Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

LOL @ Colin Cowherd

nice link.

vegas seems pretty resigned to the fact that they were about to take a bath even though there was still a full Q to go. I guess they didn't feel the game was "closer than the score indicated" either...
 
It's always funny to hear people characterize Vegas lines as predictive or that, the Sports Book is actually predicting a Michigan win .....

All the line is intended to do is draw as much money as possible to both sides of the number, that's it.

And from what I've been told -- alumni base, national following, etc -- Michigan is a very heavily betted team week in and out.

Cowherd was clearly wrong in his prediction, but Vegas had nothing to do with it aside from setting a line he (in his expertise) decided was too big for Michigan to cover, which it did ....and then some.
 
MichChamp02 said:
nice link.

vegas seems pretty resigned to the fact that they were about to take a bath even though there was still a full Q to go. I guess they didn't feel the game was "closer than the score indicated" either...

How do you figure? That just means they didn't think Western was going to come back to within whatever the spread was.
 
Red and Guilty said:
MichChamp02 said:
nice link.

vegas seems pretty resigned to the fact that they were about to take a bath even though there was still a full Q to go. I guess they didn't feel the game was "closer than the score indicated" either...

How do you figure? That just means they didn't think Western was going to come back to within whatever the spread was.

yes. basing that on this quote: <blockquote>"We were going to lose on the game," MGM Resorts sports book director Jay Rood told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. </blockquote> So he thought they would lose, i.e. he figured the margin of victory would be greater than 14. In my book, that's not a close game.
 
MichChamp02 said:
Red and Guilty said:
How do you figure? That just means they didn't think Western was going to come back to within whatever the spread was.

yes. basing that on this quote: <blockquote>"We were going to lose on the game," MGM Resorts sports book director Jay Rood told the Las Vegas Review-Journal. </blockquote> So he thought they would lose, i.e. he figured the margin of victory would be greater than 14. In my book, that's not a close game.

I don't follow. How does the score not being close impact whether or not the game was closer than the score indicates?
 
well, let me say it this way: he didn't expect it to get any closer, and I think after another full Q of football being played with at least a 24 point margin, the people who were acting like it was a close game that ended before WMU had a chance to answer our last score would not feel the same way.
 
MichChamp02 said:
well, let me say it this way: he didn't expect it to get any closer, and I think after another full Q of football being played with at least a 24 point margin, the people who were acting like it was a close game that ended before WMU had a chance to answer our last score would not feel the same way.

So, to be clear, that's not what I'm saying regarding the game being closer than the score. What I mean by that is that if you just look at Western's 10 points, it really doesn't capture how succesful they were getting down the field.
 
I agree with you. however when I think of the phrase "it was closer than the score indicated" I interpret that to mean, "despite the score, the losing team actually had a good chance to win the game."

I don't consider being down by 3 scores in the 3rd Q a "good chance to win the game" so I would not say "this was closer than the score indicated" about the 2011 Michigan-Western Michigan game.
 
Red and Guilty said:
MichChamp02 said:
well, let me say it this way: he didn't expect it to get any closer, and I think after another full Q of football being played with at least a 24 point margin, the people who were acting like it was a close game that ended before WMU had a chance to answer our last score would not feel the same way.

So, to be clear, that's not what I'm saying regarding the game being closer than the score. What I mean by that is that if you just look at Western's 10 points, it really doesn't capture how succesful they were getting down the field.

They were the 78th best team in the nation at moving the ball by averaging 5 yards per play. The 78th best scoring team scored 23 points, divide that total by 3/4 and you get 17.25, the game was slightly less than 3/4 so round down to 17.

Or how about, there were three other teams that averaged 5 yards per play; S. Miss, SMU, Minn, they scored 19, 14, and 17 respectively to average 16.67. Knock that down by 3/4 and you get 12.5.

So while I agree that it's accurate to say they normally would have scored more points by moving the ball at that rate, I don't understand why multiple Michigan fans would make a point to state it when the difference was so negligible, and the main reason they didn't hit the expected figure was because of the aggressive Michigan defense.
 
Ron Swanson said:
While I do agree that Cowherd puts his foot in his mouth a lot, he was spot on with the Michigan prediction. You take away the two defensive TD's plus their missed field goal, and it's a nail biter. Our offense did struggle to put up points against a lesser team. He also went 4-0 on his other 4 picks yesterday.

Not trying to hate on UofM, because I think hiring Hoke was a great long term move, but I do think the offense will be a work in progress this year. What did excite me is that although our defense still looks young and vulnerable, at least they are putting pressure on the QB and making big plays when it counts. That is something we never had with Rich Rod.

The most telling stat yesterday was Michigan's two defensive TD's in one game under Hoke. In 3 years under Rodriguez they had 4 total.

I don't know how anyone who watched that game can say it was close. The first quarter was close but not the game. The defense struggled on the first drive as I would expect a D to do when they have a new scheme and a new DC. The second WMU drive looked much the same until they dialed up the blitz and the game changed from that point on. By the third quarter UM was all over WMU pressuring and sacking Carder several times. He lost his helmet at least twice that I saw. The offense had 3 TD's all on their own and were driving for a forth when the game was delayed the 2nd time. I have no doubt in my mind that had things continued into the 4th quarter the way they were going it would have been a blow out with the score in the high forties or low fifties. Also keep in mind this is a WMU team that many have said can win the MAC so not like it's EMU or Ball State.
 
Did anyone consider that the team might of been nervous. New scheme, new coach, first game. Western isn't a joke like Akron. I would wager that we could see the same thing against ND. Team is young and people get pregame jitters. I bet the D starts out with alot of pressure.<sub></sub>
 
Part of my problem is that I missed a few drives because my dish, my local channels, or abc was down...

I felt much better about the game after watching The MIchigan Football show and seeing several plays that I missed.
 
Back
Top