Bama: The 2005 Auburn...

[rolltoomer 0]

The line is to keep the number of dollars bet on each team equal.

The bookies don't want to use their money to pay the winners, they want to use the loser's money to pay the winners. The bookies make their money by raking off a percentage of all monies bet.

So ideally (for the bookies), the number of dollars bet would be exactly the same on each team in a given game.

With a number of games in the action, if there is a slight imbalance on one game it may be offset by an imbalance in another game, in a root-sum-squared probability. It is possible, of course, that two games could be offset adversely, but the more games in play, the better the odds of everything evening out. Plus, we're not talking about big differences (because of shifting lines as the betting proceeds).

The line will shift to attract more bettors to a given team, as necessary, to keep the dollars equal. But the handicappers are good--you don't see the spread change very often, and if it does it's typically only 1/2 point, or 1 point, sometimes 2 points.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

That is all true but the fact is the bookies opened the line with bama the underdog, showing them little respect.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

There you go, confusing the argument with facts.  Don'tcha just hate when people do that!

Stepping away from Bama momentarily:  I couldn't help but notice Oklahoma at #11, Southern Cal at #18, and Va Tech just 0.002 percentage points behind the Trojans at #19.  But we couldn't go to the Orange Bowl, and if we had USC would have creamed us?  (Sorry, just had to give that dead horse another whack)

I now return you to our regularly scheduled thread of Bama bashing...

173724[/snapback]

I will be the first to admit that strength of schedule isn't the ultimate measuring stick. Heck, every computer poll has their own way of caculating it -- even the BCS (when it was a component of their rankings) calculated it differently from the NCAA. THe NCAA calculates a team's cumulative opponents win percentage. Looking at it in that light, OU's #11 & SC's #18 strength of schedule rankings don't look all that impressive because they each benefited by playing a 12-0 team. On the other hand AU's #5 ranking didn't get the same bounce as OU & SC did in the last game because Va Tech ended their season with 3 losses. The point is, our schedule wasn't easy by any means. The media (& the idiots who lap up what they dish out without thinking) only point to our out-of-conference schedule when they claim we had it easy. They conveniently look the other way when we play other SEC powers, i.e. LSU, UT (twice!) & UGA and win convincingly. They also conveniently ignore the fact that AU has manhandled some out-of-conference teams known for physical play in the last few bowl games: Penn St, Wisconsin & Va Tech. But hey, we've got an easy out-of-conference regular season schedule so our entire schedule is creampuff.

[rebdawg 5]

oh yeah, The Citadel, UL-Monroe, and La Tech?!?!?  those three pansy colleges are far worse than Western Carolina... at least we only played ONE pansy school...

173684[/snapback]

Only ONE pansy school? So Utah State is a formidable opponent?

The Citadel was far worse than Western Carolina?

Saturday November 20, 2004:

The Citadel 17

Western Carolina 0

Courtesy SI.com

I guess using Tuscalooser math that equates WC being far better than the Citadel the same way that 6 equals 12 when counting national championships.

I'll give you this, Western Carolina was good enough to end Brodie's season.

But since you Bama fans love to live in the past remember the last two times YOU played La. Tech?

Saturday September 18, 1999

Alabama 28

La. Tech 29

Saturday November 1, 1997

Alabama 20

La. Tech 26

Courtesy College Football Prognosticator

[Tiger in Spain 0]

rebdawg, you're bringing up some of those infamous Tuscaloser moral victories there.

[quietfan 233]

oh yeah, The Citadel, UL-Monroe, and La Tech?!?!?  those three pansy colleges are far worse than Western Carolina... at least we only played ONE pansy school...

173684[/snapback]

Only ONE pansy school? So Utah State is a formidable opponent?

The Citadel was far worse than Western Carolina?

Saturday November 20, 2004:

The Citadel 17

Western Carolina 0

Courtesy SI.com

I guess using Tuscalooser math that equates WC being far better than the Citadel the same way that 6 equals 12 when counting national championships.

I'll give you this, Western Carolina was good enough to end Brodie's season.

But since you Bama fans love to live in the past remember the last two times YOU played La. Tech?

Saturday September 18, 1999

Alabama 28

La. Tech 29

Saturday November 1, 1997

Alabama 20

La. Tech 26

Courtesy College Football Prognosticator

174106[/snapback]

Ouch! Again the truth hurts...

[rebdawg 5]

Ouch!  Again the truth hurts...

174116[/snapback]

No prob, dude. WC was a good schedule with probation looming. Don't blame ya'll one bit. As it turns out it might have been the difference between going bowling and not going bowling.

Remember, ULaMo and The Citadel were last second fill ins thanks to ACC realignment and OU buying Bowling Green out from under us.