What? No College FB Championship Thread?

I was joking.

 

I don't know of any rules changes needed other then when the bleeping clock stops, to which I say, "very rarely."

Timeout.
Change of possession.
Replay review.

That's it.

No need to stop the clock because someone stepped out of bounds or because a pass fell incomplete. Incomplete passes have become like fouling in college basketball --- something you SHOULDN'T do that BENEFITS you as it relates to "clock management." Take that out of the equation --- the only way you're stopping the clock is by turning the ball over.

 

Was wondering about this ... apparently the books were on the hook, and they got their asses handed to them.

Clemson’s huge win was a massive loss for Las Vegas bookmakers

 

I won't even pretend to understand Vegas because more times than not they're sharp on lines, but sounds like they too were gambling on Bama a bit. Also, handles in the mere millions seem awfully low.

 

Told my degenerate gambler buddy to put his money on Clemson. I thought it was going to be as close as last year's and that Clemson was the best team Bama would face all year.

But no. He didn't think Clemson would put 10 points up against that Bama defense. He was convinced Bama would roll and win by 14.

His panicked texts in the fourth quarter were as entertaining as the game itself. Apparently, he made a wager a bit larger than his norm, large enough that he was going to have to explain himself to his wife.

 

The usual goal is to get between both sides of the wager and simply rake off the vig. But to do that you've got to estimate accurately how the late money's going to go, and sometimes the experts think the public's full of shit. So in this case, despite the fact that the public wasn't rushing in at the end to cover their Alabama bets, the books weren't interested in re-pricing (because they thought the public was wrong).

As re: the loss, a loss of a million implies a much bigger handle. Plus, Hill runs the small books (a lot of 'em) in Nevada. Those losses were as large (or larger) elsewhere.

 

I think this statement is correct some of the time.

Other times, the books try to take advantage of their superior opinion on a game and don't mind pushing as much action onto one side to capitalize. I'm not sure, but considering how exposed they were on this game, that might have been the case.

 

So you're telling me Joey Freshwater may have to learn to drive a jet ski with two broken legs?

 

That's exactly what he said with the rest of his post.

 

Prime example of the books taking a position was last year's AFC title game. Pats opened at minus three and stayed there despite 80 percent of the money coming in on New England. They won that time. Not this time. Point is, these guys aren't actuaries. They're gamblers.