Stone Cold Upsets & Lead Pipe Locks - Week 5

[SteveDeace]

Last week: 5-6
Overall: 21-22
Best Bets: 2-2

Home team is in all CAPS and odds based on opening lines.

N.C. STATE +5 over Virginia Tech
Who would’ve guessed before the season started that the Wolfpack would be the ranked team heading into this matchup and not Virginia Tech? Seven of the last eight in this series have been decided by a touchdown or less, and the Hokies are playing their second straight road game. N.C. State 27, Virginia Tech 24

MICHIGAN STATE +2 over Wisconsin
Spartans should get a boost from the “return” of Coach Mark Dantonio, and are out for revenge after last year’s loss in Madison. Badgers are just 3-9 ATS in their last 12 Big Ten road games overall and only 4-8 ATS as a favorite. MSU has won eight of the last 10 in this series played at East Lansing. Michigan State 28, Wisconsin 26

Texas Tech -8.5 over IOWA STATE
Cyclones offense is just too anemic to keep up in this matchup, and they don’t generate enough of a pass rush to pressure the Texas Tech offense. This is the first Big 12 road game for Texas Tech Coach Tommy Tuberville, who was one of the best road coaches in the SEC at Auburn. Texas Tech 28, Iowa State 17

Florida +9 over ALABAMA
Urban Meyer is 8-2 against top five teams, and is 7-0 ATS as an underdog as a head coach going back to 2003. Gators also have the revenge factor from last season’s loss in the SEC Championship Game, and Alabama is coming off a tough, physical game at Arkansas last week. Underdog has covered six of the last eight in this series, including Alabama’s win in last year’s SEC Championship Game. Last time a young Florida team faced #1 on the road they covered and nearly pulled the upset at LSU in 2007. Alabama 24, Florida 20

CLEMSON +3 over Miami, Fla.
Classic sandwich game here for the U., which is coming off an impressive win at Pittsburgh but has its annual rivalry game with Florida State on deck. I love taking home underdogs coming off bye weeks, and Clemson has won the last three in this series and also has the steadier quarterback. Tigers are and impressive12-3 as an underdog ATS since 2005, while Hurricanes are just 10-18 as a favorite under Randy Shannon. Clemson 21, Miami 20

INDIANA +13.5 over Michigan
Three things heavily favor the Hoosiers here. First, the Wolverines haven’t won a Big Ten road game played outdoors since Michigan State in 2007. Second, Michigan’s top two tailbacks are out and that leaves Vincent Smith – who is still recovering from an ACL injury – and unproven backups Stephen Hopkins and Michael Cox to carry the load. Third, this is a huge revenge game for Indiana, who believes they should’ve won at the Big House last year. So far I am 4-0 picking Michigan ATS this season. Michigan 38, Indiana 34

Stanford-OREGON over 65.5
These two have gone over the total in the last five meetings, so don’t mess with a streak. Seven of Stanford’s last nine games have gone over as have nine of the Ducks’ last 11, including 12 of their last 16 Pac-10 games. Oregon 38, Stanford 31

Tennessee-LSU under 42.5
The total has gone under in nine of LSU’s last 10 home games, and neither team here has an explosive offense. Tigers are also a different team in home afternoon games under Les Miles, going just 5-4. I don’t expect much from Vols’ young and lacking explosiveness offense. LSU 27, Tennessee 7

CENTRAL MICHIGAN -15.5 over Ball State
Chippewas have covered 17 of their last 21 at home, five straight, and four of the last five in this series. I got an up close look at Ball State last week and they’re flat out terrible. Central Michigan 31, Ball State 13

Best Bet—IOWA -7 over Penn State
Hawkeyes are simply the more talented and physical team here. Iowa has won seven of the last in this series and owns the top-ranked defense in the country facing a true freshman quarterback on the road. Nittany Lions are just 2-6 ATS as a road underdog since 2006, Iowa is 13-3 ATS as a home favorite of seven points or less, and the Hawkeyes have covered eight of the last 10 meetings. Iowa 27, Penn State 13

 

[DuffMan]

Do we really have to do this again Steve? Going in to last week your record was 14-17-1. If I grant you that your record last week was 5 and 6 (which I'm not sure I should given you are so prone to "miscalculation") that makes you 19-23-1.

Do you have some sort of condition that makes it difficult for you to tell the truth?

 

[CAARHawk]

Dude, give it up.

 

[DuffMan]

Dude, give it up.

Which dude?

 

[Rawkhawk73]

Which dude?

You. You're the biggest instigator on this board. You come on here and basically call a guy a liar. If I was Jon, I'd ban your a$$ for insulting and making crap up about one of my best friends.

