(06-18-2015 09:47 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:12 AM)airtroop Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 08:48 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  It usually is easy money. That may be why the bookies are having a hard time. Of course the spread is more influenced on them trying to get people betting as much as them trying to predict the outcome. Of course listening to WVU fans, you would think anything less than 35 point spread is insulting to them. Go ahead and set it that high. I'll take the money and a win in hilly billy land.

Vegas sets and moves the lines in an effort to make 10% on each game in "juice", a.k.a. "vig". The intent is to have (for example) just as many dollars wagered on Ohio -11 and Idaho +11. If there were $10M bet each way, Vegas makes 10% on the entire $20M, which is why the lines move up and down regularly. If 80% of the money is wagered on Ohio -11 and 20% on Idaho +11 and Ohio covers, Vegas (and bookies) only make 10% on the Idaho bettors (+$40K) and LOSE 100% of the Ohio wagers (-$19,960,000) resulting in a disastrous Vegas loss of -$19,920,000 on the deal.

Individual bookies, at least the successful ones, do the same thing which is why their lines might be different than the Vegas lines at any given time. Here's an example. Down here in LA (Lower Alabama) everybody takes Auburn and Alabama to cover the spread, so since Alabama doesn't have legal sportsbetting they (the bookies) don't have to compete with Vegas and therefore; they may increase their line to Alabama -20 while Vegas has -15 to encourage more bettors to take the underdog.

The books don't set the lines at what the individual oddsmakers really THINK will be the result as much as they go by what they THINK will entice bettors to lay down equal money on both the underdog and the favorite.

Just in case anybody was wondering

***FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a professional sports handicapper (NOT to be confused with a bookie. My profession is 100% legal in every state).

Thanks airtroop. Glad you could explain this clearly. Too often people see these lines and misinterpret their meaning (in other words, disrespecting your team, thinking highly of your team, etc.). When they're really there to entice bettors as a whole to put equal money on both sides.

yep, just tiresome to be looked at as such an underdog just cause another fan base will bet big that they win big. It's ok, just makes it easier to earn some money by beating the spread. I prefer the win, but a little cash allows one to buy more drinks to forget the loss.

I will take StAte and ULM…

Southern Cal is overrated like usual.

UGA has a new QB, a new OC, and ULM's defense will keep that one from getting out of hand.

(06-18-2015 08:44 AM)I AM an Eagle! Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 08:39 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  I would assume WVU by 15, but maybe they are having a hard time with this one. GS is like 20-1 (maybe not that high, but I think we've only not be the spread when given once) against the spread. If they come out with anything higher than WVU -17.5, take GS to beat the spread.

NC State was something like -22 and so was Georgia Tech. If it's anything like that then it's easy money just like those games were.

Navy was not easy money

(06-18-2015 09:52 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  yep, just tiresome to be looked at as such an underdog just cause another fan base will bet big that they win big. It's ok, just makes it easier to earn some money by beating the spread. I prefer the win, but a little cash allows one to buy more drinks to forget the loss.

I'm sure it would already be exploited if it's really a phenomenon, but I've often wondered if there are some nationally popular teams (e.g. Cowboys, Notre Dame) that one could make money on just by always betting against vs. the spread. I don't doubt that a cursory glance at these teams' success vs. the spread would tell me I'm way off, but it wouldn't surprise me if, over the course of years at least, there are some teams with trends like this due to popularity.

(06-18-2015 09:47 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:12 AM)airtroop Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 08:48 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  It usually is easy money. That may be why the bookies are having a hard time. Of course the spread is more influenced on them trying to get people betting as much as them trying to predict the outcome. Of course listening to WVU fans, you would think anything less than 35 point spread is insulting to them. Go ahead and set it that high. I'll take the money and a win in hilly billy land.

