Handicapping Bowl Games
Anybody who's handicapped college football for most of their lives knows
that underdogs are generally the way to go in bowl games.
They don't cover every game. But they cover more than half the time. Some
years they cover A LOT more than half the time.
In fact, last season, underdogs went 15-4 ATS against the game day lines in
what are generally conceded to be the top 20 bowl games (there was one
pick-em game). There were a couple of games that landed close to the number,
so it was possible to lessen the damage a bit if you were a favorite player
who could shop for lines or buy points. If you were a dog player, you had no
trouble finding numbers that would make you big money.
There used to be a rule of thumb before the BCS process began that said you
should take all the dogs in the minor bowls in December, but then take the
favorites on New Year's Day and beyond. Teams favored in minor bowls were
often disappointed about not playing in a better game, and that lack of
intensity cost them. On New Year's Day, the better teams would go all out
against each other, and the superior teams would take care of business.
Once the BCS began though, the number of "meaningless" games has actually
increased. Only the mythical championship game truly matters. So, it's
possible to have conference champions who have trouble getting fired up for
marquee matchups in showcase bowls. You saw SEC champion Georgia lose as a
favorite last year to West Virginia in the Sugar Bowl. Combine that with the
general increase in competitive balance across the sport in recent years,
and you're going to find some great underdog possibilities in every bowl
slate.
Why do underdogs offer such value? Several reasons:
*The public always loves betting favorites, which often puts a couple of
free points in the mix for dog players.
*The team that's perceived to be superior in a matchup has more trouble
getting motivated for an "exhibition" game than the team that's perceived to
be inferior.
*The team that's perceived to be inferior is much more likely to install
trick plays or come up with creative strategies in a game like this. The
superior teams figure they can just win by doing what they always do.
*There's much more competitive balance in college football than the wagering
public realizes, and more than the players themselves realize when they play
someone from another part of the country.
*Some teams create the illusion of dominance during the regular season by
running up the score at home against bad teams. They're not playing a bad
team in the bowl game, so they suddenly look mortal on a neutral field.
Here's a listing of some bowl underdogs that not only covered their spreads
last year, but won their games outright.
* Nebraska (+10) beat Michigan 32-28 in the Alamo Bowl
* Wisconsin (+10) beat Auburn 24-10 in the Capital One Bowl
* LSU (+7) beat Miami 40-3 in the Chick Fil-A Bowl
* Tulsa (+7) beat Fresno State 31-24 in the Liberty Bowl
* Virginia (+6) beat Minnesota 34-31 in the Music City Bowl
* West Virginia (+6) beat Georgia 38-35 in the Sugar Bowl
We're not talking about field goal games going either way. We're talking
about teams getting at least six points all winning outright. Of course, you
probably remember that Texas (+7) beat USC 41-38 for the national
championship. That long held theory of taking the favorites in games that
matter most may have gone by the wayside too.
This brings up another point. Playing underdogs on the moneyline makes a lot
of sense in college bowl games. In the top 20 bowl games last year, dogs
went 10-9 straight up (one pick-em game). If the moneyline isn't paying much
of anything, going 10-9 will make you money on the dogs. When a pair of
10-point dogs wins outright, and six teams getting six points or more are
winning, the payoffs are huge!
Should you just throw handicapping out the window and bet all the dogs this
year? Well, I'm a handicapper, I'm not going to endorse that! I would be
surprised if dogs approached 80% success again this year. But, I can tell
you that I've begun my hanicapping looking in the direction of underdogs.
I'm looking to go against:
*Favorites who are disappointed about the bowl they're going to.
*Favorites who won their regular season finale, particularly if it was a big
game.
*Favorites who have vulnerable defenses.
*Favorites who were inconsistent (or worse) in road games.
I'm looking to take:
*Underdogs with versatile offenses
*Underdogs who lost their regular season finale, particularly if it was a
big game.
*Underdogs with at least average (and preferably good) defenses.
*Underdogs who covered spreads on the road.
You never know for sure what's going to happen in college football. Maybe
the favorites will bounce back strong this year and win some blowouts. I
don't think that's likely. I think all of the tendencies that favor
underdogs in the big picture will still be in play this year. I'm expecting
dogs to cover 50-65% of the time in the next month of bowl action. I
strongly advise you to shade your action in that direction.
Be sure you like a favorite for the right reasons if you're going to lay the
points. If you already like a dog, think about the moneyline payouts for a
straight up victory. History is speaking loud and clear when it comes to
bowl games.
|
|
