Georgia +7 1/2 -- Let's get something right out of the way -- this is
weakest Alabama edition of the past four years. You have the '09
national title team, the '10 team that whipped Michigan St. in the bowl,
the '11 national title team and now this one. What's the big
difference? Quite a bit. It starts with a lack of NFL-caliber in the
skill spots. The previous teams mentioned had guys like Julio Jones,
McElroy, Ingram and Richardson. This offense has a serviceable QB, an
overweight and slow RB in Lacy, an up-and-comer in RB Yeldon and nothing
special at WR whatsoever, and that's when three of the top four targets
are actually healthy and playing. Even the defense, we'd argue, is not
as good talent-wise as the past few years. Still good. And very good for
"this season" which has been a weak one, in our opinion, across the
board in terms of skill players. And that's kinda the story of the SEC.
You have five excellent defensive teams (Bama, Georgia, LSU, Florida and
South Caro) and one team with a good defense and incredible QB
(A&M). What we're trying to do is paint the picture that this has
been a defensive conference partly because the stop units mentioned
above are that good and partly because outside of A&M and Tennessee
(on its very best and healthiest day) there isn't much in the way of
good offenses. Georgia is working with a defense that features, by our
count, up to six NFL players. Offensively, the Dawgs lack perimeter play
makers, but have done well to get their running game going. We don't
see much difference talent-wise between QBs McCarron and Murray. When
picking Georgia last week, we talked about how we were nervous laying
points with HC Richt, but did it anyway. Now, we've got Richt right
where we want him -- as an underdog. It took quite a while due to
suspensions and injuries to get this Georgia defense together and
thriving as a whole, but now that it is, they are well-equipped to put
major heat on Bama in this setting. Our trouble with this line is that
the public is allowing the oddsmakers to price this league
just as it has done the past few years. Hence, the line on this game.
It's high. Too high. Given the perceived flow and the lack of skill
players or desire by the coaches to try anything crazy with so much on
the line, what you have is
a defensive struggle in the making that fits right into the same type
of game we've seen quite a bit this season in this conference. 17-10.
14-10. 20-17. 13-10. 17-13. Ring a bell?
Georgia +7 1/2 -- Let's get something right out of the way -- this is
weakest Alabama edition of the past four years. You have the '09
national title team, the '10 team that whipped Michigan St. in the bowl,
the '11 national title team and now this one. What's the big
difference? Quite a bit. It starts with a lack of NFL-caliber in the
skill spots. The previous teams mentioned had guys like Julio Jones,
McElroy, Ingram and Richardson. This offense has a serviceable QB, an
overweight and slow RB in Lacy, an up-and-comer in RB Yeldon and nothing
special at WR whatsoever, and that's when three of the top four targets
are actually healthy and playing. Even the defense, we'd argue, is not
as good talent-wise as the past few years. Still good. And very good for
"this season" which has been a weak one, in our opinion, across the
board in terms of skill players. And that's kinda the story of the SEC.
You have five excellent defensive teams (Bama, Georgia, LSU, Florida and
South Caro) and one team with a good defense and incredible QB
(A&M). What we're trying to do is paint the picture that this has
been a defensive conference partly because the stop units mentioned
above are that good and partly because outside of A&M and Tennessee
(on its very best and healthiest day) there isn't much in the way of
good offenses. Georgia is working with a defense that features, by our
count, up to six NFL players. Offensively, the Dawgs lack perimeter play
makers, but have done well to get their running game going. We don't
see much difference talent-wise between QBs McCarron and Murray. When
picking Georgia last week, we talked about how we were nervous laying
points with HC Richt, but did it anyway. Now, we've got Richt right
where we want him -- as an underdog. It took quite a while due to
suspensions and injuries to get this Georgia defense together and
thriving as a whole, but now that it is, they are well-equipped to put
major heat on Bama in this setting. Our trouble with this line is that
the public is allowing the oddsmakers to price this league
just as it has done the past few years. Hence, the line on this game.
It's high. Too high. Given the perceived flow and the lack of skill
players or desire by the coaches to try anything crazy with so much on
the line, what you have is
a defensive struggle in the making that fits right into the same type
of game we've seen quite a bit this season in this conference. 17-10.
