I have no play on the game but I did break it down and to me it's CAL or nothing in this one.
I see that 70% of the bets or so are on UCLA here. I'd be careful. I think CAL has a great shot of winning this one. They lost their last 2 home games by a combined 5 points to USC (it was their revenge game) and a solid Arizona squad. Prior to that they won 3 home contests to Arizona St, Oregon, and Oregon St.
UCLA has been home the whole month of February prior to last Thursday. They won a road game against Stanford (by 4) and now are playing their 2nd straight on the road.
Also, CAL is on 'revenge' here, having lost to UCLA by 2 points earlier this season. CAL is 3-1 ATS this year revenging a road loss so this team plays well in similar scenarios to today's. They are 2-0 ATS this year as a home doggie of 3 points or less, and 4-1 ATS over the last couple of years.
UCLA turns the ball over (ranked #290), doesn't generate turnovers on D (ranked #290), is a poor 3PT shooting team and is one of the worst from the 'charity stripe' making only 66.7% from there. To me these are 3 critical factors for teams to have consistent success on the road. UCLA is weak in all 3.
So I'll ask again, why is everyone on them tonight?
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
I have no play on the game but I did break it down and to me it's CAL or nothing in this one.
I see that 70% of the bets or so are on UCLA here. I'd be careful. I think CAL has a great shot of winning this one. They lost their last 2 home games by a combined 5 points to USC (it was their revenge game) and a solid Arizona squad. Prior to that they won 3 home contests to Arizona St, Oregon, and Oregon St.
UCLA has been home the whole month of February prior to last Thursday. They won a road game against Stanford (by 4) and now are playing their 2nd straight on the road.
Also, CAL is on 'revenge' here, having lost to UCLA by 2 points earlier this season. CAL is 3-1 ATS this year revenging a road loss so this team plays well in similar scenarios to today's. They are 2-0 ATS this year as a home doggie of 3 points or less, and 4-1 ATS over the last couple of years.
UCLA turns the ball over (ranked #290), doesn't generate turnovers on D (ranked #290), is a poor 3PT shooting team and is one of the worst from the 'charity stripe' making only 66.7% from there. To me these are 3 critical factors for teams to have consistent success on the road. UCLA is weak in all 3.
So I'll ask again, why is everyone on them tonight?
I go to UCLA, and I am all over CAL tonight, as I agree with your analysis 100%, we did well against stanford because their bigs couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but I think with how many turnovers we have had recently, this is a bad spot to bet on UCLA, its either CAL or a no play
0
I go to UCLA, and I am all over CAL tonight, as I agree with your analysis 100%, we did well against stanford because their bigs couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but I think with how many turnovers we have had recently, this is a bad spot to bet on UCLA, its either CAL or a no play
bodio -- I like UCLA due to the presence of Josh Smith (who only played six minutes last time these two teams met), UCLA's defensive focus has come around recently, and Crabbe could be in or out and if in, his condition may not be 100%. There are reasons to be scared for UCLA backers though, likely a popular Sunday night "chase" play and Cal is gonna play zone (which UCLA can have trouble with). UCLA was up DD in the second half in that Stanford game and the score really isn't as close as it indicated as Green hit some shots late to make it look close. Last time that UCLA played Cal earlier this year, same type of thing happened -- Lee locked down Crabbe and held him in check until he fouled out, and Crabbe went on a huge run when not guarded by Lee and made the game look much closer than it really was.
0
bodio -- I like UCLA due to the presence of Josh Smith (who only played six minutes last time these two teams met), UCLA's defensive focus has come around recently, and Crabbe could be in or out and if in, his condition may not be 100%. There are reasons to be scared for UCLA backers though, likely a popular Sunday night "chase" play and Cal is gonna play zone (which UCLA can have trouble with). UCLA was up DD in the second half in that Stanford game and the score really isn't as close as it indicated as Green hit some shots late to make it look close. Last time that UCLA played Cal earlier this year, same type of thing happened -- Lee locked down Crabbe and held him in check until he fouled out, and Crabbe went on a huge run when not guarded by Lee and made the game look much closer than it really was.
