Tweet
College Football ( Informative Read )
Preseason Hoopla: Don’t Buy It!
by William Foote
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Football season is drawing near and the collective appetite for it is immense. The betting public absolutely loves the gridiron and so do we. Unlike baseball, basketball and hockey; the football season—in length—is relatively short by comparison. This makes the implications of both a single win and a single loss immensely important. In college football for instance, a team seeking a BCS birth can be eliminated altogether with a single late season loss; or any sort of loss for that matter.
Contrarily, a few losses in college basketball do not carry the same sort of championship ending consequences. That is, there are enough games along the way in college hoops to make up for an off-day or down performance. Same deal with the NBA, NHL and MLB. But the proverbial letdown can mean death in college football and this week-to-week do our die urgency is part of what makes it so exciting.
As it pertains to betting, the short college football season (usually 9 to 14 games per team) makes it very difficult to sit back and evaluate the situation before jumping in with both feet. Many gamblers sit out the first several weeks of the NBA or MLB season in an attempt to get a handle on each of the teams. But doing this in college football is the equivalent of blowing 15 to 25 percent of your total opportunity for the season. And this is precisely why we are writing this article. The premise being diligent off-season homework plays an integral role in whether you will have a successful season.
The astute handicapper is not only concerned with missing early portions of the season, but also with missing an opportunity to hit the books when they are most vulnerable. If you are going to find a soft college football line, rest assured they will be more readily available early in the year. This is simply because there are about 115 teams that sportsbooks will be taking action on. And being intimately familiar with each of these one-hundred plus programs is next to impossible for them.
Several games into the season, oddsmakers have a frame of reference in the form of stats to tighten their numbers up. In as much, the early season edge is one that every serious college football gambler should exploit while it is available. But here in lies the problem. Most sports gamblers do not fully understand how to effectively seek out early season soft spots, as their research tends to teach them a whole lot about football and very little about beating the number. Let us reiterate; many gamblers know football inside and out, yet know very little about football as it relates to the pointspread. This is perhaps confusing, so let us quickly expound.
Many football bettors have been studying the upcoming season for months. They have gathered their arsenal of data and are ready to wage war on the bookmakers. The newsstands and ESPN-type websites have again become cluttered with “opinions” on who will win the SEC, who is the Heisman frontrunner, who is the odds on favorite to win the National Championship, who is the best QB in America, etc., etc.
For the common sports fan, office pool guru or fantasy leaguer; this sort of information may serve some sort of purpose. But if you are a sports gambler, beware of this genre of research. In short, preseason hype and hoopla rarely amount to a hill of beans for the pointspread bettor. In fact, it often acts as a hindrance. The reason is simple. When the major media outlets are pumping up the high-profile programs, they are simultaneously reducing the pointspread value these very same teams will possess. Each new article published compounds the issue further.
After playing in the 2002 BCS Championship, both Ohio State (who had 11 offensive starters returning) and Miami (who had NFL-caliber talent at most every position) figured to be powerhouses again last year. Heading into 2003, their Average Preseason Ranking (defined below) was Ohio State No. 2 and Miami No. 3. Sitting at the top our 2003 Average Preseason Rankings was Oklahoma, who had finished the previous season in dominate fashion and was absolutely loaded with returning starters.
As a quick side note, our Average Preseason Rankings (APR) referenced above are a consensus metric we’ve developed. Since each preseason poll is different, it is hard to gauge what the masses are really thinking. To draw legitimate conclusions on public sentiment, one needs a uniform poll that accurately depicts all of the information on hand. The method we came up with for achieving this is building our own poll; one we’ve nicknamed the APR Poll.
It is quite simple really, as we take Top 25 rankings from each of 20 reputable sports publishing sources. From there, we assign points for each particular team based upon their ranking in each poll. For example, if Oklahoma is ranked No. 1 in the Coach’s Poll they are assigned 1-point, No. 3 in the USA Today Poll they are assigned 3-points, etc., etc, for each of the other eighteen polls.
