2011 Pac-12 College Football Gambling Futures And Odds
by Jon Woods on Jun 8, 2011 11:30 AM MDT
in Buffaloes Football Feature Stories
Email
PrintThe 2011 conference and division odds have been out for a week or so and were first released by TheGreek.com. Looking at futures odds is a great way to gauge the perception of the upcoming season as seen by those who really study the game, many much more than the sports media who release season previews and selections.
Let's take a look at the odds and see who we think may be overrated and where some value could be found.
To win the Pac-12 North:
Oregon Ducks +125
Stanford Cardinal +150
Oregon St. Beavers +500
Washington Huskies +650
California Golden Bears +1000
Washington St. Cougars +2500
Analysis: This one tends to make the most sense. Most everyone expects the North race to come down to the Ducks and the Cardinal. I'm a bit surprised that they are so close (speaks to how good Andrew Luck is), but Oregon lost some key pieces too. I could have seen Washington over Oregon State, but I think that speaks mostly to the loss of Jake Locker and the step forward that Ryan Katz should take in year two. I'm saying it right now, THE game that will decide our season is Saturday, September 10th when we take on Cal in Boulder. Not that going to Hawaii is going to be easy (in fact, that may be the tougher of the two games), but taking care of Cal at home and having the potential to go into Columbus 3-0 is something that I cannot stop thinking about.
To win the Pac-12 South:
Utah Utes +175
Arizona St. Sun Devils +200
Arizona Wildcats +250
UCLA Bruins +650
Colorado Buffaloes +800
Analysis: The South is unique because of the ineligibility of USC. Everyone's odds are going to be slightly lower than the North with only five teams competing. This division truly is going to be up in the air. The fact that CU has the longest odds and is still only at +800 is pretty telling. Seems like Vegas isn't buying into the Arizona State hype, placing Utah as the favorite to win the division. That's pretty surprising to me. Not that it isn't ASU, because I think they are being overrated as well, but that Utah is at the top. I think I would have Zona tied with the Sun Devils there but I'm a Zona homer so what do I know?
To win the Pac-12:
Oregon +175
Stanford +250
Utah +250
Arizona State +650
Oregon State +650
Arizona +800
Washington +1000
California +1500
UCLA +1500
Colorado +1800
Washington State +7500
Analysis: Well obviously you can count out Wazzu. Those are some loooooong odds. Because of the conference championship game being implemented this year, these numbers have to be looked at a bit differently than the division odds. Vegas definitely gives some credence to the idea that once a team gets to that game, they have a decent shot to pull off the upset (as the South winner will almost certainly be a pretty large underdog this season). I'm rather surprised that Oregon State has lower odds than Arizona. The chances that Zona wins the South are MUCH greater than OSU winning the North. Really you can break these up into tiers for a good way to look at it. Tier one: Oregon, Stanford, Utah (again, WTF?). Tier two: ASU, OSU, Zona and UW. Tier three: Cal, UCLA, CU. Tier four: Wazzu (who I still think is going to be much improved this season).
Am i being a homer by thinking that we can be the best team in that third tier? What does everyone think?
37 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
My brother (a Zona grad, hence why I’m a homer) pointed out one fact that I didn’t mention. Utah misses both Stanford and Oregon. That has A LOT to do with where the sit. But I stand by my original assertions.
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics
SB Nation Denver
Thou shalt not covet thi neighbors conference schedule!
Did I mention that biff fans have no humor?
Eff you and the buffalo you rode in on.
by daedalus17 on Jun 11, 2011 12:05 AM MDT via mobile up reply actions
holy shit is this adorable
after reading my response to your completely stupid post- you DOUBLED DOWN ON STUPID. You made the same “did I mention” rhetorical nonsense, and there is absolutely no substance to your post otherwise.
Look, I've already told Utah to suck it. There's no going back now.
by Phil Fraser on Jun 11, 2011 12:31 AM MDT up reply actions
Can you guess what I think you continue to double down on?
Hey this time I didn’t use a rhetorical question. You will have to really think about the answer.
Since I don’t think you understand my post above I will attempt to give you more details and see if you can spot the clues. You said there was no substance in the post when there was.
1) You’re lusting after our schedule. You are already starting to wish you were more like Utah. I am concerned about your jealousy and your eternal well being because of this jealousy.
2) You have no humor and no ability to understand the jabs when I post them. You got all uptight because I used a rhetorical question. I did this twice in this blog, but did not go for a third time because I was afraid your head would explode.