Vegas sets and moves the lines in an effort to make 10% on each game in "juice", a.k.a. "vig". The intent is to have (for example) just as many dollars wagered on Ohio -11 and Idaho +11. If there were $10M bet each way, Vegas makes 10% on the entire $20M, which is why the lines move up and down regularly. If 80% of the money is wagered on Ohio -11 and 20% on Idaho +11 and Ohio covers, Vegas (and bookies) only make 10% on the Idaho bettors (+$40K) and LOSE 100% of the Ohio wagers (-$19,960,000) resulting in a disastrous Vegas loss of -$19,920,000 on the deal.

Individual bookies, at least the successful ones, do the same thing which is why their lines might be different than the Vegas lines at any given time. Here's an example. Down here in LA (Lower Alabama) everybody takes Auburn and Alabama to cover the spread, so since Alabama doesn't have legal sportsbetting they (the bookies) don't have to compete with Vegas and therefore; they may increase their line to Alabama -20 while Vegas has -15 to encourage more bettors to take the underdog.

The books don't set the lines at what the individual oddsmakers really THINK will be the result as much as they go by what they THINK will entice bettors to lay down equal money on both the underdog and the favorite.

Just in case anybody was wondering

***FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a professional sports handicapper (NOT to be confused with a bookie. My profession is 100% legal in every state).

Thanks airtroop. Glad you could explain this clearly. Too often people see these lines and misinterpret their meaning (in other words, disrespecting your team, thinking highly of your team, etc.). When they're really there to entice bettors as a whole to put equal money on both sides.

(06-18-2015 10:55 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:52 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  yep, just tiresome to be looked at as such an underdog just cause another fan base will bet big that they win big. It's ok, just makes it easier to earn some money by beating the spread. I prefer the win, but a little cash allows one to buy more drinks to forget the loss.

I'm sure it would already be exploited if it's really a phenomenon, but I've often wondered if there are some nationally popular teams (e.g. Cowboys, Notre Dame) that one could make money on just by always betting against vs. the spread. I don't doubt that a cursory glance at these teams' success vs. the spread would tell me I'm way off, but it wouldn't surprise me if, over the course of years at least, there are some teams with trends like this due to popularity.

Nope. A team's popularity or non-popularity (i.e., public perception) is actually already factored into the algorithms. Each team in each matchup is literally assigned a point value by both we handicappers (predictors against the spread) and the oddsmakers (inventors of the spread).

Other factors among way too many to list here include home field advantage (everyone thinks it's 3 points in the NFL but that's just an approximate average but the Saints were +4.5 pts LY while the Titans were +1.8), star players missing (Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers were both worth -4 points apiece LY), "Big Name" / public perception (LY "Packers" automatically had +2.5 points worked into the typical algorithm for just being "the Packers"), etc., etc., etc., blah-blah-blah.

To your original question, just watch the football pre-game shows and see just how awful almost ALL of these former coaches, players, GM's, etc., are at predicting straight up winners much less picking against the spread. Most of them would lose their a$$e$ to the bookies and Vegas.

***FULL DISCLOSURE: I don't play a handicapper on TV.

(06-18-2015 11:30 AM)airtroop Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:47 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:12 AM)airtroop Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 08:48 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  It usually is easy money. That may be why the bookies are having a hard time. Of course the spread is more influenced on them trying to get people betting as much as them trying to predict the outcome. Of course listening to WVU fans, you would think anything less than 35 point spread is insulting to them. Go ahead and set it that high. I'll take the money and a win in hilly billy land.

Vegas sets and moves the lines in an effort to make 10% on each game in "juice", a.k.a. "vig". The intent is to have (for example) just as many dollars wagered on Ohio -11 and Idaho +11. If there were $10M bet each way, Vegas makes 10% on the entire $20M, which is why the lines move up and down regularly. If 80% of the money is wagered on Ohio -11 and 20% on Idaho +11 and Ohio covers, Vegas (and bookies) only make 10% on the Idaho bettors (+$40K) and LOSE 100% of the Ohio wagers (-$19,960,000) resulting in a disastrous Vegas loss of -$19,920,000 on the deal.