We then take the sum total of the points and divide by 20. The team with the lowest total points is ranked No. 1 in our APR, second lowest total is ranked No. 2 in our APR, and so on for each of the other Top 25 candidates. What we end up with is a conforming and homogenous Top 25 so to speak. Among the 20 polls used are the AP’s Top 25, the Coach’s Top 25, the Sporting News’ Top 25, ESPN’s Top 25, Athlon’s Top 25 and fifteen other highly regarded publishing groups. If ever there were a public sentiment barometer, this is it.
Suffice to say, the No. 1 ranked Sooners, No. 2 ranked Buckeyes and No. 3 ranked Canes were pretty well hyped up heading into the 2003 season. And deservedly so, as they were all extremely talented football teams. But there is a huge difference between being good and being a good betting value. Name a college football gambler in America that did not know these teams were stacked? The folly of most off-season analysis is to think somehow the oddsmakers are unaware of all this. That they are not pricing all this data into their lines.
Trust us, the oddsmakers know the ins and outs of most every team residing among the Top 25. And more importantly, consider that the oddsmakers are additionally aware of how strong the public sentiment for these teams will be. In as much, the sportsbooks will heavily shade the lines on these spotlight media darlings knowing all too well how much one-sided money will be pouring in on the APR Top 5 early in the season.
Oklahoma kicked off 2003 at 3-0 SU, but was 1-2 ATS during this time. They finished at a sturdy 12-2 SU for the year, but were in the red at 7-7 ATS. Miami started last season 5-0 SU, but was 2-3 ATS during this same span. The Canes went on to a poor 6-7 ATS mark overall. Ohio State kicked off last year at 5-1 SU, but was 1-4-1 ATS during this period. They finished the season at a dismal 5-7-1 ATS. This is not at all coincidence, but rather a direct result of preseason hype and hoopla inflating the value of the top teams. Year in and year out we see similar scenarios all over the place.
To illustrate just how glaring this dynamic can be, we composed a quick down and dirty study spanning the past four seasons. We took the Top 5 teams from our Average Preseason Rankings (APR) heading into the 2000 season, into the 2001 season, into the 2002 season and into the 2003 season. This basically comprises 20 different teams (4 years x 5 teams = 20). For each of the twenty teams, we extracted their straight up (SU) season win and loss record, their against the spread (ATS) season win and loss record, their SU win and loss record spanning a team’s first five games of the season along with their ATS win and loss record in this same five game span. Note that we removed both pointspread ties and non-lined games from the ATS results.
The study was set up in this manner so we could compare preseason rankings (media hype) with overall season results, early season results and most importantly; the actual ATS results during those same two time sets. The first five games carry significance because handicappers and oddsmakers alike are still in part referring to their off-season homework. In addition, the preseason hype surrounding each team seems to stay relevant on through about the fourth of fifth game. Beyond this stretch, the current season results start to outweigh earlier held assumptions. The results of the study were not at all surprising and actually ended up exactly how we thought they would. But we will let you decipher them for yourself.
Over the past four seasons, the combined SU record of the APR Top 5 teams was a rock-solid 198-58. This equates to a 77.3% SU winning percentage. During this same four year span, the SU record of the APR Top 5 in their first five games of the season was 86-14 SU (86%). Only 1 of the 20 teams studied (5%) had a losing straight up season record. Similarly, only 1 of the 20 teams studied had a losing straight up record over their first five games.
It was actually the 2000 edition of Alabama that accomplished both feats. Bama carried an APR of 3 heading into 2000, yet wound up an embarrassing 3-8 SU overall. But other than the blood ride Tide, the remaining success rate would indicate the APR Top 5 is a great barometer of team strength. A combined 77.3% SU win rate is hard to argue with. Unfortunately—and as we write about continually—a sensational straight up record does little for pointspread bettors if these teams are not also covering the number. This reality brings us to our next set of data.
