Is the Michigan/TCU line much too low?
Betting lines in major football games should be very efficient- the process essentially crowdsources every bettor to determine what the most likely point differential will be.
Michigan vs TCU line is currently Michigan -7.5. SP+ forecasts Michigan with a 9 point advantage.
Why were the line predictions so wrong in the Penn State and Ohio State games?
These are the two games that Michigan game planned for and activated the QB running game. I think the advanced stats don't have a way to account for a different approach (more planning & active QB run game) that is only used in key games.
The 3 games in 2022 that I think saw full QB activation and game planning were Penn State, Michigan State and OSU. In these games, Michigan outperformed the betting line by an average of 16.5 points.
This would suggest the correct line for the TCU game should be 24! This was Michigan's margin of victory versus Penn State. TCU is 1.9 points better in SP+ than Penn State.
December 30th, 2022 at 7:24 AM ^
SP doesn’t know we are missing Corum. I think that’s reasonably accounting for 1.5 points. Edwards also being in a cast still may play a role.
December 30th, 2022 at 10:26 AM ^
We also aren't playing at home (PSU, MSU) or against Ryan Day. I'm fine with the spread.
December 30th, 2022 at 7:29 AM ^
Vegas doesn't care about SP.. they care about money.
A 7.5 pt line is baiting people to jump on michigan.
The dogs are covering every game
December 30th, 2022 at 7:40 AM ^
There is a rust factor also. Historically, in the first quarter of a bowl game teams start out slow and look sluggish. They really don’t look smooth until Q2. This has to be a factor also
December 30th, 2022 at 12:05 PM ^
Honestly that is in our favor with how both teams have played this season. Means they have one quarter to get most of their points.
December 30th, 2022 at 8:49 AM ^
Thanks. Despite the wisdom and education of MgoBloggers, there seems to be a considerable swath who somehow think the goal of a betting line has some greater purpose than even-money layouts- which it doesn't. The absolute proof of this is simply how betting lines adjust dynamically, though the match-up remains exactly the same as when the line was formed. If the goal is somehow to create an accurate line, why would this fluctuate based on nothing. Easy, they want even betting so that they assume zero risk. It's an absolutely immaculate business plan, and we should all dream of having such a franchise.
December 30th, 2022 at 9:28 AM ^
That works in theory, and in practice for us. At -7.5, the handle is 52% UM, 48% TCU. Again, I'm agog at the Buckeye game, where UGA is getting 89% of the action and the line's not moving.
December 30th, 2022 at 9:33 AM ^
Wait, so bookies around the country are collectively publishing the total balance of bets on OSU/UGA? Call me skeptical that such data is available. You are most likely quoting a dubious source, like a journalist on some news rag, who heard it from his buddy who works in Reno and knows Jimmy Serrano.
December 30th, 2022 at 9:45 AM ^
Why yes, they do. Help the judge find his wallet..
https://www.vsin.com/betting-resources/daily-betting-insights-for-mlb-nba-nhl/
December 30th, 2022 at 10:07 AM ^
That's just one book, who knows what their angle is or if their published data is even accurate on a large scale. That's probably less than 0.01% of all betting on this game. It may only reflect betting on that spread over the last hour, the last 10 minutes. That site may be heavily used by OSU fans. The fact of the matter, which can be read in any academic write-up about point spreads, is that the goal is 50/50 betting.
Your prize awaits you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuNJq_wI1ns
December 30th, 2022 at 10:20 AM ^
Thanks for your posts on this subject. I was beginning to wonder if my understanding of the sports gambling system works was correct. Order has been restored in the universe.
December 30th, 2022 at 10:32 AM ^
Here's information across a number of sportsbooks, still showing heavier betting on the Georgia side:
December 30th, 2022 at 11:10 AM ^
Look:
1. I am too old to be able to read what you posted
2. These numbers could be compensating for earlier, higher lines, that had heavier betting on OSU. Or there could be other biases in this sample.