 

[GO4ROZS]

Do we really have to do this again Steve? Going in to last week your record was 14-17-1. If I grant you that your record last week was 5 and 6 (which I'm not sure I should given you are so prone to "miscalculation") that makes you 19-23-1.

Do you have some sort of condition that makes it difficult for you to tell the truth?

Seriously...if you aren't interested in his picks then don't read his posts. Why do you care so much?

 

[DuffMan]

How exactly am I making anything up? His record is exaclty as I've said it is. Steve claimed that he just "miscalculated" it and it was unintentional, yet he shows up this week with another miscalculated record.

As to why I care about it I guess I take offense that someone comes on here, makes his against the spread picks public, and claims to have a winning record when in fact he doesn't. I know people who read this who also bet on sports, and I don't want them for an instant looking at Steve's picks and his record and taking them at face value when I know for a fact that his "claimed record" is not his "real record".


If Steve wants to post his picks for "fun" fine. But when he tries to enhance his reputation as a football analyst by falsely claming a winning record I take offesne to that, especially when people may be putting thier hard earned money behind these picks.

I also know enough about Jon to know that he's not going to ban someone for pointing out factual inaccuracies in other peoples claims, even if they are his "friend". He may not like the tone in which I do it (in fact he probably doesn't at all) and he may not like the fact that I called Steve a "fraud" but he's not going to ban me for exposing the truth about Steves picks.

 

[gohawqs]

How exactly am I making anything up? His record is exaclty as I've said it is. Steve claimed that he just "miscalculated" it and it was unintentional, yet he shows up this week with another miscalculated record.

As to why I care about it I guess I take offense that someone comes on here, makes his against the spread picks public, and claims to have a winning record when in fact he doesn't. I know people who read this who also bet on sports, and I don't want them for an instant looking at Steve's picks and his record and taking them at face value when I know for a fact that his "claimed record" is not his "real record".


If Steve wants to post his picks for "fun" fine. But when he tries to enhance his reputation as a football analyst by falsely claming a winning record I take offesne to that, especially when people may be putting thier hard earned money behind these picks.

I also know enough about Jon to know that he's not going to ban someone for pointing out factual inaccuracies in other peoples claims, even if they are his "friend". He may not like the tone in which I do it (in fact he probably doesn't at all) and he may not like the fact that I called Steve a "fraud" but he's not going to ban me for exposing the truth about Steves picks.

Take a deep breath.

 

[DuffMan]

Why ?

 

[gohawqs]

Well for one thing his posted record is below .500. Also, I think most people who are going to bet are going to utilize a few more sources than Steve's picks... at least they should.

 

[Rawkhawk73]

Do we really have to do this again Steve? Going in to last week your record was 14-17-1. If I grant you that your record last week was 5 and 6 (which I'm not sure I should given you are so prone to "miscalculation") that makes you 19-23-1.

Do you have some sort of condition that makes it difficult for you to tell the truth?

That is not pointing out a factual inaccuracy.....it's flat out saying the guy is a liar. And I have no sympathy for anyone who would put their money down based on picks some dude posts on the internet....regardless of what that person says his record is.....they have a word for people like that....they're called SUCKERS!

 

[DuffMan]

Of course there's also the part of me that enjoys pointing out the mistakes of others, espcially when the other or so self righteous in their views, specifically those pertianing to other peoples lifestyles.

I'd be dishonest myself if I claimed that wasn't a factor.

 

[DuffMan]

That is not pointing out a factual inaccuracy.....it's flat out saying the guy is a liar. And I have no sympathy for anyone who would put their money down based on picks some dude posts on the internet....regardless of what that person says his record is.....they have a word for people like that....they're called SUCKERS!

You don't understand. Calling Steve a liar was my intent, because, in this instance, he is in fact a liar.

 

[GO4ROZS]

Of course there's also the part of me that enjoys pointing out the mistakes of others, espcially when the other or so self righteous in their views, specifically those pertianing to other peoples lifestyles.

I'd be dishonest myself if I claimed that wasn't a factor.

Now we learn the truth. Somehow, I had a hunch his worldview probably had a lot more to do with your post than his pick record that may or may not be incorrect.

 

[DuffMan]

Now we learn the truth. Somehow, I had a hunch his worldview probably had a lot more to do with your post than his pick record that may or may not be incorrect.

Well it does and it doesn't.

While it may add to my own sense of enjoyment I get from exposing the truth it doesn't have anything to do with why I took a closer look at his picks to begin with.

 

[hawkeyescott]

How exactly am I making anything up? His record is exaclty as I've said it is. Steve claimed that he just "miscalculated" it and it was unintentional, yet he shows up this week with another miscalculated record.

As to why I care about it I guess I take offense that someone comes on here, makes his against the spread picks public, and claims to have a winning record when in fact he doesn't. I know people who read this who also bet on sports, and I don't want them for an instant looking at Steve's picks and his record and taking them at face value when I know for a fact that his "claimed record" is not his "real record".


