Latest Line Move on GT/Clem

[lv20gt]

I get what you're saying and only disagree on one point. Just because Clemson beat Bama by 4 TD, does not mean Clemson would be favored by 4 TD against Bama if they played the game back the very next week, let alone the next year. Bama was favored. More than likely the championship game outcome only moves the needle 7 points at most, and that would be wild in and of itself.

Against bama sure. We aren't close to Bama though. The point of those scores wasn't that they'd be favored against Bama by 4 TDs. It's to point out that Clemson was very capable of beating absolutely great teams by 4 TDs which makes the 5TD line against us more reasonable.

Yea, Clemson's DL this year is my point re: their unknowns. I agree Clemson's new DL would be a strength everywhere. But I do think OL vs. DL is the most important factor in determining the outcome of a game, and I think playing experience is important even for top end talent. Add in first game in a while unpredictability, and weird things happen (potentially to our detriment, I get it).

I agree playing experience is important. But in the matchup of our OL vs their DL, our OL also has no game experience playing in this system. On the otherside, we probably have even a bigger concern on the DL than clemson does and they have a great OL returning. IMO the first game unpredictability favors the team returning a great OL and Heisman favorite QB vs the team with a new system and a QB who has yet to throw a college pass (assuming LJ is the starter). I'd argue the first game unpredictability pushes the line further in Clemson's favor. I think playing later in the year would favor us as I expect us to improve more as the season goes on than most teams. It's why I like playing Clemson first because we probably lose this game whenever we play, so having the first game against them gives us another week of practice for the more winnable games.

Re: the safety net scenario, even in most blow-out scenarios, I can see Clemson easing in Q4 for a variety of reasons. And we allegedly have 3 QBs who are capable of playing and will play to the final whistle.

I agree they will ease off and play backups. I'm not sure that means the gap will shrink when it happens though. In terms of QBs what support is there that we have 3 QBs capable of playing (well) to the final whistle? Our likely starter is in year 4 and has a career production of 1 rush for 1 yard with no pass attempts. Sure our coach who is in full hype the program mode has hyped up our QBs, but if this were any other team in the same situation we'd all view the QB spot as a huge liability. There is a decent chance that none of the 3 QBs ATL are the answer for us at QB. There is a very good chance that even if one is the answer for us at QB that it will take time for them to get into the system. People talk about how well we adjusted in Johnson's first year, but the offense took many games to actually start clicking. Against BC in 2008 we had 235 total yards and 3 turnovers and scored just 19 points. The next week we scored just 17 against VT and had 3 TOs. That 2008 team had a great QB for the system and true studs at BB and WR, and the offense still struggled to adjust early. And that is something we need to keep in mind after the fact, that even if Johnson, Graham, or Oliver struggle early, it doesn't mean they aren't the guy long term. There is also a decent chance that one might be the answer, but isn't the one that starts game one.


A 35 point spread isn't a prediction for a 35 point game. A line of that means they expect there to be a decent chance we cover it. It also means they think there is a decent chance that Clemson covers it.

Last year Clemson beat 3 ACC teams by more than 40 and two more by more than 30. That means last year they were more likely to win by 30+ against ACC teams than not. Since 2012 Clemson has beaten 13 ACC teams by 35 or more points. Just in general, there is a decent chance they beat 2 ACC teams this year by 35+ and we're the ones playing on the road, in a new system, with a ton of ?s. So yeah, I think there is a very real chance we lose by 35 plus.

 

[RyanS12]

This what I’ve got playing today It’s like Christmas morning right now for me!

 

[Deleted member 2897]

A 35 point spread isn't a prediction for a 35 point game. A line of that means they expect there to be a decent chance we cover it. It also means they think there is a decent chance that Clemson covers it.

Last year Clemson beat 3 ACC teams by more than 40 and two more by more than 30. That means last year they were more likely to win by 30+ against ACC teams than not. Since 2012 Clemson has beaten 13 ACC teams by 35 or more points. Just in general, there is a decent chance they beat 2 ACC teams this year by 35+ and we're the ones playing on the road, in a new system, with a ton of ?s. So yeah, I think there is a very real chance we lose by 35 plus.

This was a hilarious post. NO, a 35 point spread DOES MEAN people expect a 35 point spread. LOLOLOL.

Clemson has crushed us 4 straight years, but the average spread at the end was 20 points.

You can make up whatever justification you want for one of the most ridiculous lines ever, but please take it to the Clemson board if you want to post a bunch of unwarranted negative speculation against us.