Individual bookies, at least the successful ones, do the same thing which is why their lines might be different than the Vegas lines at any given time. Here's an example. Down here in LA (Lower Alabama) everybody takes Auburn and Alabama to cover the spread, so since Alabama doesn't have legal sportsbetting they (the bookies) don't have to compete with Vegas and therefore; they may increase their line to Alabama -20 while Vegas has -15 to encourage more bettors to take the underdog.

The books don't set the lines at what the individual oddsmakers really THINK will be the result as much as they go by what they THINK will entice bettors to lay down equal money on both the underdog and the favorite.

Just in case anybody was wondering

***FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a professional sports handicapper (NOT to be confused with a bookie. My profession is 100% legal in every state).

Thanks airtroop. Glad you could explain this clearly. Too often people see these lines and misinterpret their meaning (in other words, disrespecting your team, thinking highly of your team, etc.). When they're really there to entice bettors as a whole to put equal money on both sides.

(06-18-2015 10:55 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:52 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  yep, just tiresome to be looked at as such an underdog just cause another fan base will bet big that they win big. It's ok, just makes it easier to earn some money by beating the spread. I prefer the win, but a little cash allows one to buy more drinks to forget the loss.

I'm sure it would already be exploited if it's really a phenomenon, but I've often wondered if there are some nationally popular teams (e.g. Cowboys, Notre Dame) that one could make money on just by always betting against vs. the spread. I don't doubt that a cursory glance at these teams' success vs. the spread would tell me I'm way off, but it wouldn't surprise me if, over the course of years at least, there are some teams with trends like this due to popularity.

Nope. A team's popularity or non-popularity (i.e., public perception) is actually already factored into the algorithms. Each team in each matchup is literally assigned a point value by both we handicappers (predictors against the spread) and the oddsmakers (inventors of the spread).

Other factors among way too many to list here include home field advantage (everyone thinks it's 3 points in the NFL but that's just an approximate average but the Saints were +4.5 pts LY while the Titans were +1.8), star players missing (Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers were both worth -4 points apiece LY), "Big Name" / public perception (LY "Packers" automatically had +2.5 points worked into the typical algorithm for just being "the Packers"), etc., etc., etc., blah-blah-blah.

To your original question, just watch the football pre-game shows and see just how awful almost ALL of these former coaches, players, GM's, etc., are at predicting straight up winners much less picking against the spread. Most of them would lose their a$$e$ to the bookies and Vegas.

***FULL DISCLOSURE: I don't play a handicapper on TV.

There's a reason they call it "Lost Wages," Nevada. . . .

(06-17-2015 09:27 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  After AState beats USC, will it be the biggest upset in league history, or was ULM a bigger underdog against the pigs?

I think ULM's win over Alabama was bigger than Arkansas. While at the time, it seemed the Arkansas win was bigger since they were ranked something like 5th in the nation and were a "national title contender" with two Heisman hopefuls. They went on to finish 4-8 with a joke of a coach in John L. Smith who was hired for one year. Alabama went on to finish 7-6 with a bowl win in Saban's first year. However, they had to vacate five of those wins. The Arkansas win was definitely more meaningful to Arkansas State fans though!

(06-18-2015 12:54 PM)Bobcat87 Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 11:30 AM)airtroop Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:47 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:12 AM)airtroop Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 08:48 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  It usually is easy money. That may be why the bookies are having a hard time. Of course the spread is more influenced on them trying to get people betting as much as them trying to predict the outcome. Of course listening to WVU fans, you would think anything less than 35 point spread is insulting to them. Go ahead and set it that high. I'll take the money and a win in hilly billy land.

Vegas sets and moves the lines in an effort to make 10% on each game in "juice", a.k.a. "vig". The intent is to have (for example) just as many dollars wagered on Ohio -11 and Idaho +11. If there were $10M bet each way, Vegas makes 10% on the entire $20M, which is why the lines move up and down regularly. If 80% of the money is wagered on Ohio -11 and 20% on Idaho +11 and Ohio covers, Vegas (and bookies) only make 10% on the Idaho bettors (+$40K) and LOSE 100% of the Ohio wagers (-$19,960,000) resulting in a disastrous Vegas loss of -$19,920,000 on the deal.