Eff you and the buffalo you rode in on.
check our schedule
it’s ruthless. That how we roll. Every year, we rock our schedule hard. Fact is, Cal lobbied against us to make sure that our game wasn’t a conference game. So we play TEN conference games. If you played our schedule, you win maybe 2 games, if Hawaii gets a massive poi food poisoning the night before. Jealous? Hell no. We take what’s coming and punch back. You just won the schedule lottery. You’re the Beverly Hillbillies of the conference. Good luck with that.
Other than the fact that Utah is a joke in general, I see no humor from you. A rhetorical question means one not expecting an answer. What’s the fucking point of that? Arre you really this simple? Do you have to wear a helmet?
Look, I've already told Utah to suck it. There's no going back now.
by Phil Fraser on Jun 11, 2011 10:31 AM MDT up reply actions
You rock like you want to be a mid major.
We are moving up, you are moving down. You accepted a 1 and done with Ohio State. We left that behind. I know you are jealous. Don’t pretend you are not.
You are the one who needs to wear a helmet for not understanding the point of a rhetorical question. You even admitted to not understanding what the point of a rhetorical question is. I copied this from the Internet just to help you understand.
A rhetorical question is also frequently one that suggests what the answer should be, along with being declaratory, such as, "You are ashamed, aren’t you?" This style of questioning tends to be used in court, with questions like, "You were at the scene of the crime, correct?" In other words, a rhetorical question is often a leading question.
See, I am just trying to help you out. Give you a little understanding of a new concept. Now you can’t say I never gave you anything.
Eff you and the buffalo you rode in on.
So let's just get this straight
You make exactly zero points, so you claim it as a rhetorical victory. Congrats! Imaginary victories are the best! I once slaughtered a dragon in my imagination. And the dragon was really mean.
And you’re rhetorical questions weren’t even actually that. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, which you obviously don’t deserve. “rhetorical” does not include “did I mention” which obviously refers back to some other body of text. In this case text that does not exist. Haven’t we gone over this? No, you didn’t mention anything. The end. Fuck off. Go back to Wikipedia to find you response. I’m bored of you
But at the end of the day, you’re still a crappy school in a state that actively hates education. Yeah, we accepted a pay game at Ohio State. That’s a game you couldn’t get. How much are you going to clear for the Pitt game? I’m going to guess a whole lot less than our Georgia series. But good luck with the Mormons and Montana Sate. Have fun. You are dismissed
Look, I've already told Utah to suck it. There's no going back now.
by Phil Fraser on Jun 11, 2011 12:02 PM MDT up reply actions
You should look at a dictionary before you explain what rhetorical does not include.
I never claimed any victory, rhetorical or otherwise. That was you imagining me claiming an imaginary victory. Kind of ironic you made fun of me for imagination isn’t it? Yes, that is another rhetorical question. Hopefully you looked it up in the dictionary so you don’t go off on a tirade again.
Utah doesn’t want a one and done with anyone now that they are no longer a mid major. Don’t try to act special for getting your trophy bitch game with Ohio State.
Eff you and the buffalo you rode in on.
I think people are underestimating Stanford
Oregon, as you mentioned, loses some pieces and the offense they run is a little gimmicky. Gimmick offenses tend to get figured out (see the LSU game). Whether Oregon gets figured out this year or next remains to be seen. Utah is getting a lot of hype but how will they react to playing a schedule of legitimate teams week in and week out?
Arizona State is the big mystery. Descent defense and the ability to score a lot of points make these guys dangerous.
For the most part I tend to agree with the odds. You go with what you’ve seen not what you think you will see.
By the way I bought my season tickets today. I would suggest everyone else do the same. Right now you can get season tickets for $120 until July 15th.
Shoulder to Shoulder
Oh I agree that Stanford will be really good.
Luck is ridiculous.
We got our season tickets as well. Can’t freaking wait.
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics
SB Nation Denver
Oregon has been running Chip Kelly's offense since 07
No one has figured it out, Neuheisle (sp?) said the same thing before Oregon hung 60 pts on his team.
Rick Neuheisel, defensive mastermind...
Or not…
The way you stop Oregon is the way you stop any gimmick offense. Old school. Back to basics. Dominate time of possession. Be bigger and tougher up front, beat the crap out of their defensive front seven, and make `em chase after a stable of great running backs. Force their secondary to come up for the run, and then gash `em deep, with big receivers that can win one on one battles.
Hasn’t happened yet, but it will. This season. Multiple times. More than half the teams on their schedule are capable of doing the deed. LSU, Arizona, ASU, UW, Stanford, USC and OSU, at least. They are all thinking along these `beat `em up, grind `em down’ lines, and the attrition will take a toll. Everybody is plenty sick of Chip and his wunderkind BS.
Just don’t expect Neuheisel to be in the vanguard of anything, ever. The guy’s a parasite.
GD
Thanks, we’re new to this Pac-12 thing.