 

[CuseJacket]

Against bama sure. We aren't close to Bama though. The point of those scores wasn't that they'd be favored against Bama by 4 TDs. It's to point out that Clemson was very capable of beating absolutely great teams by 4 TDs which makes the 5TD line against us more reasonable.



I agree playing experience is important. But in the matchup of our OL vs their DL, our OL also has no game experience playing in this system. On the otherside, we probably have even a bigger concern on the DL than clemson does and they have a great OL returning. IMO the first game unpredictability favors the team returning a great OL and Heisman favorite QB vs the team with a new system and a QB who has yet to throw a college pass (assuming LJ is the starter). I'd argue the first game unpredictability pushes the line further in Clemson's favor. I think playing later in the year would favor us as I expect us to improve more as the season goes on than most teams. It's why I like playing Clemson first because we probably lose this game whenever we play, so having the first game against them gives us another week of practice for the more winnable games.



I agree they will ease off and play backups. I'm not sure that means the gap will shrink when it happens though. In terms of QBs what support is there that we have 3 QBs capable of playing (well) to the final whistle? Our likely starter is in year 4 and has a career production of 1 rush for 1 yard with no pass attempts. Sure our coach who is in full hype the program mode has hyped up our QBs, but if this were any other team in the same situation we'd all view the QB spot as a huge liability. There is a decent chance that none of the 3 QBs ATL are the answer for us at QB. There is a very good chance that even if one is the answer for us at QB that it will take time for them to get into the system. People talk about how well we adjusted in Johnson's first year, but the offense took many games to actually start clicking. Against BC in 2008 we had 235 total yards and 3 turnovers and scored just 19 points. The next week we scored just 17 against VT and had 3 TOs. That 2008 team had a great QB for the system and true studs at BB and WR, and the offense still struggled to adjust early. And that is something we need to keep in mind after the fact, that even if Johnson, Graham, or Oliver struggle early, it doesn't mean they aren't the guy long term. There is also a decent chance that one might be the answer, but isn't the one that starts game one.


A 35 point spread isn't a prediction for a 35 point game. A line of that means they expect there to be a decent chance we cover it. It also means they think there is a decent chance that Clemson covers it.

Last year Clemson beat 3 ACC teams by more than 40 and two more by more than 30. That means last year they were more likely to win by 30+ against ACC teams than not. Since 2012 Clemson has beaten 13 ACC teams by 35 or more points. Just in general, there is a decent chance they beat 2 ACC teams this year by 35+ and we're the ones playing on the road, in a new system, with a ton of ?s. So yeah, I think there is a very real chance we lose by 35 plus.

I agree, there is a very real chance we lose by 35 plus.
And I stand behind my comments as well.
Obviously all of this is a debate around projecting odds, and there's merit both ways.
Either way, I know we're pulling in the same direction tonight.

 

[deeeznutz]

I dunno. That seems the main point of the only poster really arguing against it.

Also, not sure why you would think the spreads of the games are a better barometer than the outcomes themselves. I would buy it if it were one game, but Clemson was absolutely killing teams very likely to be a good bit better than the one we will have this year. Sure it's a different year but do you think that really favors us right now?

Also, what question marks does clemson have? My feeling is that the ?s they have are only ?s in regards to how they stack up against the truly top teams. For instance their DL can be pointed to as a question, but if you look at who they will field, that would be a strength of our team. I don't really see this as a general unknown. This is they are pretty damn well known to be an elite team, and we're trying to answer the question of whether we will be bad or if we can manage to be average.

Clemson had a similar line last year against an ACC team. They won by 60. Now yes, UL was in a different situation but it I think the safety net isn't as automatic a thing as people are acting.

We beat the absolute crap out of Louisville last year too (35 vs 60 points, but a whooping is a whooping), but here’s a fun fact: neither of those results is at all relevant to the discussion here. Those were entirely different teams in entirely different situations. Yes, Clemson is pretty clearly an elite team and a significant step up from where we’re at. But none of that negates the fact that they are still starting a whole bunch of new players and have a whole offseason of rust to knock off (applies to us as well), and they have a “tougher” matchup looming next week that may take some of their focus off this game. None of this is a guarantee that we stay anywhere close to them, but it’s entirely reasonable to expect us to cover the massive spread (which they only managed 3 times against P5 teams in the year where they won the natty, and it’d be very hard for them to be just as good as they were last year).

 

[ramblinjacket]

I just glanced the thread so may have missed it but a valid reason for concern and comparing past year is a bad practice is we now run a much more hurry up style of offense. So more chances for Clemson to score.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

The spread, according to a bookie friend, is to have equal money put on both teams.
That’s the reason it moves as the game approaches. I don’t bet, so basically ignore it.