Individual bookies, at least the successful ones, do the same thing which is why their lines might be different than the Vegas lines at any given time. Here's an example. Down here in LA (Lower Alabama) everybody takes Auburn and Alabama to cover the spread, so since Alabama doesn't have legal sportsbetting they (the bookies) don't have to compete with Vegas and therefore; they may increase their line to Alabama -20 while Vegas has -15 to encourage more bettors to take the underdog.

The books don't set the lines at what the individual oddsmakers really THINK will be the result as much as they go by what they THINK will entice bettors to lay down equal money on both the underdog and the favorite.

Just in case anybody was wondering

***FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a professional sports handicapper (NOT to be confused with a bookie. My profession is 100% legal in every state).

Thanks airtroop. Glad you could explain this clearly. Too often people see these lines and misinterpret their meaning (in other words, disrespecting your team, thinking highly of your team, etc.). When they're really there to entice bettors as a whole to put equal money on both sides.

(06-18-2015 10:55 AM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:52 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  yep, just tiresome to be looked at as such an underdog just cause another fan base will bet big that they win big. It's ok, just makes it easier to earn some money by beating the spread. I prefer the win, but a little cash allows one to buy more drinks to forget the loss.

I'm sure it would already be exploited if it's really a phenomenon, but I've often wondered if there are some nationally popular teams (e.g. Cowboys, Notre Dame) that one could make money on just by always betting against vs. the spread. I don't doubt that a cursory glance at these teams' success vs. the spread would tell me I'm way off, but it wouldn't surprise me if, over the course of years at least, there are some teams with trends like this due to popularity.

Nope. A team's popularity or non-popularity (i.e., public perception) is actually already factored into the algorithms. Each team in each matchup is literally assigned a point value by both we handicappers (predictors against the spread) and the oddsmakers (inventors of the spread).

Other factors among way too many to list here include home field advantage (everyone thinks it's 3 points in the NFL but that's just an approximate average but the Saints were +4.5 pts LY while the Titans were +1.8), star players missing (Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers were both worth -4 points apiece LY), "Big Name" / public perception (LY "Packers" automatically had +2.5 points worked into the typical algorithm for just being "the Packers"), etc., etc., etc., blah-blah-blah.

To your original question, just watch the football pre-game shows and see just how awful almost ALL of these former coaches, players, GM's, etc., are at predicting straight up winners much less picking against the spread. Most of them would lose their a$$e$ to the bookies and Vegas.

***FULL DISCLOSURE: I don't play a handicapper on TV.

There's a reason they call it "Lost Wages," Nevada. . . .

Yep. As a pro handicapper, and one of the best in the world (as ranked by independent capper monitoring sites) I will admit NOBODY gets rich betting sports. My goal is to deliver a 10% season-long ROI (return on investment or pure profit after the juice) to my clients. I've gone as high as +17% in a great NFL year and as low as +5% in a bad NBA year (but not even the sharpest banker can give you a 5% ROI in a few short months).

A $20 per wager bettor makes 10% on his season and a $1M per bettor makes 10% (+ or -) as does the $100 bettor. The rich get 10% richer and the average gambler makes a little bit of extra money but the point is my clients beat the stock and money markets as an investment. The jerks who are ranked HUNDREDS of spots below me are the ones who do those radio ads tempting the fools to believe they can get rich by buying their picks. I despise them because they give the industry a bad name by delivering a substandard product.

Here's a fantastic example to prove my point. Everybody getting tired of that blowhard Jonathan Stone and his constant national sports radio hype? The guy who "Knows the outcome before the game has even started"? Find out where he's ranked FOR REAL (hint: go to 400 and scroll down). I'm at #87 in the world at this moment. He's rich, I'm not... because I'm honest... but at least I can live comfortably in my own skin.

EDIT: Typos, typos, typos!!!

