Michigan is the betting line favorite to win the national title
His name is Dantonio. Mike Dantonio.
Show some respect.
I wonder how relaible these pre-season betting lines have been over the years?
Does somebody really "know something", or is it just a herd mentality, with people picking the hot name of the day?
Keep in mind that the goal of establishing betting lines is to distribute the bets evenly. Betting lines move in relation to where the money is going, in hopes that the end result is even dollars on all sides and they get to collect the "juice".
Cue the "cue the" comments.
Cue the
Cue the "Cue the 'cue the' comments" comments.
Cue the "Cue the 'cue the [cue the comments] comments' comments" comments.
All right, Stan. Don't labor the point.
What has the betting line ever done for us?
That's the only reason. A reasonable person would not be crazy about road games at MSU, Iowa and OSU. How many teams, not named Alabama, roll through three top 15 teams on the road? Maybe losing only one of those three games gets us to the B1G title game and the CFP, especially if it's Iowa, but it's not that easy of a path without a known quantity starting at QB.
Like a flawed MSU team did last year?
If Michigan is good enough to do anything in the playoff then winning their only three difficult games is a reasonable expectation. Even 2/3 should be enough provided it doesn't keep them from the Big Ten title game.
Dominant Defenses win those types of games. Hey look, we have a dominant defense.
Arguably more dominant than MSU last year, in fact.
Iowa, MSU and OSU games are later in the season. So, unlike an early seasoon loss, any loss will much more ikely eliminate M from finishing in the top 4. Early season loses have less impact on the final ranking than November loses.
So I suppose M will just have to win them all.
What if M plays Iowa twice? At Iowa and in the B10 CCG.
Iowa on the year by 50 instead of 25.
Didn't stop them from making the playoffs.
We just have to get by OSU.
Never said a late season loss makes it impossible. Just said that later season loses have more impact on final ranking than early season losses.
We give arguably our most questionable position group (QB) time to settle in before those big games happen.
How many people was it on here that thought we'd beat Utah if we played them in Week 6 instead of Week1 as last season progressed?
Who believes that MSU and Iowa will still be Top-15 by the time that we play them? Doesn't seem likely to me.
Agree about MSU, but Iowa still might be top 15 when we play them just because of their schedule. Only difficult games before they play us are home against Wisconsin and at Penn State.
Let's put them at 15 preseason, that seems to be a fair estimation. Their first seven games.
Furman - win
@ ND - loss
Wisconsin - win
@ Indiana - win (close)
BYU - win
Northwestern - win
@ Maryland - lol
What would possibly make you believe that MSU won't be a Top 15 team when we play them. Even with a loss to ND, if we keep up our end of the bargain I expect it to be a Top 10 matchup.
They're not sweeping the Wisconsin to Northwestern stretch.
bet you a set of Jumpman steak knives that they do.
I have an irrational fear of that team. They sure can score a fuckton of points when they want to.
They have a problem finishing games.
I'm scared of any game when we get that goddamn crew that officiated both UM-MSU and MSU-Nebraska last year. That's two straight games where they basically dictated who won (no not the muffed punt itself but if they'd called the game fairly it never would've been that close).
And OSU. I hate Urban Meyer with the intensity of a. . . intense, but that program is legit.
sleep on Furman.
UCF did last year
Not many have Iowa as a top 15 team this season and MSU is a borderline pick. We have PFF's top rated defense in the country. What a lot of posters here think is our biggest weakness is the OL. They were just rated the #4 unit in the country by Foxsports. The one position Harbaugh is rightly known for developing is QB. It doesn't take a blind homer to bet on Michigan. Every team has some difficulties in front of them, not just us. Having said all that, I wouldn't give us better odds than Alabama.
We don't have better odds than Alabama, so you're spot on. We're second in odds after this run. There's just more money being bet on us than Alabama.
because they weren't priced correctly at 15-1 odds.
If they were priced correctly at the start at their current 7-1 odds then they wouldn't be the "most bet on team" right now.
It's all over now; thanks, ESPN.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Why is that not a reasonable take?
On teams without a starting qb to win the natty over a month before they even step onto a field on gameday. That's what homers do. <br> <br> Not to say I'm not super excited for the season, but it just isn't that smart of a bet.
I dunno man, betting markets tend to be pretty predictive of future performance -- as good as anything else out there. This has been covered a billion times, but if popular teams' betting lines were inaccurate because lots of fans bet on their favorite teams, you could clean up by just always betting against popular teams. It doesn't work that way.
Because you don't know who the starting quarterback is doesn't mean there isn't one. I know other "experts" have also said as much. I tend to believe Harbaugh is more decisive in this area and looks for specific things like moxey and agility. I believe he feels he can coach the mechanics and reading defenses.
I would be surprised if he is unsure right now. He pegged Rudock before he set foot here, in essence. and he was brilliant for it.
with "natty," huh? Ok then.
I doubt pro gamblers touch these kinds of bets, but, given the history of recent champions, experienced starting QB would be way down the line of key qualities.
Going back a decade, not even half of the teams that won had returning starters at QB.
The effective juice on these bets is higher than game bets, it's just not calculated the same way. And you have your money tied up for the whole season. The odds have to be far out of whack to attract pro bettors.
For any thread that uses "Natty".
...unless it's followed by Light and refers to type of refreshing liquid sustenance.
Because betting is relative to odds not simply who you think will win it all. As the article notes, we started at 15/1 and now are 7/1, which still isn't quite as good as Bama. The fact that a lot of people put money on us meant they liked our chances relative to the odds.
To illustrate, let's say Bama, OU, Mich are all 5/1 odds but FSU is 30/1. Where do you think the money is going to go? Does that mean people think FSU is the most likely team to win it all? No.
All that said, it's safe to say people think very highly of our chances.
I agree with all that -- I think the amount of money put on Michigan is irrelevant. But think the fact that Michigan's odds are pretty close to Bama's to win the title means that people think Michigan is about as likley to win the title as Bama, and that prediction is a pretty good reflection of the probability of future events.
is the only thing that's relevant. There are a lot of Michigan fans all across the country with deep pockets that have moved the odds. That's it. Alan Greenspan would have called it irrational exuberance.
Again, if that were true, all you'd have to do to win big at sports gambling is recognize that more people bet on popular teams than unpopular ones, and then you just bet on the unpopular ones, recognizing the odds have been improperly skewed against them.
If you can point in the direction of all the people who got rich doing that, I'll buy your argument.
To clarify, the article says Alabama is still the odds-favorite. Michigan has the most money placed on them.