 

[bobongo]

I just glanced the thread so may have missed it but a valid reason for concern and comparing past year is a bad practice is we now run a much more hurry up style of offense. So more chances for Clemson to score.

That's a good point, and perhaps one reason the spread is larger than in recent years. There's no such thing as a lock, but IMO there's a much better than even chance Tech covers a 37-point spread. One reason is that the team seems to have a great spirit this year. All I know is what I read in the papers, but it seems they believe in their coaches and want to get out there and prove themselves. They probably look at the inflated point spread as a challenge and an insult. The Jackets know they're up against it, but there's nothing to lose and everything to gain. If we come out more focused than Clemson, who knows, we could make a game of it. There have been bigger upsets. I figure we have as much chance as we did in Birmingham in 1981. Here's to the old college try...

 

[Animal02]

.

There's no such thing as a lock, but IMO there's a much better than even chance Tech covers a 37-point spread.

Obviously the gambling public disagrees.

 

[ChasonBaller]

I'm in at +37

 

[bobongo]

.

Obviously the gambling public disagrees.

If they agreed, the line would be lower. Actually, half the gambling public thinks it's too high, and half the gambling public thinks it's too low.

The average bear thinks they beat us by 37. Now, are folks betting on the underdog smarter than the average bear, or dumber than the average bear? We'll see.

 

[Treb1982]

Took teaser and got Tech +42.5

 

[herb]

The spread, according to a bookie friend, is to have equal money put on both teams.
That’s the reason it moves as the game approaches.

The spread is there to win money for the house. It is not always to have equal money on both teams though. If you watch the line moves you sometimes, not often but there are several games a week, see the line moving opposite the money flow. Be very careful with those games

 

[bobongo]

For the big payout, play the money line. A dollar gets you 50 at some sports books.

$20,000 on Tech will make you a millionaire, if you're very, very lucky.

 

[RonJohn]

The spread is there to win money for the house. It is not always to have equal money on both teams though. If you watch the line moves you sometimes, not often but there are several games a week, see the line moving opposite the money flow. Be very careful with those games

The goal is to be equal. If the money is equal, the house takes the vig with zero risk. If I could transfer $1 million dollars from one group of people to another group every week and take 10% of that with zero risk to myself, I would be extremely happy.

 

[herb]

The goal is to be equal. If the money is equal, the house takes the vig with zero risk. If I could transfer $1 million dollars from one group of people to another group every week and take 10% of that with zero risk to myself, I would be extremely happy.

But they are gamblers by nature. Sometimes they think they know, and often do, something every doesn’t and exploit it. Just watch the lines and you will see what I am talking about.

 

[CuseJacket]

I just glanced the thread so may have missed it but a valid reason for concern and comparing past year is a bad practice is we now run a much more hurry up style of offense. So more chances for Clemson to score.

That's a good point, and perhaps one reason the spread is larger than in recent years. There's no such thing as a lock, but IMO there's a much better than even chance Tech covers a 37-point spread. One reason is that the team seems to have a great spirit this year. All I know is what I read in the papers, but it seems they believe in their coaches and want to get out there and prove themselves. They probably look at the inflated point spread as a challenge and an insult. The Jackets know they're up against it, but there's nothing to lose and everything to gain. If we come out more focused than Clemson, who knows, we could make a game of it. There have been bigger upsets. I figure we have as much chance as we did in Birmingham in 1981. Here's to the old college try...

This was my knee jerk response when I first saw the line too. Then I remembered how our offense performed last year and the year before. We didn't exactly play keep-away.

 

[Animal02]

The goal is to be equal. If the money is equal, the house takes the vig with zero risk. If I could transfer $1 million dollars from one group of people to another group every week and take 10% of that with zero risk to myself, I would be extremely happy.

Hell, just holding the money, if done wisely and at no risk, can generate $$$.

 

[Animal02]

But they are gamblers by nature. Sometimes they think they know, and often do, something every doesn’t and exploit it. Just watch the lines and you will see what I am talking about.

The "house" does not want to gamble.....they want the risk to be 0 or in their favor.

 

[herb]

The "house" does not want to gamble.....they want the risk to be 0 or in their favor.

Then why are there games with 70%+ of the money on one side and the line moves opposite. The vast majority of the time you are correct, but you see the scenario I described 7 to 9 times, at least, a week. By the way over the course of the season the house record in those games is about 65%. So anyone looking for a good gambling strategy. . ,