Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Let's Play Devil's Advocate: (Jags Win) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Neil Beaufort Zod
- Start date
Adam Harstad
Moderator
The money line for Denver was $6400 earlier this week, which means if your house is worth $200,000, betting it would only net you $3125. In other words, you could bet a brand new house against a 10-year-old used car, straight up.
According to the money line, a Broncos victory falls somewhere between "the sun rising in the east" and "death and taxes" in terms of certainty.
Mike Tanier wrote earlier this week that Denver was -6400. From the sound of it, it might have even gone up from there. A lot of books simply aren't taking bets on Denver to win straight up, and the few that are taking bets are setting the money line prohibitively high to try to make people think twice about taking the "free money". Basically, you could wager a brand new car and, if you win, use the proceeds to go out to a really nice dinner. The rewards, to me, are far too small to make that bet even worth considering.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
The largest point spread doesn't mean that it's the biggest upset. The GSoT Rams would have had a larger spread against these Jags than the 2000 Ravens, simply because when a team scores so many points, it's easier to cover larger spreads (and, alternately, when a team allows so few points but scores fewer, too, it's harder to cover enormous spreads). That doesn't mean Vegas would favor the 1999 Rams over the 2000 Ravens straight up on a neutral field.
I'd be really interested to see where the line was at if Von Miller, Wesley Woodyard, and Blaine Gabbert were all playing, and if Blackmon was still out. On the one hand, you'd think that would be much more favorable for Denver. On the other hand, that spread is already ridonkulous, so how much further could it go? At some point, making Denver even better just means they reach the point where they rest their starters earlier in the game.
At some point, I think the Broncos spread was more about breaking the previous record than an objective analysis of relative team quality. I kind of get the impression that this spread was always going to be -27 or -28 no matter who was playing- enough to set the record, and no more.
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Or, Manning throws the game.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I dont think a regular season game in the NFL can ever qualify as "the biggest upset ever". Just my opinion there.
Unless, let's say it is week 17 and the Broncos HAD to win this game to retain homefield advantage, and ended up losing. Maybe then I could coonsider it. But not in week 6.
Unless, let's say it is week 17 and the Broncos HAD to win this game to retain homefield advantage, and ended up losing. Maybe then I could coonsider it. But not in week 6.
Adam Harstad
Moderator
I would say the opposite. I don't think a postseason game can ever qualify as "the biggest upset ever", because if nothing else, simply making the postseason means a team is at least decent.
Theoretically, it's possible for a regular season matchup to pit a 15-0 team against an 0-15 team, and you'll regularly see matchups where there's a 10+ game difference in each team's win total. In the postseason, about the biggest gap you'd realistically expect to see is 5 games (say, 14-2 against 9-7), and even that's not an every year occurrence.
Similar threads
