get an equal amount of money on each side. Aside from rare exceptions like the Super Bowl or 2017’s Mayweather-McGregor fight, public money is generally not enough of a factor to move the odds. The book typically prefers to keep the line close to the “correct” number and gamble on the result, rather than move to an off-market number and attract a flood of action from advantage players. This means that the popular strategies to look for “sharp vs. square” or “reverse line movement” games will not show an automatic profit.)​

The other thing is that the spread or whatever is fixed at the time the bet is made, unlike horse racing where the odds change up to the time all betting is closed. But it can change over time.

I remember betting on a game (just $20) but I lost by a half point. I was watching the game and someone else said he won because he bet when the spread was lower by maybe 2 points

 

[hardcorestitch]

The Army-Navy game is on CBS right now! Go Navy, Beat Army!

 

[hardcorestitch]

Uh oh… Cricket Celebration Bowl is now going to OT…

 

[bcla]

Watching the Heisman presentation. Figured it would go to Mendoza. But they did mention he already graduated from Cal. Looked it up, and he needed to transfer two classes from Indiana to graduate from the Haas School of Business with a BBA . Probably during the spring since he participated in practice at Indiana. Was a bit surprised he mentioned Cal during his acceptance speech.

 

[citruscurtis]

Well... leaving LA....catch SNL rerun that I slept thru

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

I've been to a sportsbook and made the occasional bet (I think $30 was the most I ever bet). Certainly when a book has hundreds of games and it's not parimutuel (where it's spread through hundreds of racetracks, legal sportsbooks, off-track betting) the book itself is taking the action, including some really obscure games that might barely get bet on. They might just get one bet on a game (or none) so they won't necessarily get action on both sides that balances each other out. And there are a lot of bets where it's heavy towards one side.

Um.... the very nature of a point spread, is as a handicap to betting on the favored team and encourage betting on the team not favored. If they didn't give a darn about trying to achieve 50-50 betting, they wouldn't even bother with a point spread. For example, if you could just bet on the winner of the Raiders and Eagles straight up at the same odds who would you bet for. The answer is the Eagles. The Raiders are one of the worst team in the league. The sportsbook would lose money doing it. So the spread ends up Eagles minus 12.5 The very nature of the spread itself is to encourage more betting for the Raiders, optimally 50-50. So to say the spread isn't designed for 50-50 betting when its very existence is to encourage it is like saying a stop sign's purpose isn't to get drivers to stop.

They can't necessarily force the action evenly,

Nobody said they could. But to use the stop sign example again, we know some drivers won't stop at a stop sign. Similarly, spreads aren't a perfect science and don't always achieve 50-50. Especially early in the wagering. That doesn't mean that spreads aren't designed around getting that number any more than it means stop signs aren't designed to get people to stop.

but are hoping that it all balances out over multiple games/events that the vig is enough for the casino to make a profit.

They don't hope. They know. And they know because they, unlike us, have far more information.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/26...r-lines-and-early-tips-on-where-to-beat-them/​

(One note before we begin: A popular misconception is that sportsbooks set their lines in order to get an equal amount of money on each side. Aside from rare exceptions like the Super Bowl or 2017’s Mayweather-McGregor fight, public money is generally not enough of a factor to move the odds. The book typically prefers to keep the line close to the “correct” number and gamble on the result, rather than move to an off-market number and attract a flood of action from advantage players. This means that the popular strategies to look for “sharp vs. square” or “reverse line movement” games will not show an automatic profit.)​

The sharps vs squares betting approach fails because we don't actually know exactly what the sharps are doing vs what the squares are doing. The books know who is who, but the public does not. That data is not published. It is fundamentally a guessing technique that assumes what the sharps are doing based upon what the line is doing relative to the action. In other words, it's a technique a square would use, not a sharp. Furthermore, I never claimed the books would move to an off market number. That's a straw man. Nobody is going to put out a number they know is way off. And they certainly don't put out openers willy nilly. Furthermore, he contradicts himself later in the article when he talks about why casino's would move a preliminary number. Hint. It's because they're seeing more betting on one side and want to encourage more action on the other side.

"the book can change its strategy to try and attract more money on the Chicago side and discourage Detroit backers. This could involve moving the line to give Detroit bettors a worse price, or allowing customers to bet more than the usual house limit on the Bears but not the Lions."

Of course that begs the question. Why would they move the spread at all if they didn't care about 50-50 and didn't notice that the betting was getting too one sided for their liking? So he just blew his whole statement out of water. And in fact, he says if you think the line is off, bet it as soon as you can ie before said adjustment occurs because the advantage will shrink.

If you have good reason to believe that a line is “off”, bet it as soon as you can

Finally, he's wrong again. For most of us, especially for those that don't have the time to treat sports betting as a full time job, neither of these lives has a future.

When you bet right after the opening number is posted, you essentially gamble that you’re smarter than the handful of sportsbook employees who set the line. When you bet 10 minutes before the game starts, you hope in vain that you know something all the world’s sharp bettors don’t — after all, why aren’t they betting it and thus moving the line? One of these lives has a future, and one of them does not.

You're not smarter than the sportsbook employees and you don't know what the sharps are actually doing let alone whether you know something they don't.

Here is CW4D's betting advice. And it is the ironclad best betting advice you'll ever receive.

Never bet the ranch on what 18-22 year old kids will do in a college football game.