Over the past four seasons, the combined ATS record of the APR Top 5 teams was 118-128. This equates to a very poor 48% ATS mark. A $1000 per game bettor would be out $22,800 if he or she had blindly risked $1100 to win $1000 on each of these APR Top 5 teams over the past four seasons. During this same four year span, the ATS record of the APR Top 5 in their first five games of the season tumbles to a back-breaking 37-59 ATS (38.5%) record. Ouch!!! Consider that only 6 of the 20 APR Top 5 teams studied (30%) went on to have a winning ATS record for the season. Even more alarming is that only 4 of the 20 APR Top 5 teams (20%) had a winning ATS record over their first five games.
This is about as straightforward as it gets. It is hard to argue the fact preseason media darlings are by nature overpriced with this being especially true early in the year. The point here is real simple. Just because a team is predicted by major publications to be good, does not mean they are going to be a good bet. Moreover, there is strong evidence to suggest that the teams predicted to be good will actually be the ones you should look to fade. The premise of course being significantly “hyped up” usually correlates with “overvalued”.
There is a reverse corollary that holds up here as well. It will perhaps be a topic we touch on in the near future. As a preview, note that lowly Rutgers had the best ATS W/L percentage in the country last year. In 2002, N. Illinois, UCONN and South Florida sat in the top three spots for ATS win percentage. In 2001; Wake Forest, Central Florida, UCONN and Kent St. held four of the five top spots. Regular readers of ours already know what is coming next; the proverbial “Under the Radar” article. Which of the unknowns will make an impact? Who is 2004’s Rutgers and why? Yes, we have in fact been called irrepressible. But finding value with lesser scrutinized teams is simply part of our genetic code.
To sum it up, do not let preseason publications written by sports experts convince you that these hyped up teams are synonymous with ones that will also cover the number. Media heads may know sports, but they sure as heck do not know pointspreads. Our advice is to find value with lesser known clubs and consider fading the overvalued and over-hyped preseason favorites. In other words, play smarter than Joe Public and Max Media by keeping the hoopla of preseason predictions in its proper place. The wastebasket being a good place to start.
G.L.
***MMM***
PS - I nominate Memphis as one to watch early
by William Foote
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Football season is drawing near and the collective appetite for it is immense. The betting public absolutely loves the gridiron and so do we. Unlike baseball, basketball and hockey; the football season—in length—is relatively short by comparison. This makes the implications of both a single win and a single loss immensely important. In college football for instance, a team seeking a BCS birth can be eliminated altogether with a single late season loss; or any sort of loss for that matter.
Contrarily, a few losses in college basketball do not carry the same sort of championship ending consequences. That is, there are enough games along the way in college hoops to make up for an off-day or down performance. Same deal with the NBA, NHL and MLB. But the proverbial letdown can mean death in college football and this week-to-week do our die urgency is part of what makes it so exciting.
As it pertains to betting, the short college football season (usually 9 to 14 games per team) makes it very difficult to sit back and evaluate the situation before jumping in with both feet. Many gamblers sit out the first several weeks of the NBA or MLB season in an attempt to get a handle on each of the teams. But doing this in college football is the equivalent of blowing 15 to 25 percent of your total opportunity for the season. And this is precisely why we are writing this article. The premise being diligent off-season homework plays an integral role in whether you will have a successful season.
The astute handicapper is not only concerned with missing early portions of the season, but also with missing an opportunity to hit the books when they are most vulnerable. If you are going to find a soft college football line, rest assured they will be more readily available early in the year. This is simply because there are about 115 teams that sportsbooks will be taking action on. And being intimately familiar with each of these one-hundred plus programs is next to impossible for them.
Several games into the season, oddsmakers have a frame of reference in the form of stats to tighten their numbers up. In as much, the early season edge is one that every serious college football gambler should exploit while it is available. But here in lies the problem. Most sports gamblers do not fully understand how to effectively seek out early season soft spots, as their research tends to teach them a whole lot about football and very little about beating the number. Let us reiterate; many gamblers know football inside and out, yet know very little about football as it relates to the pointspread. This is perhaps confusing, so let us quickly expound.
