2012 SEC Schedule Thread

Rucker suggested that the over/under for wins is 6.5 without a healthy Hunter and 8 with him. I'm onboard with both of you in "yeah, he's that damn important." Especially given that I'm pretty high on Justin Wilcox. We score points the way Bray and Hunter can score points, we win a lot of ballgames. If not? 20-12. 14-3. 10-7. Ring any bells?

 

That last question was rhetorical wasn't it? See how I picked up on that? We're pretty sharp around here.

 

Rucker should note that setting an ovr/und for # of wins without putting a .5 at the end of that number is either (a) sloppy, or (b) a surefire sign of an equivocator*.

*Not sure if this is an actual word. Well, I'd say I'm about 77% sure, but I'm not positive.

 

How so? I bet UNC under 8 last year. I bet Stanford over 9. I bet Nebraska under 10.

 

Yeah, certainly we can beat this Troy asshole in a game of football. Who the hell does this guy think he is, anyway?

 

High likelihood of a push. I'm not saying that Vegas doesn't set ovr/unders at whole numbers. They obviously do. But for discussion purposes, setting them at a half number is more useful.

Like yesterday afternoon I went to the Military Bowl, and I was tossing out prop bets to my friends. And in one instance I set the ovr/und for number of plays in Toledo's next scoring drive at 6.5. It would have been silly to set it at 6 or 7 because drives don't end in half plays. If I'm Vegas it isn't silly because it might be the right number to get even money on both sides. But when we're talking about a number that is going to be one of 7, 8, 9, or 10, setting the ovr/und at the whole number is just poor form.

 

Yeah, they're definitely more commonly on half numbers, but I don't think it's necessarily a problem to set it at a whole number. 8.5 is far too optimistic (not so much as a prediction but as a place to set the total), even with Hunter back. So if you feel like 7.5 is too pessimistic, you're stuck with 8.

 

Where do you think Vegas will set the line? If it does come out at 7.5 -- and it might...I at least doubt it will be any lower than that -- I might drop 5 bills on that bizznatch.

 

I see it coming out at 7.5, and I'll be all over the over. Assuming the loss to Kentucky doesn't actually have a tangible effect on next season, it will be a blessing for the gambler in us, because it'll keep expectations lower and value higher. The Vols were the only season total I missed this year (4-1), and if the team is healthy next year, they won't miss again.

I really can't see them throwing out 8 for a team coming off two straight 7 loss seasons, and a team that everybody else in the conference (see: Missouri) is already penciling in as a win. There'd be way too much under action. Florida opened this year at 7.5 (-130 under), and they were seen by many (who weren't paying attention, but many nonetheless) as a top 25 team.

 

I pretty much agree with all of this. When talking about the UK loss "blessings in disguise" are a tough thing to stomach, but it certainly won't hurt in the "keeping the line low" department. Fwiw, I thought the same thing about the UNC loss last year. Even though the game was tight, everybody other than Vol fans just saw it as a loss, and I thought that would help keep us under the radar. And it did. The fact that we didn't cover a damn 6.5 over on wins is, well.....

 

Should it?

We are going to have injuries next year. We are going to have players fail out, or flake out, or drug test out. We are going to have bad calls and unlucky bounces. Weird things, and bad things, happen.

We play an NC State team that won a bowl game. We play Missouri and Miss St teams that were better than us this year. We play Florida, Georgia, Bama, and South Carolina teams that all kicked our ass this year. We get Kentucky, who beat us, and Vandy, who probably should have.

The schedule is easier, and UT should be better, but what is it that takes us from 1-7 to 6-2? I think it is tempting to look at last season, with injuries and bad breaks and bad moods, and see the team that should have been instead of the team that was. It's also easy to look at next season and see the team that should be instead of the team that probably will.

 

Where do you guys find this action?

I will be in Vegas the first part of February and might have to look it up.

 

No way. We outplayed Vandy and almost gave it away with dumb turnovers, but there's no should've lost there.

 

Never been to Vegas, but this stuff will probably come out in late July or early August.

 

Really? I thought that was the game with a long touchdown nullified by a clip 60 yards behind the play and a blocked kick that wasn't a blocked kick leading to an overtime win.

We did outgain them 290 to 283, so I guess that's something.

 

Their longest scoring drive was 35 yards (and it was their only scoring drive of longer than 10 yards). They had one drive of more than 40 yards all game. The total yardage ended up pretty even because they got 20 yards every drive and we either had a three and out or 60 yards, but we were the only team in that game that showed the ability to sustain a drive. As far as I'm concerned, that means we should've won, even if we almost didn't.

 

Caesar's has the premier Sports book around and it's something to behold, but there are several to choose from once you get out there.

 

That was a terribly stupid interception away from being a 10 point Tennessee win.

Tennessee didn't "handle" vandy, but stupid turnovers kept it closer than it should have been

 

Caesar's itself is something to behold. It's just soooo [dadgum] big.

 

That's what she said. Yeah yeah yeah.