Started By
Message
re: Alabama: Greatest CFB Dynasty according to Vegas
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:19 am to Tuscaloosa
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:19 am to Tuscaloosa
quote:
Yeah. Its relevant. Youre not a dynasty if youve only won your conf twice since sophomores in highschool were born.
I know, right. Seriously you need to get on this and hit up some people at ESPN
0
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:21 am to Tuscaloosa
Yeah, we saw where that hype train got them against OM..............and Oklahoma.........................................................................................and Auburn...........................
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:25 am to Tuscaloosa
I don't understand the Vegas obsession with Bama. It seems like they rarely cover. Anybody got the numbers?
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:32 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
I don't understand the Vegas obsession with Bama. It seems like they rarely cover. Anybody got the numbers?
"Vegas" does not care what Bama does.
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:33 am to Tuscaloosa
4-3 in their last 7 games... makes sense
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:49 am to Brosef Stalin17
quote:
4-3 in their last 7 games... makes sense
You realize the article isn't about how Bama is so good at covering the spread? Right?
Posted on 10/10/14 at 9:05 am to PrivatePublic
quote:
I don't understand the Vegas obsession with Bama. It seems like they rarely cover. Anybody got the numbers?
In the 59 games played in the OPs time period (the 60th game in the favored streak is this Saturday so we don't know the result yet), Alabama is 32-26-1 against the spread. That is hurt by a 1-4 start against the spread this year.
Your feeling that Bama "rarely covers" is false. They are slightly above average against the spread during this time period.
This post was edited on 10/10/14 at 9:06 am
Posted on 10/10/14 at 9:07 am to OBReb6
quote:
Ole Miss-23
Greatest CFB Dynasty according to Vegas- 17(10)
Print the shirts!
Posted on 10/10/14 at 9:13 am to auburnphan23
quote:
Yet they are only 4-3 in their last 7 games and have lost 3 straight games against ranked opponents
Let's simply classify them as "ranked" so as to give the false perception that it could have been any team in the top 25 and not the reality that it was 3 top 10 teams.
Also, we know that once you start losing to ranked opponents it takes FOREVER to turn it around. AU is still recovering from their disastrous 2012 season in which they went 3-9 and winless in the SEC...Oh wait, not they aren't. They righted that ship in one season.
Posted on 10/10/14 at 9:19 am to Tuscaloosa
Vegas odds just means bettors consider Alabama the best team. Considering the vociferous plethora of frothy bammers, I think it's fair to say there is real potential for a gap in perception and reality.
Posted on 10/10/14 at 9:21 am to BearBait09
quote:
Vegas odds just means bettors consider Alabama the best team
You're partially accurate. Odds are designed to get equal betting on both sides. When the odds are set, the goal is to get people betting AGAINST the favorite, too.
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:05 pm to JaxTiger10
quote:
I'm pretty sure a dynasty needs more than 2 sec titles in 15 years.
The SEC title means nothing. It is all about the national title.
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:43 pm to AllBamaDoesIsWin
quote:
The SEC title means nothing. It is all about the national title.
Ha ha. You only care about titles the players and coaches have no control over whether or not they even participate in the game?
This post was edited on 10/10/14 at 8:45 pm
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:46 pm to Brosef Stalin17
If I don't look through a pin hole in paper it's 23-3. But who's counting?
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:47 pm to JaxTiger10
A title is a title....whether it is at the actual SEC champs expense or not. 
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:48 pm to JaxTiger10
Speaking of the number 23, nice "ring" to it. How about you guys?
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:49 pm to FourThreeForty
quote:
A title is a title....whether it is at the actual SEC champs expense or not.
Whether you like it or not the BCSCG is an exhibition just like every other bowl game. Its by no mean the ncaa fbs title game.
ETA: Its also harder to win the sec than it was to win the bcscg. You cant finish 2nd in the west and win the sec title.
This post was edited on 10/10/14 at 8:51 pm
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:49 pm to FourThreeForty
Didn't read any previous posts. Going on title alone.
Assuming that once gumps lost and the meltdown commenced, they immediately started googling sources for confirmation that they are indeed a CFB dynasty?
Am I close?
Assuming that once gumps lost and the meltdown commenced, they immediately started googling sources for confirmation that they are indeed a CFB dynasty?
Am I close?
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:50 pm to Tuscaloosa
The last time Bama were underdogs, I bet against them. They went in dry on Tebow.
Posted on 10/10/14 at 8:53 pm to Heresaucer
<<< dynasty
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News