Are You Ready For Some Football?

[InsiderEdge]

Insider Edge Sports takes a look at our Top 10 NFL Super System Angles going into 2003.

Trends and/or systems can be very effective in handicapping if used correctly but should not be the sole reason for making a play, as many other factors need to be considered as well. All trends date back to 1990 unless otherwise noted.

1. Play against teams playing their 3rd consecutive road game if they lost the 1st game and won the 2nd game. 15-4-1 ATS 79%

This is a successful system since it is based on straight up wins and losses in previous games, thus the more likely a team will have a letdown spot. At the end of the 2001 season, Buffalo lost at Atlanta and then bounced back to defeat the Jets at New York. Their 3rd game came at Miami where they were soundly defeated 34-7. This is a pretty rare system since it is uncommon for teams to play 3 in a row on the road but one to keep an eye out for, as Cincinnati and San Diego will each play 3 straight away from home in 2003.

2. Play against teams playing their 3rd consecutive home game if they are an underdog of more than 3 points and they lost their 2 previous games straight up. 10-4 ATS 72%

This is another uncommon system but one that is very effective. The most recent example of this came at the end of the 2001 season when Carolina hosted New England after coming off consecutive home losses to St. Louis and Arizona. The Patriots went on to blow out the Panthers 38-6. Teams that could fall into this system in 2003 are Arizona, Baltimore, Denver, Jacksonville, Minnesota and St. Louis.

3. Play against teams coming off 2 straight games of scoring 30+ points at home that are now playing on the road. 28-14-1 ATS 67%

This system is based on the theory that coming off two big home games will lead to a mediocre effort on the road. In 2002, Kansas City scored 49 points against both Arizona and St. Louis. They then traveled to Denver losing 31-24. This system is on a 13-5 run since 1998.

4. Play on a team that scored 9 points or less in their last 2 games both of which were at home and are now an underdog. 9-2 ATS 82%

This falls into the same category at the above system but in reverse. A team that had two very bad games at home is expected to pick up their play in their next game whether they are home or away. This system hasn’t come into play since 2000 and is very rare but very effective. The last time this came into play, Cleveland scored 3 points against both Cincinnati and New York and then came back in their 3rd game against New England and won 19-11 as a 7 point underdog.

5. Play on a home underdog of more than 7 points. 93-57-3 62%

This is a common but effective system. A home underdog is always worth taking a look at and if they are getting more than a touchdown, a look ahead by the favorite is very possible. Playing this system on every game has resulted in a profit every season since 1997 and is 43-20 69% during that time.

6. Play on a team as a home underdog of more than 7 points who is coming off a straight up loss in their previous game. 49-29 63%

This is a more defined system as the one above. This system was just 3-3 in 2002, missing a 4-2 mark by 1 point. It was 8-2 the previous 2 seasons. Of the 49 ATS wins, 21 were outright wins by the underdog.

7. Play on a team that is coming off a SU loss as a double-digit favorite that is now favored between 4 and 9.5 points and are at home. 8-2 80%

A team that is a double-digit favorite is obviously a very good team and if they lose, they have the capability to take it out on the next opponent at home. In 2002, Pittsburgh lost at home to Houston 24-6 and came back the following week to defeat Carolina 30-14. However...

8. Play against a team that is coming off a SU loss as a double-digit favorite that is now favored between 4 and 9.5 points and are on the road. 8-1 89%

Looking at teams in the same scenario who are playing on the road in the their next game aren’t quite as fortunate and without their home crowd tend to play down once again. In 2001, Green Bay lost to Atlanta 23-20 as a DD favorite and then traveled on the road and narrowly defeated the Lions 29-27 as a 7-point favorite.