I go to UCLA, and I am all over CAL tonight, as I agree with your analysis 100%, we did well against stanford because their bigs couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but I think with how many turnovers we have had recently, this is a bad spot to bet on UCLA, its either CAL or a no play
Agree 100%. Good luck
0
Quote Originally Posted by CappingGenius:
I go to UCLA, and I am all over CAL tonight, as I agree with your analysis 100%, we did well against stanford because their bigs couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but I think with how many turnovers we have had recently, this is a bad spot to bet on UCLA, its either CAL or a no play
I go to UCLA, and I am all over CAL tonight, as I agree with your analysis 100%, we did well against stanford because their bigs couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but I think with how many turnovers we have had recently, this is a bad spot to bet on UCLA, its either CAL or a no play
hey you go to UCLA? i go there too
0
Quote Originally Posted by CappingGenius:
I go to UCLA, and I am all over CAL tonight, as I agree with your analysis 100%, we did well against stanford because their bigs couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but I think with how many turnovers we have had recently, this is a bad spot to bet on UCLA, its either CAL or a no play
bodio -- I like UCLA due to the presence of Josh Smith (who only played six minutes last time these two teams met), UCLA's defensive focus has come around recently, and Crabbe could be in or out and if in, his condition may not be 100%. There are reasons to be scared for UCLA backers though, likely a popular Sunday night "chase" play and Cal is gonna play zone (which UCLA can have trouble with). UCLA was up DD in the second half in that Stanford game and the score really isn't as close as it indicated as Green hit some shots late to make it look close. Last time that UCLA played Cal earlier this year, same type of thing happened -- Lee locked down Crabbe and held him in check until he fouled out, and Crabbe went on a huge run when not guarded by Lee and made the game look much closer than it really was.
Thanks Kap. Great stuff. What makes you think that Lee can stay out of foul-trouble tonight? If he fouled out at home, how will he stay out of foul-trouble on the road?
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
bodio -- I like UCLA due to the presence of Josh Smith (who only played six minutes last time these two teams met), UCLA's defensive focus has come around recently, and Crabbe could be in or out and if in, his condition may not be 100%. There are reasons to be scared for UCLA backers though, likely a popular Sunday night "chase" play and Cal is gonna play zone (which UCLA can have trouble with). UCLA was up DD in the second half in that Stanford game and the score really isn't as close as it indicated as Green hit some shots late to make it look close. Last time that UCLA played Cal earlier this year, same type of thing happened -- Lee locked down Crabbe and held him in check until he fouled out, and Crabbe went on a huge run when not guarded by Lee and made the game look much closer than it really was.
Thanks Kap. Great stuff. What makes you think that Lee can stay out of foul-trouble tonight? If he fouled out at home, how will he stay out of foul-trouble on the road?
bodio then how come no play for you, just curious~
i lean CAL too
hmmm...good question.
Like I said earlier in my post for today, I didn't have a chance to handicap last night. So spent the late morning (slept in today)capping the games and must have just over-looked this one.
Then someone PM'ed me asking about this one, and I took a closer, more detailed look. Now I'm beginning to really like CAL but figured I'd bring up the question to get a discussion going. Who knows, maybe it will be my 3rd play for today. We shall see....
0
Quote Originally Posted by SaiB:
bodio then how come no play for you, just curious~
i lean CAL too
hmmm...good question.
Like I said earlier in my post for today, I didn't have a chance to handicap last night. So spent the late morning (slept in today)capping the games and must have just over-looked this one.
Then someone PM'ed me asking about this one, and I took a closer, more detailed look. Now I'm beginning to really like CAL but figured I'd bring up the question to get a discussion going. Who knows, maybe it will be my 3rd play for today. We shall see....
Thanks Kap. Great stuff. What makes you think that Lee can stay out of foul-trouble tonight? If he fouled out at home, how will he stay out of foul-trouble on the road?
While I don't remember the exact specific of each of his fouls at home, my memory tells me that he doesn't foul out a lot... In fact, this is really the only game I remember him fouling out on.
