Michigan 56, Hawaii 10, Post Game Comments

[iam416]

I have it on good authority that Wizard has a giant sack of stifles he’d like to give you.

Why don’t you head west until you smell frozen chicken and ketchup and collect.

[Hannibal]

hah hah. Oh, wait a minute, whoops! I think that I might have accidentally found the spread for the 2016 Michigan Hawaii game. That spread was 40.5. The spread for this one appears to be 49.5

[THE_WIZARD_]

stifle

[Mike]

Lay the points.

[Hannibal]

Lay the points.

I agree, although at 49.5, you're risking getting into "backdoor cover against the 3rd string" territory. If they score a TD to make the game 66-17 in the 4th quarter then we don't cover. 49.5 points -- dayumm that is a big spread.

[Jeff Buchanan]

you're risking getting into "backdoor cover against the 3rd string" territory. If they score a TD to make the game 66-17 in the 4th quarter then we don't cover. 49.5 points

This is why I think wagering on CFB games is insane. Sure, wagering small sums can be entertaining and add some spice to a weekend of CFB games one bets on. That assumes one doesn't have evidence of a gambling addiction, something that is all too common even among low end bettors.

Predicting spreads or final scores at the start of the season is pretty innocent stuff I guess it's just highly unreliable guess work though hardly worth my effort which would characteristically involve spending time searching for and analyzing available data - something I'm trying to avoid doing this season.

Challenged by talent's post in another thread that M's and osu's football teams were "pretty close" wrt season W/L prospects, I set out to either prove or disprove that on the basis of an anaysis of each team's offenses. The effort took a lot of time and produced confirmation that the teams were remarkably close based on my analysis. Proving to me, all things remaining constant, it's not a game I'll be boldly predicting a score let alone wagering on.

[iam416]

50 is a huge number. Hawaii isn't scoring 17, but it's still a huge number.

40 is a big number, but it's one M would have easily covered.

My objection was to this whole "we can't know" stuff or that we're all just guessing. Now, when it comes to the actual point spread, Vegas is pretty good. They do a very good job of setting numbers and then, more often than not, allow the public to move the line somewhat. So, betting, on a whole, is hard. However, it's not like we don't have some clue. Or even a good clue. I mean, Vegas isn't picking these numbers out of thin air. The people on this thread weren't flipping coins when they said M would plaster a really awful CSU team.

I'll also note that early season games often allow for the most value. Once Vegas gets full on into season analytics the numbers get even more accurate and harder to play. Early season games allow for a "pre-analytics" number of sorts which can be off a bit. For example, I think it was very clear that CSU had zero chance ot stopping M's offense in any meaningful way. And, for that matter, that M's defense was a bad matchup for CSU's offense.

In the Hawai'i game, I'd bet a huge amount of money on Michigan winning by at least 40. Whether I can get myself to 50 is another question. I feel like halftime score is going to be something like 38-0 or 42-0 minimum. If things (red zone penalities) go really south for M, then maybe 34-0. If things go well -- quicker strikes instead of prolonged drives -- then 49 or 56. But I see it at 40 at half. Then I think the 3rd Q is +14 for M and the 4th Q likely a draw or +7. So, I have it about 52-55 and that's probably includes a MoE of maybe -7 and +20. So, I have the range about about 45-73. Based on that, the -50 is a good, but loseable bet while, e.g., -40 is an outstanding, bet the farm wager.

As for Ohio State and M, it doesn't take a deep dive to compare offenses. The QBs are a known value. The RBs are a known value, though you need to subjectively assess the jumps Henderson and Edwards will make from true Frosh to true Soph. But, that's not terribly variable. The WRs are mostly known, though OSU's WR corps involves more guesswork and possibly more variance. The OL play is probably the hardest to assess even with known roster quantities. It's also the first year for Frye at OSU. So, I'd have M with the better OL as of now. I think the gap is closer after watching OSU play ND.

But, none of that took a deep dive. That just took knowing the teams. And, for that matter, knowing the teams also means you don't spend "a lot of time" coming up with a conclusion that JJ McCarthy is better than CJ Stroud.

Finally, I wouldn't ordinarily muck up a game thread with this shit, but since Maryland is best team M plays in Septemeber....by about 35 points!....might as well. You're basically just killing time until you can starting trumping up the horrors of playing the Genius of Ferentz and his Point a Quarter offense.

[lineygoblue]

You're basically just killing time until you can starting trumping up the horrors of playing the Genius of Ferentz and his Point a Quarter offense.

On paper, with basically the same analysis you used above, Michigan should roll into Kinnick and beat Iowa handily. It shouldn't be close.

But then again, its CFB. Its like the game last night where the FSU OC called for a pitch play on a potentially game ending touchdown run. Who does that? Same goes with Harbaugh and Ferentz. Both have had brain fart calls in recent times where they have lost games because of those calls.

Nobody would be happier than this fat old Michigan fan to see the Wolverines go into Kinnick at night, and beat the snot out of the Hawkeyes. But I don't think M has ever won a night game at Kinnick. Their last win was 2005, I believe. Iowa just plays better with the big loud 'blackout' crowd at Kinnick.

I'm tempering my expectations until I see real results instead of speculation based on one game.