9. Play against a team that is coming off a SU win as a double-digit underdog and is an underdog once again. 28-12-2 70%

A team that won as a double-digit dog is most likely considered a bad team and for them to win again is not likely. They happened to catch their opponent in a look ahead situation. In 2001, New England (who turned out not to be a bad team after all) defeated the Colts in Indianapolis 38-17 and then traveled to Denver losing 31-20. This system is 10-2-1 84% since 1997. Now if this team is returning home and is a favorite….

10. Play against a team that is coming off a SU win as a double-digit underdog and is now a home favorite or pickem’. 16-8-1 67%

This can be looked at as the linesmakers are over adjusting the lines due to the big upset win in their previous game. In 2002, Houston went to Jacksonville and won 21-19 and then returned home the following week as a favorite only to get blown out by the Bengals 38-3. Of the 16 ATS wins, 13 were outright wins by the underdog. This system is 7-1-1 88% since 1999.

[WiNnErPL]

great post! thanks for the info!

btw hwat does SU stand for?

[Louie]

SU = Straight Up

Welcome To TheSportsBoard!!

[WiNnErPL]

Thanks Louie. Now a second question follows (may seem newbie for you guys), but what's the difference between a straight up win and a regular win. Is it a win that's not accounting the spread?

[Steve O]

ATS Win = Win Against The Spead
SU Win = Straight Up Win

[InsiderEdge]

Pass Efficiency Ratings – Fact or Fiction?
Insider Edge Sports

Pass efficiency has always been one of the best ways to look at a team’s ability with their passing game both offensively and defensively. But is it really a true indication of how they perform? We say no since they are raw passing numbers with nothing else taken into consideration. We use pass efficiency ratings when doing our handicapping but our numbers are adjusted based on a number of factors including power ratings, strength of schedules, personnel and injuries. Let’s look at an example from 2002 showing how the numbers can be skewed.

Troy St. finished last season with a 112.42 defensive rating, which was good enough for a 33rd ranking just behind Ohio St. and just ahead of Georgia. Looking at it from this angle looks like they were very proficient in stopping the pass but let’s look into it more. Their first game came against Nebraska, primarily a running team with a new QB at the helm in Jammal Lord. Lord threw the ball just 13 times in his first game against Arizona St. and only 15 times against the Trojans as Nebraska was more suited to run the ball at this point in the season. Also on their schedule were 1-AA teams Southern Utah, Austin Peay, Florida Atlantic and Florida A&M. They easily won those games but comparing their schedule to that of Georgia, it wasn’t even in the same ballpark. The Bulldogs posted a similar rating against an SEC-heavy schedule. By adjusting our numbers based on power ratings and schedule strength, Troy St. finished 71st while Georgia finished 27th, a net 45 ranking difference. Troy St. finished 116th in schedule strength last season based on the final BSC numbers.

One of the biggest jumps in the opposite direction came from USC. They were ranked 19th in pass efficiency defense, but based on their SOS #1 ranking, our numbers moved them to #2 behind Miami for the best in the country. Another big jump came from Florida St. who was ranked 61st but we had them up to #35 based on their quality of opponents and power rankings.

Looking at the offensive side of the ball, the team that dropped the most for us was Bowling Green. They finished at #28 in pass efficiency offense but also finished with the 112th ranked schedule. While they were able to move the ball with ease and put up a ton of solid stats through the air against most inferior teams, they struggled against more quality opponents such as Northern Illinois and South Florida. Based on our factors, they dropped 45 slots down to #73 in the country. Another surprise came from Hawaii who was 2nd in the country with 5,406 passing yards but ranked just 47th in pass efficiency. Adjusting those numbers based on our figures dropped them even more, all the way down to #80. They had troubles against teams ranked high in our defensive rankings (BYU #45, Boise St. #47, Cincinnati #19, Alabama #9 and Tulane #36).