 

[bcla]

Um.... the very nature of a point spread, is as a handicap to betting on the favored team and encourage betting on the team not favored. If they didn't give a darn about trying to achieve 50-50 betting, they wouldn't even bother with a point spread. For example, if you could just bet on the winner of the Raiders and Eagles straight up at the same odds who would you bet for. The answer is the Eagles. The Raiders are one of the worst team in the league. The sportsbook would lose money doing it. So the spread ends up Eagles minus 12.5 The very nature of the spread itself is to encourage more betting for the Raiders, optimally 50-50. So to say the spread isn't designed for 50-50 betting when its very existence is to encourage it is like saying a stop sign's purpose isn't to get drivers to stop.

But in the end, nearly every game bet on has uneven betting. There have been stories about how some casinos lost millions on a particular event because betting was heavy on one side and they couldn’t move the line.

The purpose of the spread or other lines is to get the house an edge over several events using the vig and not just on a particular game. The line is set in an attempt to be efficient towards that goal in the long run and not over individual games given how random individual betting can be at a particular sportsbook.

 

[Cannot_Wait_4Disney]

But in the end, nearly every game bet on has uneven betting.

And in the end, a Stop sign will never have a 100% stop rate. That just means nobody is perfect. And as long as the house gets within a certain range, it will win.

There have been stories about how some casinos lost millions on a particular event because betting was heavy on one side and they couldn’t move the line.

Exactly why the house attempts to even the betting. The only way the house can lose is lopsided betting.

The purpose of the spread or other lines is to get the house an edge over several events using the vig and not just on a particular game.

Because each game with lopsided betting increases the chances of losing money over several events, the way to do that is to minimize the number of games with lopsided betting. And the way to do that is to set the spread as best they can to encourage even betting on both sides for each and every game.

The line is set in an attempt to be efficient towards that goal in the long run

And the most efficient way to do that is to minimize the number of games with lopsided betting. They're never going to deliberately set the spread on any game to deliberately produce a lopsided betting result. Does it happen? Yes. Is it deliberate? No.

and not over individual games given how random individual betting can be at a particular sportsbook.

We're talking Vegas here, not Guido on the corner who takes 15 bets.

 

[CynBeth]

In the 2 games I watched both of my teams won Navy and Washington! Usually that does not happen.

 

[bcla]

And in the end, a Stop sign will never have a 100% stop rate. That just means nobody is perfect. And as long as the house gets within a certain range, it will win.

Exactly why the house attempts to even the betting. The only way the house can lose is lopsided betting.

Because each game with lopsided betting increases the chances of losing money over several events, the way to do that is to minimize the number of games with lopsided betting. And the way to do that is to set the spread as best they can to encourage even betting on both sides for each and every game.


And the most efficient way to do that is to minimize the number of games with lopsided betting. They're never going to deliberately set the spread on any game to deliberately produce a lopsided betting result. Does it happen? Yes. Is it deliberate? No.


We're talking Vegas here, not Guido on the corner who takes 15 bets.

But they don’t, even with millions in bets. This notes that in 2020, NJ sportsbooks lost on Super Bowl bets, which were reported to the gaming commission. And one large casino in Vegas was sweating the prop bet that a TD wouldn’t be scored.

https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/new-jersey-casinos-lose-4-6m-on-34-9m-in-super-bowl-bets

Their goal is to get it to where the result is even and they can make money on the vig. But that’s over the long haul. There’s always going to be house losses some days and wins other days.

 

[bcla]

And the most efficient way to do that is to minimize the number of games with lopsided betting. They're never going to deliberately set the spread on any game to deliberately produce a lopsided betting result. Does it happen? Yes. Is it deliberate? No.

I'm not saying that a spread isn't used to encourage betting on both sides. I'm just saying that in practice, sportsbooks rarely get nearly perfect even action where they simply can't lose on point spread betting for a particular game because they're covered by the vig.

From my reading, a lot of casinos actually make a ton in prop bets and parlays that rarely hit.

 

[hardcorestitch]

They had 4 quarters… and all today’s first round game gave us was 3 points??? Wow crazy.

 

[citruscurtis]

.... AND that is why I don't watch.... the anxiety is hopeless...tied game would have been fine

 

[hardcorestitch]

.... AND that is why I don't watch.... the anxiety is hopeless...tied game would have been fine

College football can’t end in a tie unlike the NFL…

 

[citruscurtis]

College football can’t end in a tie unlike the NFL…

..... they have four opportunities each seems more fair in this incident then an interception.....less stress for me

 

[sam_gordon]

College football can’t end in a tie unlike the NFL…

A playoff in any sport can't end in a tie.

 

[bama_ed]

.... AND that is why I don't watch.

AND that is why I don't gamble on college football.

Texas A&M was favored by 3.5 points at home today. Betting the favorite (A&M) you would have lost. Miami beat aTm 10-3.

The total point line for both teams combined was 48.5. Betting the total you needed to go (WAY) under as the total was 13 (Miami beat aTm 10-3).

As an Alabama guy, I'm glad we beat Oklahoma last night and thus showed that we deserved the CFP Committee's commitment to put us in the 12-team playoff. But I recognize that I am too emotionally involved to gamble on game events or outcomes.

College football is in a new age and there are new factors and levers for teams that didn't have them before or don't have them now.

Bama Ed

PS - Alabama now faces Indiana in the Rose Bowl game in a CFP quarterfinal matchup. The Rose Bowl has a place in Alabama lore so I look forward to the game on NYD.