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics
SB Nation Denver
I still see Wazzou sometimes at ESPN.com
I want to crawl through the computer and slap them because they ought to know better.
Seriously, though — at +7500, I’m thinking a $5 bet might be in order.
Ok phew.
I am a spelling nerd and I would have killed myself if I had done that multiple times
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics
SB Nation Denver
Weakness of schedule
Jon, your brother is correct. For the Utes to sidestep both Stanford and Oregon in their first year was a lottery winning move. More W’s means better recruiting etc. for the program. With our schedule, if we win seven games Embree would be a lock for Coach of the year in the Pac-12.
by Roaring Fork Buff on Jun 8, 2011 2:25 PM MDT reply actions
Looking at their full conference schedule is even worse.
The only tough games they have not at home are Zona and USC. At Pitt and BYU are tough ooc, but ASU, OSU, UCLA and us at home will help.
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics
SB Nation Denver
WTF
How did Utah get such a favorable conference schedule their first year? I still think both us and Utah will struggle more than their fans think. I think it can’t be overated how much more difficult it will be for those two teams to prepare for 9 new teams and everyone else in the conference only having to prepare for one or two.
Walter Sobchak: "Also, let's not forget - let's *not* forget, Dude - that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city - that aint legal either. "
True
But that would have been they case for us anyways with a whole new staff.
The Ralphie Report - University of Colorado Athletics
SB Nation Denver
Utah's schedule draw makes me hate Utah that much more
I just want to punch that state in the face. Park City? EFF PARK CITY
Look, I've already told Utah to suck it. There's no going back now.
by Phil Fraser on Jun 8, 2011 5:15 PM MDT reply actions 5 recs
Eff the buffalo you rode in on.
Did I mention we have 5 conference home games and 4 on the road?
"From the end spring new beginnings." - Pliny the Elder
by daedalus17 on Jun 10, 2011 10:05 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions
Um, no. You didn't mention anything
The term “did I mention” generally assumes that there is some body of either text or words to which we are referring back. Where would you have mentioned that? In the headline? When you start literally the only sentence of whatever point you’re trying to make with “did I mention,” it makes you appear as though you’re the type of person who would get really frustrated with shoes that aren’t slip-ons or velcro. LACES ARE SOOO COMPLICATED GRRRRRRR
And here I thought the proposition in Utah to make the 12th grade voluntary had failed.
Look, I've already told Utah to suck it. There's no going back now.
by Phil Fraser on Jun 10, 2011 10:34 PM MDT up reply actions
It was earlier on this blog when I was talking about how buff fans don't understand humor.
Eff you and the buffalo you rode in on.
by daedalus17 on Jun 10, 2011 11:42 PM MDT via mobile up reply actions
not on this blog post
we don’t remember outsider posts beyond what we can see. We’re too busy making fun of your Highway signs that look like boobs
Look, I've already told Utah to suck it. There's no going back now.
by Phil Fraser on Jun 10, 2011 11:46 PM MDT up reply actions
Yes on this blog post.
It is right there at the very top.
Eff you and the buffalo you rode in on.
by daedalus17 on Jun 11, 2011 12:06 AM MDT via mobile up reply actions
You mean the one you put up just now?
The post that literally came in after every fucking single post before it? That blog post? which was posted thusly:
by daedalus17 on Jun 10, 2011 11:05 PM PDT
Is that the one you’re talking about? Do you understand how TIME works. It’s not complicated (actually, it’s very complicated, but fuck that since this is simple). You tried to post against an earlier comment. It still didn’t make sense, and it still wasn’t an argument. You did it less than 10 minutes ago. And you’re claiming that you did it in real time.
Dude, just quit. This is pathetic
Look, I've already told Utah to suck it. There's no going back now.
by Phil Fraser on Jun 11, 2011 12:14 AM MDT up reply actions
just because you post against a higher comment doesn't mean it get's posted in the past
Are you really that fucking stupid? Hi, Dipshit, I’m the internet. Nice to meet you
Look, I've already told Utah to suck it. There's no going back now.
by Phil Fraser on Jun 11, 2011 12:16 AM MDT up reply actions
Seriously, dude.
Don’t come to a “rival” blog site, reference a “comment made above in the post” that you posted two hours after, and act all indignant when you’re called out on it.
Own up, you confused yourself and got chumped. You’ll get a lot more respect for that than trying to cover your story (hint – time stamps show up on the bottom of every post).
by blooming rock on Jun 14, 2011 10:23 AM MDT up reply actions
How do you think you would have fared had you stayed in the Big 12?
Particularly money wise?