(06-18-2015 01:34 PM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(06-17-2015 09:27 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  After AState beats USC, will it be the biggest upset in league history, or was ULM a bigger underdog against the pigs?

I think ULM's win over Alabama was bigger than Arkansas. While at the time, it seemed the Arkansas win was bigger since they were ranked something like 5th in the nation and were a "national title contender" with two Heisman hopefuls. They went on to finish 4-8 with a joke of a coach in John L. Smith who was hired for one year. Alabama went on to finish 7-6 with a bowl win in Saban's first year. However, they had to vacate five of those wins. The Arkansas win was definitely more meaningful to Arkansas State fans though!

Alabama was only a 24 point favorite.

(06-18-2015 09:47 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:12 AM)airtroop Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 08:48 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  It usually is easy money. That may be why the bookies are having a hard time. Of course the spread is more influenced on them trying to get people betting as much as them trying to predict the outcome. Of course listening to WVU fans, you would think anything less than 35 point spread is insulting to them. Go ahead and set it that high. I'll take the money and a win in hilly billy land.

Vegas sets and moves the lines in an effort to make 10% on each game in "juice", a.k.a. "vig". The intent is to have (for example) just as many dollars wagered on Ohio -11 and Idaho +11. If there were $10M bet each way, Vegas makes 10% on the entire $20M, which is why the lines move up and down regularly. If 80% of the money is wagered on Ohio -11 and 20% on Idaho +11 and Ohio covers, Vegas (and bookies) only make 10% on the Idaho bettors (+$40K) and LOSE 100% of the Ohio wagers (-$19,960,000) resulting in a disastrous Vegas loss of -$19,920,000 on the deal.

Individual bookies, at least the successful ones, do the same thing which is why their lines might be different than the Vegas lines at any given time. Here's an example. Down here in LA (Lower Alabama) everybody takes Auburn and Alabama to cover the spread, so since Alabama doesn't have legal sportsbetting they (the bookies) don't have to compete with Vegas and therefore; they may increase their line to Alabama -20 while Vegas has -15 to encourage more bettors to take the underdog.

The books don't set the lines at what the individual oddsmakers really THINK will be the result as much as they go by what they THINK will entice bettors to lay down equal money on both the underdog and the favorite.

Just in case anybody was wondering

***FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a professional sports handicapper (NOT to be confused with a bookie. My profession is 100% legal in every state).

Thanks airtroop. Glad you could explain this clearly. Too often people see these lines and misinterpret their meaning (in other words, disrespecting your team, thinking highly of your team, etc.). When they're really there to entice bettors as a whole to put equal money on both sides.

When he said, down here in LA, I thought he was posting from Lake Arthur.

(06-18-2015 08:38 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:47 AM)CajunFan3406 Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 09:12 AM)airtroop Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 08:48 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  It usually is easy money. That may be why the bookies are having a hard time. Of course the spread is more influenced on them trying to get people betting as much as them trying to predict the outcome. Of course listening to WVU fans, you would think anything less than 35 point spread is insulting to them. Go ahead and set it that high. I'll take the money and a win in hilly billy land.

Vegas sets and moves the lines in an effort to make 10% on each game in "juice", a.k.a. "vig". The intent is to have (for example) just as many dollars wagered on Ohio -11 and Idaho +11. If there were $10M bet each way, Vegas makes 10% on the entire $20M, which is why the lines move up and down regularly. If 80% of the money is wagered on Ohio -11 and 20% on Idaho +11 and Ohio covers, Vegas (and bookies) only make 10% on the Idaho bettors (+$40K) and LOSE 100% of the Ohio wagers (-$19,960,000) resulting in a disastrous Vegas loss of -$19,920,000 on the deal.

Individual bookies, at least the successful ones, do the same thing which is why their lines might be different than the Vegas lines at any given time. Here's an example. Down here in LA (Lower Alabama) everybody takes Auburn and Alabama to cover the spread, so since Alabama doesn't have legal sportsbetting they (the bookies) don't have to compete with Vegas and therefore; they may increase their line to Alabama -20 while Vegas has -15 to encourage more bettors to take the underdog.