Heading into 2003, these numbers should not be thrown out the window. While we can’t base plays solely on last season’s stats, we can look and see how these stats can play a part this year. Our #1 and #2 ranked teams in offensive pass efficiency, USC and Iowa, both lost their signal callers after 2002 so the chances of the offenses performing at the same level in 2003 are highly unlikely. But how will JQP react to these changes? History is a huge aspect for the public and soft lines can be found early on in the season based on this public perception. Top efficiency ranked 2002 teams who are returning their QB’s and who could actually improve their numbers this season include Virginia (#3), Ohio St. (#6), Kansas St. (#9), Georgia (#12) and Florida St. (#15) just to name a few.

So what does all of this mean? The formula to come up with a pass efficiency rating is one of the most complex around and is still one of the better indicators of passing offense and defense. The one main flaw is that it is only based on raw numbers with nothing else taken into account. This can be said for a lot of rankings and the best way to use these numbers effectively is to rework them to bring them more in line with what actually happened. Thinking outside the box can pay huge dividends down the road.

[InsiderEdge]

The Significance of the Running Game
Insider Edge Sports

Being able to run the ball in college football has always been a key factor in the overall success of a team. The same adage also goes for teams who have the ability to stop the run as well. Putting these two factors together can produce some very positive results in a team’s record both straight up and against the spread. Lets take a look at our 2002 results and show you how the significance of a solid running attack on both sides of the ball can produce some very nice profits.

We have our own formulas that rank the rushing offense and defense of teams which are based on yard per game (ypg), yards per carry (ypc), Td’s scored and allowed, power ratings and strength of schedule. At the end of 2002, our top 5 rushing offensive teams consisted of Kansas St. West Virginia, Penn St., Air Force and Nebraska, not big surprises by any means since all were in the top 10 in the nation in ypc. The same holds true for our top 5 rushing defensive teams (TCU, Kansas St., South Florida, Ohio St. and Troy St. as all were in the top 10 in ypc allowed). For this example, we will look at the top 20 on each side of the ball and see how noteworthy these stats can be when handicapping games.

Offensively, here is our top 20 with their final ORR (Offensive Rushing Rating):

22.07 KANSAS STATE
19.37 West Virginia
18.68 PENN STATE
18.58 Air Force
17.14 Nebraska
15.91 Navy
15.73 Colorado
15.12 Toledo
14.52 MIAMI FLORIDA
14.24 Wake Forest
14.03 Boise State
13.87 Auburn
13.78 Bowling Green
13.76 Virginia Tech
13.32 Maryland
13.18 Iowa
13.14 Oklahoma
13.13 Alabama
13.01 Colorado State
12.62 Arkansas

Of these 20 teams, only Navy finished the season with a losing straight up record while only 6 of the 20 teams finished with a sub-.500 ATS record (Nebraska, Navy, Miami Fla, Wake Forest, Blowing Green and Arkansas). Overall, the 20 teams combined for a 179-70 record straight up and a 139-94 record ATS (59.7%). Even more impressive, these teams combined for a 40-25 record ATS (61.5%) as underdogs. This solidifies the maxim “Always look at the rushing dog�.

Defensively, the numbers are even more impressive. Our top 20 and their DRR (Defensive Rushing Rating):

1.51 TCU
1.64 Kansas St.
1.98 South Fla.
2.08 Ohio St.
2.64 Troy St.
2.83 Alabama
2.89 Washington St.
3.13 Southern California
3.23 Oregon St.
3.30 Utah
3.44 Notre Dame
3.44 Iowa
3.45 Boise St.
3.69 Oklahoma
3.94 Louisville
4.11 North Texas
4.12 Georgia
4.15 Washington
4.18 Penn St.
4.26 Arkansas

Two of these teams finished with a losing straight up record (Troy St. and Utah) while only 3 finished with a losing ATS record (Utah, Washington and Arkansas). Overall, the top 20 combined for a 182-60 straight up record and a 139-85 ATS record (62.1%). How did these teams finish the season as an underdog? A very impressive 35-16 ATS (68.6%).