"you can't be a great defense in a casual manner!" Manny Diaz
financially? comparatively poorly
Recently, CU’s 2 best away game attendances have been at Cal (9k) and at Arizona State (7.5k). That’s not a coincidence. It’s because the largest concentration of alumni (outside of Colorado) is in the PAC 12 region, not the Big 12. Frontier Airlines is also in discussions to buy the naming right to our stadium for possibly $1 million a year. In the PAC 12, 9 of 12 schools are located near large airports (LA/ Burbank; SFO/ Oakland; Phoenix; SLC; Seattle; and Denver, obviously). Missing are the Oregon schools and Washington State. In the Big 12, they’re mostly driving games, or games that require long drives from major airports. So that’s not as desirable to a potentially strong corporate partner. And like I said- no one wanted to make that drive. Referring back to the alumni base, California has the largest concentration of alums outside of CO. Before joining the PAC 12, we had 90 Buff Club members in CA (including me!). During a recent west coast swing with our football and basketball coaches, we were adding triple digit members every day. Also, if you go check out the previous post, it appears to me that a lot of people on this board are far more excited to play PAC 12 schools than Big 12, and that’s with a significantly more robust history in the Big 12. Personally, I really only cared about playing Missouri, Nebraska, and, um, Kansas basketball? I guess. The rest of the schedule consisted of either “just games,” or games against big time programs (Texas, Oklahoma) which would’ve been interchangeable with any other big time programs from around the nation. I’m a lot more excited about playing against most of the PAC 12. Granted, I’m in PAC 10 country, and it might be novelty. Only time will tell. but I feel like that will be a revenue driver as well
Regarding the TV schedule- it’s tough to say, since I’m not very familiar with your new deal. I can say that I think we all agree that Larry Scott got a very aggressive and beneficial deal. We also still have the ability to create a PAC 12 Network, an alternative to which really isn’t viable in the Big 12 because of the new Longhorn Network, and a commitment to make all football and basketball games available over the air or online, which was never a priority for the Big 12. With our previous Big 12 TV contract, we also weren’t able to sell our Tier 3 TV rights for games that weren’t selected for air, so if our contract stakeholders didn’t select our game, we had no alternative to just not being on TV. The Pac 12 deal allows us to keep those rights, so if our game is not selected under the umbrella of our TV contracts, we can then go to other parties and sell those broadcast rights (estimated $100k per game or so).
In conclusion, this is all highly speculative, since staying in the Big 12 would’ve either included Nebraska (which likely would’ve meant the status quo, albeit with more gross revenue) or finding a new member, which undoubtably would’ve been worse from a program brand recognition standpoint, a rivalry standpoint (for us and OU), and from a financial standpoint (TCU or Utah aren’t nearly as valuable as Nebraska). Either way, we’d probably still be dealing with the highly regressive and volatile financing model (proportional payouts vs. even splits).
From a competitive standpoint, I think the PAC 12 area provides a more fertile recruiting ground. Not necessarily in terms of raw numbers (although that’s debatable), but in terms of potential “fit.” A plurality, possibly even a majority (I’m too lazy to look it up) of CU’s out of state students come from California. I think that’s overall a plus for the PAC 12 move which will benefit us in the long run. With regards to this year or the near future, I’m not sure and don’t care to speculate. We’ve got a new coaching staff so everything is new to them, and changes in college football are constant. Personally speaking, I’m very happy with the move, and I think it will come out to our net benefit.
About the only thing I miss about the old conferences comes from the Big 8, and it’s the abbreviation nomenclature:
University of Colorado= CU
University of Kansas= KU
University of Nebraska= NU
University of Oklahoma= OU
University of Missouri= MU
Everywhere else you get:
University of Arizona= UofA
University of Texas= UT
It’s the one quirk that I will miss.
Look, I've already told Utah to suck it. There's no going back now.
by Phil Fraser on Jun 10, 2011 11:25 PM MDT up reply actions
Is this true?
“With our previous Big 12 TV contract, we also weren’t able to sell our Tier 3 TV rights for games that weren’t selected for air, so if our contract stakeholders didn’t select our game, we had no alternative to just not being on TV. The Pac 12 deal allows us to keep those rights, so if our game is not selected under the umbrella of our TV contracts, we can then go to other parties and sell those broadcast rights (estimated $100k per game or so).”
Because UT’s unselected games (when there was one) was always on PPV. Couldn’t CU have done the same? Who owned CU’s third tier rights?
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Welcome to The Ralphie Report, an unofficial blog for fans of the Colorado Buffaloes. Established April 24th, 2008.
Winner - Best Sports Blog In Colorado - 2011 Westword Web Awards
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
SHOP THE RALPHIE REPORT STORE
Facebook and Google+
The Ralphie Report Google+ Page