Many football bettors have been studying the upcoming season for months. They have gathered their arsenal of data and are ready to wage war on the bookmakers. The newsstands and ESPN-type websites have again become cluttered with “opinions” on who will win the SEC, who is the Heisman frontrunner, who is the odds on favorite to win the National Championship, who is the best QB in America, etc., etc.
For the common sports fan, office pool guru or fantasy leaguer; this sort of information may serve some sort of purpose. But if you are a sports gambler, beware of this genre of research. In short, preseason hype and hoopla rarely amount to a hill of beans for the pointspread bettor. In fact, it often acts as a hindrance. The reason is simple. When the major media outlets are pumping up the high-profile programs, they are simultaneously reducing the pointspread value these very same teams will possess. Each new article published compounds the issue further.
After playing in the 2002 BCS Championship, both Ohio State (who had 11 offensive starters returning) and Miami (who had NFL-caliber talent at most every position) figured to be powerhouses again last year. Heading into 2003, their Average Preseason Ranking (defined below) was Ohio State No. 2 and Miami No. 3. Sitting at the top our 2003 Average Preseason Rankings was Oklahoma, who had finished the previous season in dominate fashion and was absolutely loaded with returning starters.
As a quick side note, our Average Preseason Rankings (APR) referenced above are a consensus metric we’ve developed. Since each preseason poll is different, it is hard to gauge what the masses are really thinking. To draw legitimate conclusions on public sentiment, one needs a uniform poll that accurately depicts all of the information on hand. The method we came up with for achieving this is building our own poll; one we’ve nicknamed the APR Poll.
It is quite simple really, as we take Top 25 rankings from each of 20 reputable sports publishing sources. From there, we assign points for each particular team based upon their ranking in each poll. For example, if Oklahoma is ranked No. 1 in the Coach’s Poll they are assigned 1-point, No. 3 in the USA Today Poll they are assigned 3-points, etc., etc, for each of the other eighteen polls.
We then take the sum total of the points and divide by 20. The team with the lowest total points is ranked No. 1 in our APR, second lowest total is ranked No. 2 in our APR, and so on for each of the other Top 25 candidates. What we end up with is a conforming and homogenous Top 25 so to speak. Among the 20 polls used are the AP’s Top 25, the Coach’s Top 25, the Sporting News’ Top 25, ESPN’s Top 25, Athlon’s Top 25 and fifteen other highly regarded publishing groups. If ever there were a public sentiment barometer, this is it.
Suffice to say, the No. 1 ranked Sooners, No. 2 ranked Buckeyes and No. 3 ranked Canes were pretty well hyped up heading into the 2003 season. And deservedly so, as they were all extremely talented football teams. But there is a huge difference between being good and being a good betting value. Name a college football gambler in America that did not know these teams were stacked? The folly of most off-season analysis is to think somehow the oddsmakers are unaware of all this. That they are not pricing all this data into their lines.
Trust us, the oddsmakers know the ins and outs of most every team residing among the Top 25. And more importantly, consider that the oddsmakers are additionally aware of how strong the public sentiment for these teams will be. In as much, the sportsbooks will heavily shade the lines on these spotlight media darlings knowing all too well how much one-sided money will be pouring in on the APR Top 5 early in the season.
Oklahoma kicked off 2003 at 3-0 SU, but was 1-2 ATS during this time. They finished at a sturdy 12-2 SU for the year, but were in the red at 7-7 ATS. Miami started last season 5-0 SU, but was 2-3 ATS during this same span. The Canes went on to a poor 6-7 ATS mark overall. Ohio State kicked off last year at 5-1 SU, but was 1-4-1 ATS during this period. They finished the season at a dismal 5-7-1 ATS. This is not at all coincidence, but rather a direct result of preseason hype and hoopla inflating the value of the top teams. Year in and year out we see similar scenarios all over the place.