If Steve wants to post his picks for "fun" fine. But when he tries to enhance his reputation as a football analyst by falsely claming a winning record I take offesne to that, especially when people may be putting thier hard earned money behind these picks.

I also know enough about Jon to know that he's not going to ban someone for pointing out factual inaccuracies in other peoples claims, even if they are his "friend". He may not like the tone in which I do it (in fact he probably doesn't at all) and he may not like the fact that I called Steve a "fraud" but he's not going to ban me for exposing the truth about Steves picks.

If you got friends that go to a message board when deciding what games to pick instead of doing their own research then they are bigger morons than you and deserve to lose every penny they bet.

Of course these picks are all in fun, you seem to be the only one that doesn't think so. So how about you put your money where your mouth is and lay out 11 games as well.

 

[PJHawk]

Do we really have to do this again Steve? Going in to last week your record was 14-17-1. If I grant you that your record last week was 5 and 6 (which I'm not sure I should given you are so prone to "miscalculation") that makes you 19-23-1.

Do you have some sort of condition that makes it difficult for you to tell the truth?

If what you say is true then Deace should revise his record to show that.

 

[mrolympia]

stone cold lock: over/under 64.5 points for Indiana/Michigan

Over, way over. Both defenses are horrid.

 

[SirEdHightower]

I don't see anything wrong with Duff pointing out a poster's inaccuracies. If he is not truthful with his records that he posts, then let it be known. By the way, Deace counts pushes as wins, which confuses me. His logic is that he doesn't have to pay a bookie, thus it's a win. When I am betting, I consider a win something that I get paid out on, therefore winning something. Never would I choose my bets based on his "locks" but as a bettor I like to see what others bet on and don't really like misrepresentation, but to each their own. It's kind of like when someone says they won $250 in bets this week, but fails to mention that they lost another $300 in losses.

 

[DuffMan]

If you got friends that go to a message board when deciding what games to pick instead of doing their own research then they are bigger morons than you and deserve to lose every penny they bet.

Of course these picks are all in fun, you seem to be the only one that doesn't think so. So how about you put your money where your mouth is and lay out 11 games as well.

I didn't say I had friends who make picks using solely the stuff Deace Posts, I said I didn't want anyone influenced by his picks without first having accurate information on that persons record.

As for me I'm don't post what games I bet on because I'm not here pimping myself as knowledgable handicapper. For the season I'm one game under .500 in real money. I do little to no research on who I pick other than the football that I watch on the weekends. I have no inside knowledge nor do I claim to be a good handicapper.

I don't think I've ever layed out 11 games in a week because quite simply I don't ever have strong enough feelings about 11 games in a week after taking a quick glance at the teams and the line. I generally prefer picking NFL games because it's easier to find lines that are close to 0 which in essence becomes a pick em situation, and I find that much easier to do that than to try and pick a double figure spread in college.

If you really want to see them here are the games I've got money on this week ($5 a pop). I'll say up front anyone who uses my bets or logic in helping make up thier own minds are idiots, because when it comes to this stuff I'm an idiot myself.

ISU +7 at Texas Tech: I think it's a reputation spread. Texas Tech is undergoing a system change, and they are playing thier first true road game of the year, even if it is in a HS stadium. I caught about 1 quarter of thie loss to a mediocre texas team and they didn't impress.

NW -5 1/2 vs MN: Minnesota fricken sucks and NW is quietly a very solid football team.

Baltimore +1 1/2 vs Steelers: Yes the Steelers are 3 and 0. Yes the game is at home. Yes Charlie Batch played very very well last week, and Flacco has been inconsistent. But... Baltimore's d compared to the Bucs is Varsity compared to JV, Charlie Batch is about 74 years old and is thier 3rd string QB, and you can argue the Ravens are a better team even with Ben in there. Rarely do you get the chance to get points while taking the better team, and I think you do here.

Seattle -1 1/2 vs Rams: Seattle has looked pretty solid this year, the Rams are... the Rams and they have a Rookie QB. I'd take the field at -1 1/2 against the Rams 17 straight weeks if I could this season.

Bears +4 vs Giants: Before I saw the line I was expecting it to be around +2. When I saw it was +4 i bet it. The bears are a solid football team, and right now the Giants have trouble stopping the run and next to the Cowboys are the most mistake prone football team in the NFL. The Giants might win, I just think 4 points is too much.

New England -1 1/2 vs Miami: They arent the Patriots from 3 years ago, but they are still the Patriots. I like thier chances of beating a mediocre Miami team by a FG.

There you go, 6 picks by me that will be lucky to go 3 and 3, then again I don't think I've ever bragged about picking 56% winners here or anywhere else.