Tweet
Somewhere at b-chat in the archives I posted how NFL Teams respond after being OUTYARDED by 300> yards.
If I recall correctly, teams in that scenario were either 4-1 or 5-1 ATS last season.
The only team that did not show up the following week was the Browns vs the Chargers.
If I recall correctly, the system did well in 2003 also; 4-0 I think.
It makes sense to me that they show up after an utter humiliation on the field.
This System does not come up often, but when it does, it apparently wins. I say apparently because I have not taken it back for many years.
This Season's first occurence already won with the San Francisco 49ers covering a game they nearly won outright.
The second occurence comes NEXT Weekend when the Eagles look to bounce back after being outyarded by more than 300 yards against Dallas last weekend.
So, what about going AGAINST the team that outyarded their opponent? That did not pan out as well.
In fact, if you went against a team in that setting you would've been 0-5 last year. All five teams that outyarded their opponents by 300> yards last season went on to cover the following week.
So, should we bet it that way? I don't think so. The rationale in this particular system seems to suggests contrare thinking.
Why is it that the teams that peaked out did not fall flat the next week, but the teams that bottomed out bounced back?
I don't know. I know that teams that are humiliated that way usually show up.
Just like in College Ball. You take a team that peaks out for 2 big games in a row and that doesn't mean the will necessarily fall flat the next week and fail to cover (see Va Tech).
However, you take a team that bottoms out and is humiliated for a couple of week's back to back and there is money to be made with some very ugly dogs. They show up; or, atleast for their standards they show up.
Their have been a number of examples this season already...
After being pounded 63-3 and 38-0, Ball State won SU as an 11-pt dog at Western Michigan Oct 8th.
Buffalo U +21' covered by a touchdown against Rutgers after losing 38-0 and 31-0.
La Monroe won SU as a 7-pt dog at Fla Atlantic after losing 38-0 and 44-7.
No Texas -2 wasn't as lucky losing 10-13 after losing 54-2 and 54-7. Makes you wonder is playing a fave in this spot is ideal.
SMU +11 took Marshall to OT and covered after losing 66-8 and 31-10. However, I prefer to insist that the College team scores only SINGLE digits for those back to back blowout losses.
So NCCA College Underdogs that lost back to back scoring single digits and allowing 30> are 3-0 ATS this season.
Will they be 4-0 after this Saturday? TEMPLE +41 is off back to back losses of 70-7 and 38-7. Or, will Miami U roll?
Keep in mind also that College teams who roll up 500> yards and hold their opponent to LESS THAN 200 yards are poor faves the following week...
Miami U 45
TEMPLE 17
Don't forget the Eagles.
gl,
dave
If I recall correctly, teams in that scenario were either 4-1 or 5-1 ATS last season.
The only team that did not show up the following week was the Browns vs the Chargers.
If I recall correctly, the system did well in 2003 also; 4-0 I think.
It makes sense to me that they show up after an utter humiliation on the field.
This System does not come up often, but when it does, it apparently wins. I say apparently because I have not taken it back for many years.
This Season's first occurence already won with the San Francisco 49ers covering a game they nearly won outright.
The second occurence comes NEXT Weekend when the Eagles look to bounce back after being outyarded by more than 300 yards against Dallas last weekend.
So, what about going AGAINST the team that outyarded their opponent? That did not pan out as well.
In fact, if you went against a team in that setting you would've been 0-5 last year. All five teams that outyarded their opponents by 300> yards last season went on to cover the following week.
So, should we bet it that way? I don't think so. The rationale in this particular system seems to suggests contrare thinking.
Why is it that the teams that peaked out did not fall flat the next week, but the teams that bottomed out bounced back?
I don't know. I know that teams that are humiliated that way usually show up.
Just like in College Ball. You take a team that peaks out for 2 big games in a row and that doesn't mean the will necessarily fall flat the next week and fail to cover (see Va Tech).
However, you take a team that bottoms out and is humiliated for a couple of week's back to back and there is money to be made with some very ugly dogs. They show up; or, atleast for their standards they show up.
Their have been a number of examples this season already...
After being pounded 63-3 and 38-0, Ball State won SU as an 11-pt dog at Western Michigan Oct 8th.
Buffalo U +21' covered by a touchdown against Rutgers after losing 38-0 and 31-0.
La Monroe won SU as a 7-pt dog at Fla Atlantic after losing 38-0 and 44-7.
No Texas -2 wasn't as lucky losing 10-13 after losing 54-2 and 54-7. Makes you wonder is playing a fave in this spot is ideal.
SMU +11 took Marshall to OT and covered after losing 66-8 and 31-10. However, I prefer to insist that the College team scores only SINGLE digits for those back to back blowout losses.
So NCCA College Underdogs that lost back to back scoring single digits and allowing 30> are 3-0 ATS this season.
Will they be 4-0 after this Saturday? TEMPLE +41 is off back to back losses of 70-7 and 38-7. Or, will Miami U roll?
Keep in mind also that College teams who roll up 500> yards and hold their opponent to LESS THAN 200 yards are poor faves the following week...
Miami U 45
TEMPLE 17
Don't forget the Eagles.
gl,
dave
Comment