Just in case anyone was interested and didn't want to actually check the old blog post, I thought I'd update here to let you know how much I would have won if I actually bet on the Super Bowl. To review, here are my bets.
- The Saints +5.5 (line has moved around anywhere from +4.5 to +6.5, I just saw online a line at +5.5 so I'd take that)
- Over 56.5
- Drew Brees for MVP getting 3-1 odds
- Yes a team will make a field goal in the first half (-105)
- There will not be a defensive touchdown (-170)
- Points scored by the Colts: Under 31.5 (-115)
- Points scored by the Saints: Over 25.5 (-125)
Now, let's assume I bet enough on each item to win $100 and I bet $100 on Drew Brees for MVP.
The Bet = My profit or loss
Saints +5.5 = +$100
Over 56.5 = -$110
Drew Brees MVP = +$300
Field Goal in the first half = +$100
No defensive touchdown = -$170
Colts Points Scored = +$100
Saints Points Scored = +$100
So, to clarify, I would have had 5 winning bets and 2 losing bets. Overall, I would have won $420. Personally, I would have been ecstatic to have this outcome, as it would have been a pretty good return on my money for the weekend. Oh well, maybe next year I'll find some way to bet it....you know, if gambling was legal.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
NCAA Basketball Tournament Expansion
For the last couple of weeks, there has been a lot of talk of expanding the current NCAA basketball tournament field from 65 teams to 96 teams. This would give the top 32 teams in the tournament a bye for the first game. The NCAA is supposedly giving serious consideration to this concept. I'm completely against this and I'll tell you why later in this post. There are some benefits to this expansion though, so we'll start there.
The Argument for Expansion
- Money. There. I said it. No one wants to admit it, but almost everything the NCAA does is related to the amount of money they could possibly make. A extra round of games could make them even more money in advertising as it would be two more full days of games.
- No team could complain about missing the tournament. If you don't make the top 96 teams in the country, you really don't deserve to be playing for the national championship.
- Finally, it could open the field to include not only the conference tournament winner from the smaller conferences, but it could also include the regular season champion. Imagine you play for Siena College, a small liberal arts college in upstate New York. Now, imagine you go undefeated in your conference regular season. You're 18-0 at the end of the regular season play in the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference. Because you played a tougher non-conference schedule, you're 22-4 on the season. Why should your chance at the NCAA tournament come down to how you play over 3 days at the end of the season in your conference tournament? You were by far the best team in your conference during the regular season. If you lose in the championship game of your conference tournament to a team that just shot the lights out for 3 days, do you really not deserve to go to the NCAA tournament? As it stands right now, in that scenario, Siena would not make the NCAA tournament because their conference is one that will only get one team in the tournament and it's tied to their conference tournament championship. Under the proposed 96 team field, you could include both the regular season champion and the tournament champion from the smaller conferences (knowing full well that those two are often the same team for many of the conferences).
The Argument Against Expansion
- Scheduling conflict. There is nothing better than the first weekend of the NCAA tournament. There are games on TV from noon to midnight Thursday-Sunday of opening weekend. It's the one time of the year that I wish I had a television in the bathroom as I just don't want to miss a single minute of it. Adding another round of games would likely add two more days to the tournament. Do you start the tournament on Tuesday and have 6 straight days of games? Do you start the first weekend on a Saturday and Sunday and push the rest of the tournament back a week? It's a logistical change that I'm not really looking forward to in the long run.
- A watered down product. This is my biggest complaint about expansion. Every year we have 5 or so teams that complain that they didn't make the tournament. While they might have a complaint, what are the chances that they'd actually win the tournament (or even win their first and second games of the tournament)?? The lowest seed to ever win the NCAA tournament was Villanova in 1985 as an 8 seed. What that says is, the winner of every NCAA tournament as come from the top 32 teams in the tournament. The lowest seed to ever make the Final Four was George Mason as an 11 seed. There is no need to expand the tournament. If you're not a top 30 team, the odds tell you you're not going to win anyways. Why not go to the NIT where you have a chance to compete for a title.
So, all in all, my thought is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The Argument for Expansion
- Money. There. I said it. No one wants to admit it, but almost everything the NCAA does is related to the amount of money they could possibly make. A extra round of games could make them even more money in advertising as it would be two more full days of games.
- No team could complain about missing the tournament. If you don't make the top 96 teams in the country, you really don't deserve to be playing for the national championship.