One thing to always remember about betting the Pac-10: The refs are shady as fuck. I've been bent over by being on the wrong side of them many, many times. Sometimes it seems too easy, and that everything should point to one sign, and then you remember, oh yes, the refs.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bodio:
Thanks Kap. Great stuff. What makes you think that Lee can stay out of foul-trouble tonight? If he fouled out at home, how will he stay out of foul-trouble on the road?
While I don't remember the exact specific of each of his fouls at home, my memory tells me that he doesn't foul out a lot... In fact, this is really the only game I remember him fouling out on.
One thing to always remember about betting the Pac-10: The refs are shady as fuck. I've been bent over by being on the wrong side of them many, many times. Sometimes it seems too easy, and that everything should point to one sign, and then you remember, oh yes, the refs.
If you like playing contrarian sides, hard not to like Cal here. UCLA has been hot and people are finally starting to talk about them, Cal has lost a ton of games in a row...
0
If you like playing contrarian sides, hard not to like Cal here. UCLA has been hot and people are finally starting to talk about them, Cal has lost a ton of games in a row...
Here's a response from someone from another forum where I posted this question on:
Doesn't generate turnovers, but they are hands down the best defensive team in the conference. They just don't take chances.
Poor three point shooting team, but they don't shoot many threes anyways. It'd be one thing to shoot a lot and suck, but it's another thing when you simply don't rely on them anyways.
Bad FT%, but they get to the line better than any team in the conference. "We may shoot a low percentage, but we'll make more than you do" - that's the motto you'll see them live by. Not about making 90% if you get there twice as much as your opponent.
You can point out negatives to any side, but there is a reason UCLA is a good all-around team.. and it has a lot to do with what I just illustrated. They find ways to use their inefficiencies as strengths, or at least find ways to hide them.
When using the revenge angle for this game.. Keep in mind that UCLA was absolutely blowing Cal out of the water for the majority of that first game. Had a 16 point lead with 5 minutes left... yet had to have a tip-in in the final seconds to win. The motivation inside a revenge angle has a couple different faces: either the team that wins the first time overlooks the opponent the second time around, or their opponent looks to fulfill a grudge based on the previous game's performance, or a combination of the two. In this game, specifically, UCLA is the team with the added motivation in a lot of people's minds. They are the team that came away from that game pissed off, not Cal. Cal shot 58% that night, and while they lost, there certainly wasn't the negative buzz surrounding them as there was with the UCLA team that gave up such a massive lead. Cal played out of their minds, fought hard, and showed a lot of character. When Cal looks back on that game, I don't think it's the negative feeling you'd expect them to have in a revenge spot.
Lastly, Cal was destroyed on the boards that night. Yet, Josh Smith only played 6 minutes. UCLA beats teams by out-rebounding them (that's how they make up for their turnover problems); if you can't be competitive on the glass against the Bruins WITHOUT Josh Smith, the general feeling is that you'll struggle even more with him out there.
I'm not going to say I have a lean to either side... Just saying, I understand the appeal of backing the hottest team in the conference.
0
Here's a response from someone from another forum where I posted this question on:
Doesn't generate turnovers, but they are hands down the best defensive team in the conference. They just don't take chances.
Poor three point shooting team, but they don't shoot many threes anyways. It'd be one thing to shoot a lot and suck, but it's another thing when you simply don't rely on them anyways.
Bad FT%, but they get to the line better than any team in the conference. "We may shoot a low percentage, but we'll make more than you do" - that's the motto you'll see them live by. Not about making 90% if you get there twice as much as your opponent.
You can point out negatives to any side, but there is a reason UCLA is a good all-around team.. and it has a lot to do with what I just illustrated. They find ways to use their inefficiencies as strengths, or at least find ways to hide them.
When using the revenge angle for this game.. Keep in mind that UCLA was absolutely blowing Cal out of the water for the majority of that first game. Had a 16 point lead with 5 minutes left... yet had to have a tip-in in the final seconds to win. The motivation inside a revenge angle has a couple different faces: either the team that wins the first time overlooks the opponent the second time around, or their opponent looks to fulfill a grudge based on the previous game's performance, or a combination of the two. In this game, specifically, UCLA is the team with the added motivation in a lot of people's minds. They are the team that came away from that game pissed off, not Cal. Cal shot 58% that night, and while they lost, there certainly wasn't the negative buzz surrounding them as there was with the UCLA team that gave up such a massive lead. Cal played out of their minds, fought hard, and showed a lot of character. When Cal looks back on that game, I don't think it's the negative feeling you'd expect them to have in a revenge spot.