3. This game could be an anomaly, where the books are off, and their adjustment dynamic is too slow. There are anomalies in statistics, and all betting isn't going to resolve to 50/50, that's just the goal because it represents zero variance, and 100% predictability of financial outcome for the book. I'm not arguing that betting, across all books and all games, isn't going to look like a Gaussian distribution, with 50/50 at the center; it certainly is. I'm arguing- against some others here who have suggested other motives for setting lines, like benevolent accuracy, or mobsters with tips on who has the man-flu- that the goal of a book is to reach 50/50, because that is an absolute guarantee that you're not going out of business and your kids will have Christmas, mistress gets that abortion, new countertops, etc.
December 30th, 2022 at 11:31 AM ^
"This game could be an anomaly."
That's been my point all along. Nice to see you finally come around.
December 30th, 2022 at 5:04 PM ^
I wasn't sure if that that was your point, or your point was that they aren't adjusting to get even betting. Do you agree that the goal of bookmakers is to get 50/50 betting? Because that is my point.
December 30th, 2022 at 11:43 AM ^
Yes, the books would love to have an equal amount of exposure to either side, but that's simply not the way the business is run, because it's not a feasible goal. The sharps are always hovering, ready to pounce if you move the line in the direction they want to see.
The books absolutely have their own statistical models that they believe in, and they know that if they deviate too far from that, they're vulnerable. If the public action is coming in on Georgia, and the line isn't moving, that's a sure sign that they're worried that the sharps will come in with huge bets on OSU if they move it to +8.5.
The crowdsourcing thing you're talking about works well if all of the bets are a similar size. They're not. and while you could adjust the spread to try to keep the current money at 50/50, that's disastrous because you don't know what the future money will be.
December 30th, 2022 at 3:33 PM ^
This is the best answer so far. All that public action on Georgia with no line movement clearly shows that the book is worried about heavy sharp action in response to a line move. You can even see "reverse" line movement in cases like this -- where the line moves against the public action in response to some sharp action on the other side. Not all bets (or all bettors) are created equal.
So yes, the book wants roughly equal action, but there are other factors involved.
Further, the line-setting for popular teams mentioned in the responses is also important. The books know the public will bet certain teams (i.e. Yankees, Lakers) and will often create their own advantages with the lines relating to those teams.
Lastly, books do take more aggressive positions on some games, when they feel like they can create an advantage. One of my heavy-betting friends has told me FanDuel does this a bit more often than other online shops, but that's just anecdotal evidence there.
December 30th, 2022 at 11:45 AM ^
Brushwood doesn't know shit about how Vegas sets their lines and it's fucking hilarious. They do try to set accurate lines and they only make the big moves either early if heavy money comes in from the sharps or if something fundamental changes about the game. Heavy public money on one side is more likely to change the big then the line.
If you honestly think Vegas just wants even money then bet against public teams like the Cowboys, Yankees, Lakers, Alabama Ohio State for s season and take in the money. Under your theory popular teams will have more advantageous lines for the teams that play against them to keep the money 50/50 so just bet on them and rake in the money.
December 30th, 2022 at 11:31 AM ^
The % of wagers on each team isn’t the same as $$$ bet on each team.
December 30th, 2022 at 11:44 AM ^
Is this a sportsbook for ants?
December 31st, 2022 at 2:09 AM ^
I agree, but there are exceptions to this. I saw today that sharp money has come in on OSU and the line dropped from OSU +6.5 to +6. That is discouraging bets on OSU, therefore I would assume that there’s more action on OSU to cover, but despite the sharp wagers, Georgia still has double the money bet on them to cover. For some reason, the Sportsbooks are okay with the exposure on Georgia. Their models must have OSU covering or they would’ve moved the line the other way to encourage even money between the schools.
I don’t see OSU covering and I’m surprised the line isn’t closer to 8.5.
December 30th, 2022 at 7:49 AM ^
They didn't build that city in the desert by setting poor betting lines.
December 30th, 2022 at 9:46 AM ^
I saw someone picking UM over TCU saying that of the 8 units (each team having an O and D), that 7 were elite, and that TCU's defense was the only non-elite unit. This makes sense, except, OSU's D is also not elite, but more of an abomination, especially their passing D, which is far worse than TCU's. OSU has played 3 offenses with a pulse, UM, PSU, Maryland. They gave up an average of 35.33 pt/game in those games. That is nothing close to elite.