To illustrate just how glaring this dynamic can be, we composed a quick down and dirty study spanning the past four seasons. We took the Top 5 teams from our Average Preseason Rankings (APR) heading into the 2000 season, into the 2001 season, into the 2002 season and into the 2003 season. This basically comprises 20 different teams (4 years x 5 teams = 20). For each of the twenty teams, we extracted their straight up (SU) season win and loss record, their against the spread (ATS) season win and loss record, their SU win and loss record spanning a team’s first five games of the season along with their ATS win and loss record in this same five game span. Note that we removed both pointspread ties and non-lined games from the ATS results.
The study was set up in this manner so we could compare preseason rankings (media hype) with overall season results, early season results and most importantly; the actual ATS results during those same two time sets. The first five games carry significance because handicappers and oddsmakers alike are still in part referring to their off-season homework. In addition, the preseason hype surrounding each team seems to stay relevant on through about the fourth of fifth game. Beyond this stretch, the current season results start to outweigh earlier held assumptions. The results of the study were not at all surprising and actually ended up exactly how we thought they would. But we will let you decipher them for yourself.
Over the past four seasons, the combined SU record of the APR Top 5 teams was a rock-solid 198-58. This equates to a 77.3% SU winning percentage. During this same four year span, the SU record of the APR Top 5 in their first five games of the season was 86-14 SU (86%). Only 1 of the 20 teams studied (5%) had a losing straight up season record. Similarly, only 1 of the 20 teams studied had a losing straight up record over their first five games.
It was actually the 2000 edition of Alabama that accomplished both feats. Bama carried an APR of 3 heading into 2000, yet wound up an embarrassing 3-8 SU overall. But other than the blood ride Tide, the remaining success rate would indicate the APR Top 5 is a great barometer of team strength. A combined 77.3% SU win rate is hard to argue with. Unfortunately—and as we write about continually—a sensational straight up record does little for pointspread bettors if these teams are not also covering the number. This reality brings us to our next set of data.
Over the past four seasons, the combined ATS record of the APR Top 5 teams was 118-128. This equates to a very poor 48% ATS mark. A $1000 per game bettor would be out $22,800 if he or she had blindly risked $1100 to win $1000 on each of these APR Top 5 teams over the past four seasons. During this same four year span, the ATS record of the APR Top 5 in their first five games of the season tumbles to a back-breaking 37-59 ATS (38.5%) record. Ouch!!! Consider that only 6 of the 20 APR Top 5 teams studied (30%) went on to have a winning ATS record for the season. Even more alarming is that only 4 of the 20 APR Top 5 teams (20%) had a winning ATS record over their first five games.
This is about as straightforward as it gets. It is hard to argue the fact preseason media darlings are by nature overpriced with this being especially true early in the year. The point here is real simple. Just because a team is predicted by major publications to be good, does not mean they are going to be a good bet. Moreover, there is strong evidence to suggest that the teams predicted to be good will actually be the ones you should look to fade. The premise of course being significantly “hyped up” usually correlates with “overvalued”.
There is a reverse corollary that holds up here as well. It will perhaps be a topic we touch on in the near future. As a preview, note that lowly Rutgers had the best ATS W/L percentage in the country last year. In 2002, N. Illinois, UCONN and South Florida sat in the top three spots for ATS win percentage. In 2001; Wake Forest, Central Florida, UCONN and Kent St. held four of the five top spots. Regular readers of ours already know what is coming next; the proverbial “Under the Radar” article. Which of the unknowns will make an impact? Who is 2004’s Rutgers and why? Yes, we have in fact been called irrepressible. But finding value with lesser scrutinized teams is simply part of our genetic code.
To sum it up, do not let preseason publications written by sports experts convince you that these hyped up teams are synonymous with ones that will also cover the number. Media heads may know sports, but they sure as heck do not know pointspreads. Our advice is to find value with lesser known clubs and consider fading the overvalued and over-hyped preseason favorites. In other words, play smarter than Joe Public and Max Media by keeping the hoopla of preseason predictions in its proper place. The wastebasket being a good place to start.
G.L.
***MMM***
PS - I nominate Memphis as one to watch early
Comment