All Forums | College Football

I just got a BONER when I saw STAN -8 and IOWA -16

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 3031
Posts: 39
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2011
Posts: 1195
Posted: #26
I will be on GTech, USC, Oklahoma and Baylor

Reasoning?  Big time reverse line movements in the face of 90% betting public on the "obvious" choices.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2009
Posts: 2587
Posted: #27
Are you guys all Limp Dicked now that Stanford is -7.5 ? i guess it was not that great of a line afterall.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2009
Posts: 1613
Posted: #28
Quote Originally Posted by composite:

The 5'7" 180 lb RB will have a tougher time getting tough yards in the red zone esp against a smashmouth D like Stanford.  It's the difference b/t FGs and TDs. 

Last year's game is important b/c it shows that Stanford can kick the shit out of "Monte's Tampa 2" that you think is so special.   Oh yeah, and they scored 55 the year before that. Again, showing that Monte's scheme doesn't mean dick like you think it does. 

Ignore it all you want. But there's more to the USC-Stanford game than simply fading an undefeated team who's played a soft schedule.

 

If a great football team has a soft schedule, it is still a great football team.  Some people don't get that. 

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 1117
Posted: #29
I knew HOUS  -27 was a good BONER! chaching!! 
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2010
Posts: 102
Posted: #30

Quote Originally Posted by footballfanstan:

My largest bet of the week will be on USC. This is the kind of game where the public is being lead to slaughter.

Yeah. You said the same thing about Ok St the past 2 weeks. You are so"sharp".STFU.

 
Legend
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2008
Posts: 33105
Posted: #31
Quote Originally Posted by 1969USC:

If a great football team has a soft schedule, it is still a great football team.  Some people don't get that. 

I agree with this statement. It's not Stanford's fault they play in a shitty conference this year. They've done what they're supposed to do so far this season.

 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 692
Posted: #32
SC Shoulda won last year in Stanford, back to back, 1 score game, down to the wire.

Same teams, Less Coach Harbaugh. 

This year it's at the Coliseum.

Stanford has been rolling fools by 20+ every game, only laying only 1 TD?  Smells fishy



 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 692
Posted: #33
Notre dame -8.5 was one of the biggest favorite bets on Covers forums last week..
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2008
Posts: 692
Posted: #34
Barkley is dialed in right now with the wideouts. Running game is coming around, as is D.

This, all coming from a homer. Just heeding warning to possible upset alert,
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2005
Posts: 553
Posted: #35
Be careful, USC played it close last year. I definitely think that Stanford team was a better team than they are this year. Stanford hasn't played anyone yet this year. I'll take the points. But that's just my opinion. Anything can happen. Good luck.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jan, 2010
Posts: 1457
Posted: #36
Looks like your boner went limp...Iowa -14 1/2 now!!
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2011
Posts: 8
Posted: #37
Quote Originally Posted by 1969USC:

USC is getting better every game.  They have a solid offense and an ugly defense that somehow does OK.  That being said, Stanford should be able to move and score well.  USC still needs to learn to tackle.

I think it should read Stanford  -21.

-7.5 is nuts. 


Couldn't be more true.  I'm a die-hard SC fan, have watched every game but the Syracuse one, and was at Notre Dame last week.  We are not a good team yet.  Notre Dame made some crucial mistakes that gave us huge momentum, we lost against Arizona State's passing game, barely squeaked it out against UofA's passing game, and haven't played anyone else worth noting.  Stanford's had a soft schedule, but they've won healthily each time.  Another thing to note: media hype.  ESPN is all over this game like USC has a chance.  I was hitting over 90% on the season until I listened to the ESPN hype two weekends ago (will never make that mistake again).  Stanford dominates, and that over (60) looks pretty attractive.  I"m thinking 45-27 or 49-31 Stanford, maybe worse : /
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 1106
Posted: #38
Quote Originally Posted by Trey_Dogg:

SC Shoulda won last year in Stanford, back to back, 1 score game, down to the wire.

Same teams, Less Coach Harbaugh. 

This year it's at the Coliseum.

Stanford has been rolling fools by 20+ every game, only laying only 1 TD?  Smells fishy

`in Stanford`  `rolling fools`????

Viet Khu or Filipino dude?
That said, I lean SC but feel you will get better value when the Furd rolls up to Corvallis. 


 
 
Banned
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2006
Posts: 20924
Posted: #39
Quote Originally Posted by GoogsVL3:

Looks like your boner went limp...Iowa -14 1/2 now!!
All Forums | College Football
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

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.