14-10. 20-17. 13-10. 17-13. Ring a bell?
Nebraska -3 -- We're not a fan of either team right now, but if you pit
them against each other, we'll side with the Cornhuskers in a game that
may get ugly. Wisconsin had a nice hot streak in the middle of the
season. But once the Badgers were back in against quality competition,
vs. Ohio St. and Penn St. they wound up with Ls. In fact, that's been
the case any time this team has played quality competition this season.
The problem is twofold now. The Badgers are weak at QB and WR. And their
defense is a major concern heading into this situation. Basically, this
team is a good ground game and that's about it. While Nebraska is no
great shakes, they can move the ball and play defense at a slightly
higher level than Wisky. This call really hinges on our perception of
what sort of condition both physically and mentally each team will be
in. For Wisconsin, this is a trip back to the title game. For Nebraska,
it's an exciting new adventure. Never underestimate how college teams
can under-perform when taking the business-like approach and can
over-perform when excited. And as much as we hate to say it, and factor
this in, but can you really see Wisconsin in a third straight Rose Bowl?
UCLA +9 -- We had Stanford last week because much of that call
revolved around the fact that a program that conducts itself like an NFL
team was much better equipped to fire a good effort fresh off a huge
win the week prior. UCLA was quite the opposite, and it showed. But this
week, the roles are somewhat reversed and the mental focus shifts in a
big way for Stanford. Think about it, Stanford is a very methodical team
with smart players and an NFL mentality. They are not, however, loaded
with the type of skill players who can produce a big margin. And whereas
the professional approach worked well last week, this week it may
actually hurt in the sense that this could be a very workmanlike
performance not conducive to covering big numbers. In general, it takes a
massive talent gap for a team to turn around a week after routing an
opponent and go out and do it again. UCLA can take what it did wrong
last week and improve. We don't see that same aspect being so fruitful
for Stanford. Not sure if UCLA can win this game, but they have more
than enough to stay within the number and give the Cardinal a scare.
Again, just think about what the oddsmaker is asking the Cardinal to do.
Nebraska -3 -- We're not a fan of either team right now, but if you pit
them against each other, we'll side with the Cornhuskers in a game that
may get ugly. Wisconsin had a nice hot streak in the middle of the
season. But once the Badgers were back in against quality competition,
vs. Ohio St. and Penn St. they wound up with Ls. In fact, that's been
the case any time this team has played quality competition this season.
The problem is twofold now. The Badgers are weak at QB and WR. And their
defense is a major concern heading into this situation. Basically, this
team is a good ground game and that's about it. While Nebraska is no
great shakes, they can move the ball and play defense at a slightly
higher level than Wisky. This call really hinges on our perception of
what sort of condition both physically and mentally each team will be
in. For Wisconsin, this is a trip back to the title game. For Nebraska,
it's an exciting new adventure. Never underestimate how college teams
can under-perform when taking the business-like approach and can
over-perform when excited. And as much as we hate to say it, and factor
this in, but can you really see Wisconsin in a third straight Rose Bowl?
UCLA +9 -- We had Stanford last week because much of that call
revolved around the fact that a program that conducts itself like an NFL
team was much better equipped to fire a good effort fresh off a huge
win the week prior. UCLA was quite the opposite, and it showed. But this
week, the roles are somewhat reversed and the mental focus shifts in a
big way for Stanford. Think about it, Stanford is a very methodical team
with smart players and an NFL mentality. They are not, however, loaded
with the type of skill players who can produce a big margin. And whereas
the professional approach worked well last week, this week it may
actually hurt in the sense that this could be a very workmanlike
performance not conducive to covering big numbers. In general, it takes a
massive talent gap for a team to turn around a week after routing an
opponent and go out and do it again. UCLA can take what it did wrong
last week and improve. We don't see that same aspect being so fruitful
for Stanford. Not sure if UCLA can win this game, but they have more
than enough to stay within the number and give the Cardinal a scare.
Again, just think about what the oddsmaker is asking the Cardinal to do.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.