These are some very notable results but we can take it a step further by combining the offensive and defensive outcomes. In our offensive and defensive top 20 lists, 7 teams appeared on both lists (Kansas St., Penn St., Boise St., Iowa, Oklahoma, Alabama and Arkansas). These 7 teams combined for a 71-16 straight up record and a 55-28 ATS record (66.3%). As underdogs, they went a combined 11-3 ATS (78.6%). Not too bad.

Not surprisingly, the bottom 5 teams both offensively and defensively finished a combined dismal 31-91 straight up and 46-69 ATS (39.6%). Obviously, it is impossible to predict who will finish the best and worst in these two categories but as the season goes along, they separate themselves from the rest of the pack. When that happens, those teams should be looked at seriously, especially if they are in the underdog role. Early on in the season, take a look at the top teams who are returning a bulk of their rushing attack offensively, both running backs and offensive linemen. Defensively, take a look at the line and the linebackers to see who is coming back. Some early predictions can be made whether or not this success is to continue or if their ineptness in the running game will carry on. Why do you think the most overused and trite statement coming from coaches is, “We need to establish the run�? Because success comes from it.

[InsiderEdge]

Special Teams - Are They Really That Special?
Insider Edge Sports

One of the most overlooked areas of handicapping football is special teams. Whether it's the ability to make a late game-winning field goal, punting the ball inside the 20, or returning a kickoff to the 35-yard line, special teams can make or break a team. Consistent special teams leads to consistent winning, thus consistent profits for the player. So in a nutshell, special teams are that special and should always be looked at when doing your handicapping.

In college football, good kickers and punters are few and far between. Bad kicking leads to missed field goals, short kickoffs and shanked punts. Field position is enormous for a team on both sides of the ball and if they have solid kickers and punters, they are ahead of the game already. Return men also play a huge part with their ability to make big things happen and help secure good field position for their offense. Kentucky was blessed with a great punter with Glenn Pakulak, who was the 2002 special teams player of the year. They also had the best return man in the country with Derek Abney, who returned 6 kicks for touchdowns last season. So it comes to no surprise that Kentucky was #1 in our special teams rankings.

In the NFL, the kicking game is obviously a lot better with a lot more parity but it doesn't mean it is any less important. Our results will show just that.

We look at everything from field goals to return yards to kicks inside the 20 when compiling our rankings. First we'll look at our NCAA top 25 rankings and see what they show us.

21.26 Kentucky
21.17 Oregon
20.89 Nebraska
20.78 Iowa
20.68 Maryland
20.65 Tulane
20.61 Colorado
20.52 South Fla.
20.49 LSU
20.26 Kansas St.
20.09 Georgia
20.06 Brigham Young
20.02 Texas
19.96 Northern Ill.
19.89 UCLA
19.74 Southern Methodist
19.64 Colorado St.
19.61 Oklahoma
19.57 Syracuse
19.18 Tennessee
19.18 Missouri
19.10 TCU
19.08 California
18.92 San Jose St.
18.92 Miami (Fla.)

These teams went a combined 174-131 record ATS (57.0%), a very respectable against the spread number. The top 10 teams on our list were significantly better with a 74-45 record ATS (62.2%). Of those top 10 teams, all but Nebraska finished the season with a winning straight up mark showing how a good special teams unit can lead to success.

As stated earlier, special teams in the NFL are more uniform but nevertheless, they still play a huge role. Here is our top 10 NFL special teams rankings from 2002.

21.31 New Orleans
21.02 NY Jets
20.33 Atlanta
20.13 Philadelphia
19.95 Tampa Bay
19.74 Detroit
19.48 Oakland
19.17 Kansas City
19.08 Miami
19.00 New England

These teams had a combined 97-72 record ATS (57.4%), not as strong as the NCAA list, but still a profitable number at +17.8 units. Handicapping the NCAA and NFL need to be done differently in a lot of ways from each other but this is one aspect of football that it applies to both. Doing your homework on special teams can give you an edge that you didn't think was there before.