The books don't set the lines at what the individual oddsmakers really THINK will be the result as much as they go by what they THINK will entice bettors to lay down equal money on both the underdog and the favorite.

Just in case anybody was wondering

***FULL DISCLOSURE: I am a professional sports handicapper (NOT to be confused with a bookie. My profession is 100% legal in every state).

Thanks airtroop. Glad you could explain this clearly. Too often people see these lines and misinterpret their meaning (in other words, disrespecting your team, thinking highly of your team, etc.). When they're really there to entice bettors as a whole to put equal money on both sides.

When he said, down here in LA, I thought he was posting from Lake Arthur.

Lake Arthur....You talking about Louisiana's Best Kept Secret!

http://www.lakearthurfestivals.com/

(06-18-2015 06:55 AM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  Nice to see GSU favored by nearly 8.

I'll take GSU to win, but UNCC to cover.

disagree, GSU will win by more than 8, I say between 10-13, got faith in you guys!!

GSU will win by 21.5. UNCC has never beaten a fully-scholorshipped FCS team that wasn't an HBCU. They won't be ready for the talent and depth of an FBS team, even GaSt.

Just something I have learned for years watching GSU football...

1. If we are favored to win by more than a field goal... we will win by a field goal or less
2. We have covered every spread against a P5 team.
3. If we have been favored to lose by less than a touchdown(almost want to say 10 points)... we will get blown out.
4. If we have been favored to lose by more than 14... we will cover.

*If you apply these rules to betting on GSU and win, I get 10%.

(06-18-2015 07:48 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 01:34 PM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(06-17-2015 09:27 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  After AState beats USC, will it be the biggest upset in league history, or was ULM a bigger underdog against the pigs?

I think ULM's win over Alabama was bigger than Arkansas. While at the time, it seemed the Arkansas win was bigger since they were ranked something like 5th in the nation and were a "national title contender" with two Heisman hopefuls. They went on to finish 4-8 with a joke of a coach in John L. Smith who was hired for one year. Alabama went on to finish 7-6 with a bowl win in Saban's first year. However, they had to vacate five of those wins. The Arkansas win was definitely more meaningful to Arkansas State fans though!

Alabama was only a 24 point favorite.

I don't think the point spread matters in this discussion. Both ULM victories were devastating to Alabama and Arkansas but the Tide was able to quickly rebound, going undefeated in non-SEC games in Bryant-Denny Stadium since then. I doubt we'll change that streak when we play them in September. In fact, the Tide probably doesn't even look at it as a revenge game...their loss to ULM probably made them into the program they are today. Saban will probably thank us after the game.

When we beat Arkansas we had taken out their Heisman-candidate QB and the Hogs had to face #1 Alabama the next weekend with a true freshman quarterback. They were killed 52-0 and their 2012 season, for all practical purposes, was over just three games in. There was nothing for them to play for after such high hopes and it showed. They were a talented team with no direction in a situation that nobody would want to be in. That ULM loss is a monkey they have yet to get off their backs despite a winning season (7-6) and a bowl win last year.

If the Warhawks are to pull off any upsets this year it'll have to come from inside the conference. I feel good about us against Tulsa and Hawaii so I wouldn't consider them upsets.

(06-23-2015 05:50 PM)SOT1977 Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 07:48 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 01:34 PM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(06-17-2015 09:27 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  After AState beats USC, will it be the biggest upset in league history, or was ULM a bigger underdog against the pigs?

I think ULM's win over Alabama was bigger than Arkansas. While at the time, it seemed the Arkansas win was bigger since they were ranked something like 5th in the nation and were a "national title contender" with two Heisman hopefuls. They went on to finish 4-8 with a joke of a coach in John L. Smith who was hired for one year. Alabama went on to finish 7-6 with a bowl win in Saban's first year. However, they had to vacate five of those wins. The Arkansas win was definitely more meaningful to Arkansas State fans though!