- Finally, it could open the field to include not only the conference tournament winner from the smaller conferences, but it could also include the regular season champion. Imagine you play for Siena College, a small liberal arts college in upstate New York. Now, imagine you go undefeated in your conference regular season. You're 18-0 at the end of the regular season play in the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference. Because you played a tougher non-conference schedule, you're 22-4 on the season. Why should your chance at the NCAA tournament come down to how you play over 3 days at the end of the season in your conference tournament? You were by far the best team in your conference during the regular season. If you lose in the championship game of your conference tournament to a team that just shot the lights out for 3 days, do you really not deserve to go to the NCAA tournament? As it stands right now, in that scenario, Siena would not make the NCAA tournament because their conference is one that will only get one team in the tournament and it's tied to their conference tournament championship. Under the proposed 96 team field, you could include both the regular season champion and the tournament champion from the smaller conferences (knowing full well that those two are often the same team for many of the conferences).
The Argument Against Expansion
- Scheduling conflict. There is nothing better than the first weekend of the NCAA tournament. There are games on TV from noon to midnight Thursday-Sunday of opening weekend. It's the one time of the year that I wish I had a television in the bathroom as I just don't want to miss a single minute of it. Adding another round of games would likely add two more days to the tournament. Do you start the tournament on Tuesday and have 6 straight days of games? Do you start the first weekend on a Saturday and Sunday and push the rest of the tournament back a week? It's a logistical change that I'm not really looking forward to in the long run.
- A watered down product. This is my biggest complaint about expansion. Every year we have 5 or so teams that complain that they didn't make the tournament. While they might have a complaint, what are the chances that they'd actually win the tournament (or even win their first and second games of the tournament)?? The lowest seed to ever win the NCAA tournament was Villanova in 1985 as an 8 seed. What that says is, the winner of every NCAA tournament as come from the top 32 teams in the tournament. The lowest seed to ever make the Final Four was George Mason as an 11 seed. There is no need to expand the tournament. If you're not a top 30 team, the odds tell you you're not going to win anyways. Why not go to the NIT where you have a chance to compete for a title.
So, all in all, my thought is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
If I bet it
(Writer's note: I wrote this last night, waited until this morning to post it while waiting for my client to be ready for our meeting. I was going to edit it, but I decided just to post it unedited and the way I first wrote it. I can tell I was tired and not really thinking about formatting when I wrote this...must be busy season for us accountants)
This Sunday is the Super Bowl. It's also called "Get Even Sunday," as all people that bet on professional football during the course of the year see this as the last chance to get even on the year if they had a losing year. Of course, book makers love this fact as most people who bet on sports aren't very good at it and the more that they're down, the more they'll be on the Super Bowl to get even. What makes them expect to do any better in a match-up of two of the best teams when they couldn't get things right the rest of the year?
Sports betting experts are lucky to get 2 out of every 3 bets right. If an expert gets 66% right for a year they're a genius. The average fan is lucky to get 1/3 right. Those that do best look at match-ups and pick the games each week where they see the best odds and the best match-up. When it comes to the Super Bowl, there's only one game to bet on (if you choose to bet it). To give betters more options, most odds makers will offer proposition or "prop" bets. These prop bets are based on different activities that happen during the course of the game. These range from who will win the MVP, to which player (or team) will score first, to things related to two different games (such as which will be greater, total points scored by the Saints vs. total points and rebounds by an NBA player playing the same day as the Super Bowl)
This year, there are some rather interesting prop bets out there (For those that aren't aware of sports betting, - numbers mean you have to bet that much to win 100 and + numbers mean you have to bet 100 to win that much.):
Prop Bets
First team to score will win the game: Yes (-180) No (+150)
Will New Orleans ever have a lead: Yes (-220) No (+180)
Team to score the longest touchdown: New Orleans (+110) Indianapolis (-140)
Team to commit more penalties: New Orleans (-140) Indianpolis (+110)
Either team will make a field goal in the first quarter: Yes (-105) No (-115)
Will there be a special teams touchdown: Yes (+140) No (-170)
Which team will win the coin toss: Either team (-115)
MVP Odds
Peyton Manning 5-7
Drew Brees 3-1
Pierre Thomas 11-1
Joseph Addai 11-1
Reggie Wayne 11-1
Marques Colston 14-1
Dallas Clark 15-1
Reggie Bush 15-1
Pierre Garcon 20-1
Austin Collie 25-1
Jeremy Shockey 35-1
Darren Sharper 40-1
My general thoughts on betting on the MVP is you have to decide who is going to win the game before you ever bet on the MVP. If you think the Colts are going to win, there's no reason to bet on any member of the Saints for MVP (unless you're hedging your bet, and then I think you're just chicken and second guessing your original bet, but I'm an all or nothing kind of better...you know, if gambling were legal)
Other Prop Bets
I won't bother to post them here, but you can bet on so many things. You can bet on if the first play is a run or pass. You can bet on how long each running back's first carry will go for. You can bet on total yards for each team, each player, each quarter, each half, the whole game. It's unreal the number of things that odds makers will set to try and make money besides just the outcome of the game.