[InsiderEdge]

Turnovers – A Predictable Element to the Game?
Insider Edge Sports

Turnovers are the single most frustrating, and at times the most gratifying, aspect of a football game mostly because they are so unpredictable. They are part of the game and most of the time, nothing can be done to control them. If we could foresee turnovers, we could predict winners at a much higher percentage but unfortunately, that is part of the game that is controlled by the football gods. Or is it? Turnovers are contagious and they can carry over from game to game and season to season. It’s knowing how to be able to forecast these unforeseen events and how to use them to your advantage.

Handicapping a game by saying Team A will win the turnover battle 5-2 over Team B is a complete and utter falsity. There is absolutely no way that this can be predicted on a consistent basis and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. However, you can find ways to give yourself an edge by looking at past histories of teams and coaches and how they have fared in the turnover wars in the past.

Since 1999, there have been 19 teams that have finished the season with a positive turnover margin in all 4 seasons. Not surprisingly, these teams have a combined .661 winning percentage over those 4 years. Leading the way was Texas, who had a +.95 margin per game over that span. Although the Longhorns were underachievers, they did improve their record in each of the seasons thanks to their improvement in winning the turnover battle. From 1999-2002, these 19 teams combined for a 467-372 record ATS (55.7%) with only 4 of those teams coming in with a losing ATS mark (Wisconsin 22-24, Virginia 22-23, Texas A&M 20-23 and Fresno St. 23-24). Notice how none were very far off of surpassing that .500 percentage, so other factors obviously contributed to the sub par ATS showing.

Looking at the other side of the spectrum, you will find just the opposite results. Perennial bottom feeders Army, Rutgers, Baylor and Vanderbilt are part of the 13 teams who have finished with a negative turnover margin in each of the last 4 seasons. Topping the field is Rutgers, who has averaged a –1.04 turnover margin the last 4 years. It comes to no surprise why they have won just 7 games in 45 chances. Combined, the 13 teams compiled a 199-389 straight up record (.338) and a 234-307 record ATS (43.3%) in those 4 years. What is somewhat shocking is that of those 13 teams, 3 have actually had winning records in those 4 years (Western Michigan, Central Florida and Michigan St.) and Central Florida had a winning record ATS of 20-18.

So is this to say that Texas has been lucky while Rutgers has not gotten the breaks the last 4 years? Not by any means. As stated earlier, it’s contagious and this can rub off from game to game and season to season. Some teams are able to get their share of takeaways year after year while others simply cannot. The same holds true for teams giving up the ball more than others on a consistent basis. From 1999-2002, Texas was 2nd in the country in takeaways with 129. Rutgers led the nation in giveaways during the 4-year span with 139. You can see the common theme here. Texas knows how to take it away while Rutgers knows how to give it up and this is the case for many teams. This is not a trend that changes overnight for most teams but some can overcome it with the right personnel in place. Let’s take a look at Oklahoma and how they have progressed. Bob Stoops took over in 1999 and the change has been remarkable, as they have posted a 43-9 straight up record during his tenure. Their 4-year takeaway numbers – 23,33,33,36. An improvement almost every year. Their 4-year giveaway numbers – 27,27,23,17. Again, an improvement almost every year. It wasn’t coincidence that this happened. The key is to find these situations and make predictions on whether or not they will continue or start going in the opposite direction. An example of one possible assumption in 2003 could be Baylor. Their giveaway numbers the last 4 years were 20,33,30,35 – a negative increase almost every year. A new coaching staff is in and in this case, change can only be good. Sure it’s possible that the giveaways will go up again but keep a close eye on them in the beginning of the season and see how it transpires.