December 30th, 2022 at 8:16 AM ^
Yikes. Talk about overconfidence.
I guess it shows that the trauma of our bowl performances in the 1970s and '80s really hasn't been passed to subsequent generations, but as someone who still has those terrible games ingrained in his psyche ... can we please stop talking about how we'll destroy the No. 4 team in the country?
Stuff happens. Lawrence Taylor injures John Wangler in the Gator Bowl. Steve Smith gets injured early in the Rose Bowl. The referees miss an obvious fumble or call a phantom holding penalty at the absolute worst time. The team plays super-conservative for some unknown reason. Whatever.
Just win. Please? Just win.
December 30th, 2022 at 8:20 AM ^
This person Michigans.
December 30th, 2022 at 8:51 AM ^
^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^. The list of teams with mobile QB's and scrappy offenses that have left physically dominant UM teams in their dust is simply legend.
December 30th, 2022 at 10:28 AM ^
App State
Syracuse
Oregon
...immediately comes to mind.
December 30th, 2022 at 11:14 AM ^
The accursed souls of Jarious Jackson, Troy Smith, Kevin McDougal, Cordell Stewart, Vince Young- rattle chains in my eternal nightmares.
December 30th, 2022 at 12:12 PM ^
Was Minter Michigans DC when they played those teams? Are these the same Michigan players than lost to App State 25 years ago? If so, then I'd say Michigan is in trouble tomorrow.
December 30th, 2022 at 1:19 PM ^
UM 19 Ill 17
December 30th, 2022 at 9:07 PM ^
You don't think there's any context at all that might explain that score a bit?
December 30th, 2022 at 9:29 AM ^
Unfortunately the trauma of our terrible bowl performances in the ‘70s and ‘80s that I experienced extended into the ‘90s, ‘00s, and ‘10s.
December 30th, 2022 at 10:34 AM ^
Lloyd had a nice run from the late 90's to early/mid 2000s. After losing his first two (which we probably should have won) for the 95-96 seasons, we won four in a row and five out of six (before losing the next four...)...
December 30th, 2022 at 11:43 AM ^
Some people have remarkably short memories on here. It's not just the 70s, 80s, and 90s. I believe we have lost the last 5 bowl games. I think 4 of them were on grass and most were blowout losses. I believe in our last 15 bowl games, we are 3-12 and most were on grass. History suggests that we don't play well in bowl games or on grass.
I think we win but there are reasons that the line makes sense and should not be 19 pts, for ex.
December 30th, 2022 at 12:13 PM ^
Michigan isnt playing a bowl game tomorrow. Theyre playing a playoff game with a bowl name.
December 30th, 2022 at 3:24 PM ^
What's your point? That Michigan doesn't try as hard in non-playoff games but Michigan's opponents do? That seems presumptuous to say the least.
December 30th, 2022 at 9:30 AM ^
However, it’s long been my contention that if our major bowl tie-in had been with the Cotton or Sugar bowls, we’d have won our first bowl game under Schembechler well before the 1980 season. The PAC-8/10 was not a good matchup for us at the time.
December 30th, 2022 at 9:48 AM ^
Probably true. Or, if the Rose Bowl alternated between Pasadena and Soldier Field, things might have looked different. On the other hand, we got skunked by quite a few USC teams that were power running teams too.
December 30th, 2022 at 11:19 AM ^
IMHO it wasn't dealing with a strong running game of PAC-10 teams that was a problem, it was that those teams generally had a more balanced attack, and when necessary could throw the ball effectively to keep Michigan's defense off balance.
Conversely, in the '70s and early '80s, the SWC conference (Cotton Bowl) and the SEC (Sugar Bowl) were dominated by teams running the wishbone or some version of the triple option, and Michigan generally didn't have much trouble defending that. I think the Michigan teams of '76-'78 would have handily beaten somebody in the Cotton or Sugar from those two conferences.
It's not a coincidence that Schembechler's first bowl game victory after the 1980 season was with an offense that was capable of throwing the ball as effectively as it could run it.
December 30th, 2022 at 11:26 AM ^
This is true, and U Miami essentially came along and destroyed the way of football for the SWC, Big 8 and SEC, followed closely by FSU. It's funny to think that the SEC was a marginal conference for 20 years starting from about 1981. I think Alabama had one title in there, Florida 1, Tenn 1. Not exactly a powerhouse.