Lastly, Cal was destroyed on the boards that night. Yet, Josh Smith only played 6 minutes. UCLA beats teams by out-rebounding them (that's how they make up for their turnover problems); if you can't be competitive on the glass against the Bruins WITHOUT Josh Smith, the general feeling is that you'll struggle even more with him out there.
I'm not going to say I have a lean to either side... Just saying, I understand the appeal of backing the hottest team in the conference.
Oregon St and Arizona St. are the bottom two teams in the conference, and Oregon is 3-5 on the road this season.
In regards to scheduling... Not sure if you're aware that the Pac-10 schedule is played based on two-game sets. There are the Arizona schools, LA schools, Bay Area schools, Oregon schools, Washington schools... When you travel, you play both teams in each set. So unless you're facing your inner-set rival, there is never a situation where you DON'T play two straight road games and/or two straight home games in a week. Nothing new, is what i'm trying to say.
0
Just to cover your entire post....
Those three wins you alluded to:
Oregon St and Arizona St. are the bottom two teams in the conference, and Oregon is 3-5 on the road this season.
In regards to scheduling... Not sure if you're aware that the Pac-10 schedule is played based on two-game sets. There are the Arizona schools, LA schools, Bay Area schools, Oregon schools, Washington schools... When you travel, you play both teams in each set. So unless you're facing your inner-set rival, there is never a situation where you DON'T play two straight road games and/or two straight home games in a week. Nothing new, is what i'm trying to say.
and with what im trending vegas moved off kenprom faved cali by 2 and line is ucla faved on the rd intresting why all the love for ucla what does vegas no that were overlooking ? good thread we all could use info to help thx bodio
0
and with what im trending vegas moved off kenprom faved cali by 2 and line is ucla faved on the rd intresting why all the love for ucla what does vegas no that were overlooking ? good thread we all could use info to help thx bodio
While I don't remember the exact specific of each of his fouls at home, my memory tells me that he doesn't foul out a lot... In fact, this is really the only game I remember him fouling out on.
One thing to always remember about betting the Pac-10: The refs are shady as fuck. I've been bent over by being on the wrong side of them many, many times. Sometimes it seems too easy, and that everything should point to one sign, and then you remember, oh yes, the refs.
A reminder of why I call the Pac-10 the ATS coin-flip conference--with my side usually going down in flames.
E.g. I was leaning Stanford at home against USC (4-8 away) and thought it was a +EV bet only laying 1 at home (11-5). They lay an egg out of the gate down 40-22 in the 1st half; never recovering thereafter. Thank god I passed--and I also didn't bite on the tempting -3 2nd half bet as well!
WTS, I was thinking UCLA would be favored by at least 2 on the opening line. But I have about as good of a read as a blind man passing by a billboard. (No offense to the blind.)
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
While I don't remember the exact specific of each of his fouls at home, my memory tells me that he doesn't foul out a lot... In fact, this is really the only game I remember him fouling out on.
One thing to always remember about betting the Pac-10: The refs are shady as fuck. I've been bent over by being on the wrong side of them many, many times. Sometimes it seems too easy, and that everything should point to one sign, and then you remember, oh yes, the refs.
A reminder of why I call the Pac-10 the ATS coin-flip conference--with my side usually going down in flames.
E.g. I was leaning Stanford at home against USC (4-8 away) and thought it was a +EV bet only laying 1 at home (11-5). They lay an egg out of the gate down 40-22 in the 1st half; never recovering thereafter. Thank god I passed--and I also didn't bite on the tempting -3 2nd half bet as well!
WTS, I was thinking UCLA would be favored by at least 2 on the opening line. But I have about as good of a read as a blind man passing by a billboard. (No offense to the blind.)
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.
Hot Forum Topics