Here are the 19 teams with a positive turnover margin over the past 4 seasons and their average:

0.95 Texas
0.88 Toledo
0.74 Wisconsin
0.72 Kansas St.
0.70 TCU
0.69 Oregon
0.68 Florida St.
0.65 Maryland
0.64 Fresno St.
0.60 Northern Ill.
0.58 Virginia Tech
0.52 Boston College
0.49 Virginia
0.49 North Carolina St.
0.40 Cincinnati
0.34 Texas A&M
0.30 North Texas
0.28 Tennessee
0.18 UAB

Here are the 13 teams with a negative turnover margin over the past 4 years and their average:

(1.04) Rutgers
(0.88) Army
(0.84) Utah St.
(0.79) Ball St.
(0.78) Southern Methodist
(0.74) Baylor
(0.69) La.-Monroe
(0.59) Vanderbilt
(0.54) Western Mich.
(0.42) Michigan St.
(0.40) Oklahoma St.
(0.28) Nevada
(0.28) Central Fla.

[InsiderEdge]

What To Look For When Betting Preseason Football
Insider Edge Sports

Preseason football is right around the corner and with that, some serious money can be made. Various people tend to balk at playing preseason games stating that the game means nothing so why even bother. That is exactly why it can be a very profitable endeavor as long as the right situations are found. Handicapping the preseason is a totally different animal compared to the regular season and the following are some key areas that need to be looked at.

1. Coaching Tendencies

All coaches use the preseason games to evaluate new players, input new systems and work on timing situations. Obviously no one likes to lose but there are coaches who don’t care this time of year while others who want to go out and get the W still. A classic example of this from last season was Steve Spurrier. In his first season with the Redskins, he was on a mission to win his preseason games as witnessed by 32.8 ppg scoring average. He was still in the college mentality to win and he accomplished that by winning his first 4 games although they finished with a 2-3 ATS mark as the linesmakers were on to it after game 1. Marv Levy was a brilliant coach but could care less about the preseason and the Bills record often showed that in the exhibition season. Take a look back at coaches and how they have done in the preseason in the past. This can tell you a lot on how they come into these games.

2. Injuries

We aren’t necessarily talking about injuries to starters here. The normal regular season starters will play only a few series in their preseason games. The injuries that need to be looked at are those of veteran backups who are fighting for roster spots and are expected to get a lot of playing time in these games. Looking at the preseason depth charts are vital, as this will give you an idea of who will be coming in after the first few series of the game. If a lot of these veterans will be out, younger players will get the bulk of the playing time which could mean a lot of mistakes for that team.

3. Player Experience

Teams heavily armed with veteran names should be looked at closely, especially at the QB position. Starting QB’s will only get a series or two in each game in the preseason with the exception of the last game usually. Who will get the most snaps? If it’s a rookie or a young player without much game experience, be cautious. But always look at those veterans who might be fighting for a roster spot as well. In 2003, there are a few teams whose QB depth could make a difference in the exhibition season. The Broncos will have Jake Plummer, Steve Beuerlein, Danny Kanell and Jarious Jackson taking their preseason snaps, a combined 31 years of NFL experience. Compare that to Houston, whose QB’s only have a combined 13 years in the NFL. (Denver and Houston meet in the first full week of the preseason by the way.)

4. Local Newspapers

You’ll be surprised what you can find on the internet from local team sources during the preseason. Coaches will have no problem sharing their games plans, playing times and motivational issues. Find out whether or not a team will be focusing on the running game or the passing game. Read how many snaps their rookie QB will be taking in his first game. Locate whether or not the coach is really interested in winning this game. The list goes on. Dig deep and you can uncover some very important information that you might not have thought was available.

5. Trends

Trends and systems can play a very significant role in the preseason. Season-to-season, the mentality of teams doesn’t change much, therefore looking at the big picture can provide some relevant information going forward. Most teams have one goal - get out of preseason with as few injuries as possible. So game-to-game and team-to-team, there isn’t a whole lot of disparity. So looking at historical trends and systems can pay huge dividends when doing your handicapping.

These are just a few of the areas to look at. Tread lightly at first and when you are more comfortable in what to look for, you should be able to single out the good situations to lay a wager on.