Alabama was only a 24 point favorite.

I don't think the point spread matters in this discussion. Both ULM victories were devastating to Alabama and Arkansas but the Tide was able to quickly rebound, going undefeated in non-SEC games in Bryant-Denny Stadium since then. I doubt we'll change that streak when we play them in September. In fact, the Tide probably doesn't even look at it as a revenge game...their loss to ULM probably made them into the program they are today. Saban will probably thank us after the game.

When we beat Arkansas we had taken out their Heisman-candidate QB and the Hogs had to face #1 Alabama the next weekend with a true freshman quarterback. They were killed 52-0 and their 2012 season, for all practical purposes, was over just three games in. There was nothing for them to play for after such high hopes and it showed. They were a talented team with no direction in a situation that nobody would want to be in. That ULM loss is a monkey they have yet to get off their backs despite a winning season (7-6) and a bowl win last year.

If the Warhawks are to pull off any upsets this year it'll have to come from inside the conference. I feel good about us against Tulsa and Hawaii so I wouldn't consider them upsets.

Yes, and your program will forever be appreciated greatly in Jonesboro because of that wonderful day.

I still remember where I was when that game ended, and the thoroughly enjoyable radio call of the final play out of the Pigs Sports Network. It was a truly awesome day, and I do hope it is repeated sometime soon.

(06-23-2015 10:53 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 05:50 PM)SOT1977 Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 07:48 PM)WinstonTheWolf Wrote:  

(06-18-2015 01:34 PM)GoBigRed26 Wrote:  

(06-17-2015 09:27 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  After AState beats USC, will it be the biggest upset in league history, or was ULM a bigger underdog against the pigs?

I think ULM's win over Alabama was bigger than Arkansas. While at the time, it seemed the Arkansas win was bigger since they were ranked something like 5th in the nation and were a "national title contender" with two Heisman hopefuls. They went on to finish 4-8 with a joke of a coach in John L. Smith who was hired for one year. Alabama went on to finish 7-6 with a bowl win in Saban's first year. However, they had to vacate five of those wins. The Arkansas win was definitely more meaningful to Arkansas State fans though!

Alabama was only a 24 point favorite.

I don't think the point spread matters in this discussion. Both ULM victories were devastating to Alabama and Arkansas but the Tide was able to quickly rebound, going undefeated in non-SEC games in Bryant-Denny Stadium since then. I doubt we'll change that streak when we play them in September. In fact, the Tide probably doesn't even look at it as a revenge game...their loss to ULM probably made them into the program they are today. Saban will probably thank us after the game.

When we beat Arkansas we had taken out their Heisman-candidate QB and the Hogs had to face #1 Alabama the next weekend with a true freshman quarterback. They were killed 52-0 and their 2012 season, for all practical purposes, was over just three games in. There was nothing for them to play for after such high hopes and it showed. They were a talented team with no direction in a situation that nobody would want to be in. That ULM loss is a monkey they have yet to get off their backs despite a winning season (7-6) and a bowl win last year.

If the Warhawks are to pull off any upsets this year it'll have to come from inside the conference. I feel good about us against Tulsa and Hawaii so I wouldn't consider them upsets.

Yes, and your program will forever be appreciated greatly in Jonesboro because of that wonderful day.

I still remember where I was when that game ended, and the thoroughly enjoyable radio call of the final play out of the Pigs Sports Network. It was a truly awesome day, and I do hope it is repeated sometime soon.

I do too! I was lucky enough to be at both the Alabama and Arkansas games.

(06-23-2015 10:53 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Yes, and your program will forever be appreciated greatly in Jonesboro because of that wonderful day.

I still remember where I was when that game ended, and the thoroughly enjoyable radio call of the final play out of the Pigs Sports Network. It was a truly awesome day, and I do hope it is repeated sometime soon.

Read your posts on the GS board about Arkansas. The mental image of a home crowd giving a standing ovation for an opposing team for beating Arkansas gave me a nice chuckle.