[iam416]

Regarding the FSU/LSU game, the line was LSU -2'. It ended up FSU -1 in the game. Not a lot of variance. Which is to say, based on the accuracy of that line, if M is favored by 21 at Iowa -- and it will be something like that -- then it will be close to that number.

I'm tempering my expectations until I see real results instead of speculation based on one game.

Hawaii and UConn aren't games you can really base anything on. Again, NEBRASKA would destroy those teams. Destroy them.

Maryland is the first "real" team you play. At home.

It's an awful, awful, awful schedule. Doesn't mean M isn't really, really good. But it does mean that their first 11 games are really easy with the 2 best teams on the schedule coming to M. The last game is hard, no doubt.

[Da Geezer]

It's an awful, awful, awful schedule. Doesn't mean M isn't really, really good. But it does mean that their first 11 games are really easy with the 2 best teams on the schedule coming to M. The last game is hard, no doubt.

I'll probably have to say this every week, but M has the kind of schedule that any team that wants to get into the playoffs should have.

If we have learned anything about the playoff system, it is that overall record is the deciding factor as compared to Strength of Schedule. Washington a few years ago is a prime example. So was Cincinnati last year. This idea that a group of football experts looks at the field and picks the four best teams is fantasy. Records are compared, rankings, as developed over the season, are adjusted as teams lose games, and the resulting "top four" are picked. An undefeated Cincinnati has a better chance to advance than a one-loss OSU even though OSU would beat Cin like a rented mule.

If records count above all else, a school is stupid to schedule a murderer's row of tough games.

A simple solution would be to have the potential field that the committee considers at year-end to be the schools with a top-50 SOS. This would also encourage contenders to schedule each other in non-conference games.

UM has the 54th toughest schedule to start the season this year. I doubt they would be eligible for the playoffs under my plan. Maybe this would change under the 12-team format. But still a SOS requirement would be useful.

[Jeff Buchanan]

However, it's not like we don't have some clue. Or even a good clue. I mean, Vegas isn't picking these numbers out of thin air. The people on this thread weren't flipping coins when they said M would plaster a really awful CSU team.

I think you underestimate how much you actually "know" analytically compared to the majority of CFB fans including those that post here. For example, I have a low level of knowledge when it comes to betting lines from Vegas, such lines derived analytically. You, OTH, have a lot of knowledge about this stuff. I also think that intrinsically, you "know" a lot more about CFB based on your years of experience following it both subjectively (feelings ball) and objectively (analytics). That's more or less baked into how you make a specific prediction.

I'd conclude that on a continuum of knowing, 0 being not knowing shit about CFB and 100 knowing everything there is to know about it, you're at 75 while the rest of us here are more likely to be around 40 or below. I have to dig to "know." You don't - it's just there for you. IOW, you can make a pretty well informed prediction compared to the majority of CFB fans including myself who are much less adept at predicting a score outcome or a spread and therefore, in thier own biased way tend to just not do it and then suggest others shouldn't predict outcomes either.

We tend to speak about CFB, especially when comparing two teams and predicting an outcome of a contest between them, based on our own personal experiences and knowledge base. That leads to biased conclusions. I'd say you're biased in concluding others should be able to accurately predict scores and CFB game outcomes because your own knowledge about CFB is much greater than the norm. I'm biased in the opposite way. When you see what is in your mind a ludicrous CFB prediction, out comes the "mockery cannon."

I remain convinced that the average dude doesn't "know" and especially in the early going just "flipping coins" You are not the average dude when it comes to CFB,

[iam416]

Well, I am a supergenius, so fair enough. Also, I'm an all-around good guy.

[Hannibal]

50 is a huge number. Hawaii isn't scoring 17, but it's still a huge number

You might be right, but it doesn't take much variance for it to happen.

In 1998, we played Hawaii. It was 35-3 at halftime. We were tearing through them like tissue paper. Then Lloyd inserted the 2nd stringers+Drew Henson in the 2nd half and the team pretty much quit playing. Lloyd was so pissed that he actually put the first stringers back into the game to send a message to the second string. Final score was 48-17.

A goof up like a fumble in our own territory, a blown coverage, etc can give Hawaii 7 easy points. I also wouldn't write off the possibility that Michigan just isn't very good and that important players regressed under the new coaching staff.

I think that they can cover 50, but it's not an easy call.

[iam416]

Ok, so you made me look at 1998 Hawaii. Bastard. While they were 0-12, they weren't really getting utterly destroyed. I mean, yeah, losing bad, but not like this team.

If I were to pick a Hawaii game to compare it to, I'd say 2016 should do....and that was an AVERAGE Hawaii team, not the total bag of burning poop that's coming to M's front door.

[Hannibal]

I like your "range" analysis. And I agree that 50 is on the lower end of it. Still, that means that it's in play.

This game has the unusual condition of Michigan's QB battle and the desire of both QBs to prove themselves and air it out a bit -- or at least run the full playbook while they are in. That's a factor that should be taken into account when determining when the dogs get called off. That's why I think that Michignan will put up 70+. I could be wrong though.

Heh -- the only interesting commentary on this game is whether Michigan will win by 45 or 65.