If I Bet It
So, if gambling were legal, here's who I like this weekend:
- The Saints +5.5 (line has moved around anywhere from +4.5 to +6.5, I just saw online a line at +5.5 so I'd take that)
- Over 56.5
- Drew Brees for MVP getting 3-1 odds
- Yes a team will make a field goal in the first half (-105)
- There will not be a defensive touchdown (-170)
- Points scored by the Colts: Under 31.5 (-115)
- Points scored by the Saints: Over 25.5 (-125)
Like most sports betters, I'll probably be wrong, but at least it'll make the game interesting when I don't really have a rooting interest either way.
This Sunday is the Super Bowl. It's also called "Get Even Sunday," as all people that bet on professional football during the course of the year see this as the last chance to get even on the year if they had a losing year. Of course, book makers love this fact as most people who bet on sports aren't very good at it and the more that they're down, the more they'll be on the Super Bowl to get even. What makes them expect to do any better in a match-up of two of the best teams when they couldn't get things right the rest of the year?
Sports betting experts are lucky to get 2 out of every 3 bets right. If an expert gets 66% right for a year they're a genius. The average fan is lucky to get 1/3 right. Those that do best look at match-ups and pick the games each week where they see the best odds and the best match-up. When it comes to the Super Bowl, there's only one game to bet on (if you choose to bet it). To give betters more options, most odds makers will offer proposition or "prop" bets. These prop bets are based on different activities that happen during the course of the game. These range from who will win the MVP, to which player (or team) will score first, to things related to two different games (such as which will be greater, total points scored by the Saints vs. total points and rebounds by an NBA player playing the same day as the Super Bowl)
This year, there are some rather interesting prop bets out there (For those that aren't aware of sports betting, - numbers mean you have to bet that much to win 100 and + numbers mean you have to bet 100 to win that much.):
Prop Bets
First team to score will win the game: Yes (-180) No (+150)
Will New Orleans ever have a lead: Yes (-220) No (+180)
Team to score the longest touchdown: New Orleans (+110) Indianapolis (-140)
Team to commit more penalties: New Orleans (-140) Indianpolis (+110)
Either team will make a field goal in the first quarter: Yes (-105) No (-115)
Will there be a special teams touchdown: Yes (+140) No (-170)
Which team will win the coin toss: Either team (-115)
MVP Odds
Peyton Manning 5-7
Drew Brees 3-1
Pierre Thomas 11-1
Joseph Addai 11-1
Reggie Wayne 11-1
Marques Colston 14-1
Dallas Clark 15-1
Reggie Bush 15-1
Pierre Garcon 20-1
Austin Collie 25-1
Jeremy Shockey 35-1
Darren Sharper 40-1
My general thoughts on betting on the MVP is you have to decide who is going to win the game before you ever bet on the MVP. If you think the Colts are going to win, there's no reason to bet on any member of the Saints for MVP (unless you're hedging your bet, and then I think you're just chicken and second guessing your original bet, but I'm an all or nothing kind of better...you know, if gambling were legal)
Other Prop Bets
I won't bother to post them here, but you can bet on so many things. You can bet on if the first play is a run or pass. You can bet on how long each running back's first carry will go for. You can bet on total yards for each team, each player, each quarter, each half, the whole game. It's unreal the number of things that odds makers will set to try and make money besides just the outcome of the game.
If I Bet It
So, if gambling were legal, here's who I like this weekend:
- The Saints +5.5 (line has moved around anywhere from +4.5 to +6.5, I just saw online a line at +5.5 so I'd take that)
- Over 56.5
- Drew Brees for MVP getting 3-1 odds
- Yes a team will make a field goal in the first half (-105)
- There will not be a defensive touchdown (-170)
- Points scored by the Colts: Under 31.5 (-115)
- Points scored by the Saints: Over 25.5 (-125)
Like most sports betters, I'll probably be wrong, but at least it'll make the game interesting when I don't really have a rooting interest either way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