December 30th, 2022 at 4:19 PM ^
This is where I am at as well. Bo / Carr / early Jim teams often had the mentality on offense of "this is what we're going to do, go ahead and try to stop it". A belief in execution on a limited number of play types led Michigan to become very predictable in these years. A team with a month to prepare found it easier to counter this type of scheme.
In 2021 and 2022, the offensive scheme changed to "yes, we're going to run, but it's going to be nuanced and varied enough that it'll be hard to stop". This worked well in two regular seasons. The 2021 CFP game was (hopefully) an outlier, since Georgia was so talented on D.
We'll see what Michigan offense shows up tomorrow -- the super-predictable one, or the team that has paved its way to 25-2 in 2021 and 2022.
December 30th, 2022 at 10:40 AM ^
I've also heard that Bo just didn't care about the Bowl games. Winning the B1G was the goal, and the bowl game didn't matter. Which blows my mind; how can a competitor play a game and not want to win? It's not like it's a truly meaningless game where your playoff position is already secured (or Illinois this year, where win or lose, everything came down to beating OSU); it's the last game of the year, with potential national title implications!
December 30th, 2022 at 10:47 AM ^
"I've also heard that Bo just didn't care about the Bowl games."
I call total, 100% BS
December 30th, 2022 at 11:16 AM ^
I'm somewhat open to what ShadowStorm said. I can remember Bo saying in a stubborn and provincial tone "Our goal is to win the Big Ten championship!" when asked about national rankings, etc. It was easy to get the sense that he didn't want to bother with football outside the Midwest.
December 30th, 2022 at 11:12 AM ^
"I've also heard that Bo just didn't care about the Bowl games."
Not true at all—in fact, it was just the opposite: Schembechler was actually criticized by some sportswriters and observers for bowl game practices that were ferocious in their intensity, to the point where many wondered if U-M's chronically flat performance in the bowl games was a result of leaving everything on the practice fields.
December 30th, 2022 at 11:21 AM ^
I can't recall what was said about his bowl practices, but if true, wouldn't that also have been an issue during the season?
As well, I wouldn't guess that USC spent the week surfing.
Aside, the Big Ten's awful Rose Bowl record in the 70s had lots of causes (demographic and cultural shifts, etc.).
December 30th, 2022 at 11:21 AM ^
I wish I could find the quote I'm thinking of. In retrospect I think it was about him not really caring about winning the national championship (winning the B1G was the prize), and to me those go hand in hand. He would have had a shot at one or two had he actually won more than a couple bowl games (2-9 in the Rose Bowl, 5-12 overall despite having I think the best winning percentage in college football over that span)...
December 30th, 2022 at 11:21 AM ^
Yea, but I do believe that before the Pac 12 became total trash (except Oregon) in the last 20 years, the Big 10 had a pretty bad record when comparing the ranking matchups. It wasn't just UM that went out there and got skunked. Remember #2 Iowa with Chuck Long who were absolutely hammered by nobody UCLA?
The Pac 10/Big 10 are almost 50/50 in Rose Bowl games. Super close. But the Big 10 has had a higher-ranked poll average all-time. So they are taking higher ranked teams. In fact, the B1G has 5 teams who place in the all time AP top 25 (7 if we counted PSU and Neb), and the Pac 10 has 3.
To my eye that suggests either underrating of the Pac 10 all time, or some kind of disadvantage to the Big 10 beyond Bo no caring.
December 30th, 2022 at 11:59 AM ^
I personally think Bo would have figured out how to win bowl games earlier if the Big Ten had allowed teams to play in bowls other than the Rose Bowl before 1975. Four of Bo's first six teams had one loss (or no losses and a tie) but still stayed home after the regular season. (As I'm sure you're well aware.)
Also, odds are fair that in at least some of those hypothetical non-Rose Bowl games (which would have been after the 1970, 1972, 1973 and 1974 seasons) Michigan would have received more favorable matchups than they did in the Rose Bowl.
December 30th, 2022 at 12:10 PM ^
100 percent.