My new Bowl betting cheat sheet

It seems that there's been a dramatic drop in 'capping discussions lately.  Maybe I've got more time on my hands so I notice it more.  But Doggy posted a thread last week that started some pretty good discussion and maybe this will get some good ideas going, too.  Or maybe I'll get some burning bags of money.  Those are always fun.

But after being able to watch far more Bowl games than normal (thank you, Denver blizzard), I think I've learned some things and while using that glycemic index may be great for getting Dan Marino down to his playing weight, it's doing jacks**t to help me 'cap a game.  So, going forward, I believe I'm going to use the following as a checklist to help me find Bowl bets. 

1.  Coaching
Specifically, is one of the coaches in the matchup, severely over-matched.  Think:  Lloyd Carr vs. Pete Carroll, or Mack Brown vs. a potted plant.  If the coaching disparity is great, I will not bet on the bad coach without extenuating circumstances.

2.  Motivation
Which team wants to be there.  The media will always make up some angle about how a team that started as the preseason number two is all jazzed to be in the George Washington Carver Peanut Butter Bowl, but chances are they could really care less.  Every year there are at least three underdogs who win outright on motivation alone.  It won't always work in situations where the unmotivated team is substantially more talented, but in cases where the talent is close to even the motivated team seems to spring the upset, and where the talent is even it seems to be a blowout.

3.  Who has key seniors?
Perfect example of this in the last week was Rutgers.  The seniors at Rutgers, including that RB who came back for his final year just so he could be a backup to Rice, these guys were there when the program was a joke, so a bowl win for them was a big, big deal.  Sure enough, they got a good matchup and that game was never in doubt.

4.  Out of conference schedule
I got caught up this year with teams that weren't as good as I thought they were and the way that happened was because I was remembering them from really good impressive wins in conference.  Well, that's great, but what if the conference sucks?  The Big XII was down this year, we all knew that and yet there I am, betting on damn near the whole conference (OK I would actually bet again, but that's not the point).  The point is, conference games may look great in a vacuum, but you have to look outside the conference to see if a team is really any good.  Consider last year when Texas went into Columbus and beat up OSU, or this year when OSU beat up Texas.

5.  Conference strength
This could be 4a., but whatever.  Again, bigger picture over the smaller one.  Is the conference strong this year, are the teams within it going out of conference and winning big games.  Is the Bowl match up I'm looking at one in which it's obvious that one team is from a strong conference and the other is from a weaker one?  If so, one team has been playing good competition all year and is very likely battle hardened whereas the other might be squishy soft.

6.  Like matchups
When I'm looking at a Bowl matchup, did one of the teams in question play a similar opponent during the season?  Minnesota had a similar matchup to a team like Texas Tech, same with Iowa and Texas.  It may not be the best predictor, but look back over both the schedules and see what it has to say.

7.  Better pass defense & better rushing offense
If one of the teams is dramatically better than the other in both categories, they're a consideration.  The correlation is somewhat obvious.  If they can run well, they're likely more balanced, if they're more balanced they're probably going to score.  That means if they get the lead they're likely going to be running the ball and defending the pass to protect it.  I had Arkansas yesterday, but it didn't blow me away that they were having a lot of problems in the second half yesterday being that Wisky was ranked as the best pass D in the nation.

These are the big ones that jumped out at me, feel free to add to it or shoot it down if you like.

j/k JP..........I like it but think you might swap 3 & 5.

Coaching is definitely key. A good coach can get his team up for any game.

great work joe...i think that conference strength is very hard to measure though and can sometimes be contradictory to Motivation (#2)...

i think motivation is often the most important factor because the attitude of a team can sway momentum one way or another so easily in games like this.  michigan was already to start preparing for next year, clemson did not want to even be playing at all, bama looked very distracted, etc...as soon as one bad thing happens in a game you're thinking here we go again

coaching is also huge because of the time to prepare and although you cannot really measure it by stats if you know well a coach is at making second half adjustments that is always crucial in bowl games...ie tulsa, michigan, etc who got dominated in the second half partially due to poor adjustments

Thanks, Beningo.  Actually, I'm not a Broncos fan, but I did have their season win total over 10.  I felt pretty good when they were 7-2.  Ugh.

Originally I liked LSU, but now, let's use the cheat sheet.

1.  Les Miles vs. Charlie Weis.  Advantage:  Weis.  Is Miles a complete moron?  Of that I'm not convinced just yet, though some people are, still, advantage ND.

2.  Who's more motivated?  I'd say it's a push.  LSU has to be a little disappointed they didn't get a shot at a USC or a Michigan, but they're also in basically the second biggest Bowl game there is.  On the other side, ND could really use a Bowl win.  Weis has not been all that great in big games up to this point and it's pretty obvious that ND is overrated as exhibited by their eight straight bowl losses.

3.  This is Brady Quinn's last game, so I'd expect to see him put it in the air and he's got the guys to do it.  ND's losing some key guys.  That said, this figures to be JaMarcus Russell's last game, too, and you have to think he wants to impress NFL teams just as much, if not more, than Quinn who has a top spot locked.  So I'd probably put this close to a wash, too.

4.  Out of conference is tough with LSU because who'd they play?  Fresno St.?  I think, however, it's very telling with Notre Dame--obviously they're an independent, but their schedule this year is remarkably soft and they didn't get through it very well.  They should have lost to both UCLA and Michigan St. and they got blown out by USC.  Advantage:  LSU.

5.  Conference strength.  It's a little tough to tell how super strong the SEC is this year.  I had Arkansas and still think they were the right play, but they lost.  'Bama, lost.  Bad.  Auburn should have lost.  The best looking SEC team so far as been Kentucky, well, and South Carolina, but the two big guns, LSU and Florida have yet to play.  And ND has no conference, but their competition has been really weak all year save the opener w/Michigan and their trip to USC.  Gotta give the advantage to LSU.

6.  Like matchups.  I think the real question is, who has LSU played that can throw the ball.  My answer to that would be Florida.  That looks like the closest thing there is, and LSU lost that game.  But I think what got LSU in that game, if I remember right, were turnovers and pressure by the Florida D.  Can ND produce pressure?  I'm nos sure we've seen that and, again, it's really ND's name that's gotten them into this game.

7. LSU is better rushing and better at pass defense. 

That would make me believe that LSU wins the game, but I don't love the number.  I'd probably prefer to lay a -3, at most a -6.5.  I'd also lean toward the over, yet it's such a high number.

If I were to go by the sheet, I'd lay off.  Maybe look to get the LSU ML in-game for a good price or tease them down.

That would be where this would take me, but going through it I would feel very comfortable that they win the game.

Thanks all.

Yeah, Mugg, I was weighting them all about the same after numbers one and two, but I do agree with you about the conference being important.  I think that motivation and coaching though are the biggest and I think they're probably interchangable as to which is more important.

You look at the teams going through coaching changes and you could tell the ones that were going to show up right from the opening kick.  CMU wanted to play for that guy because he's been in the system and is up for the job.  Boston College already knew they had another guy coming in, same with ASU.  ASU folded in the second half, BC waited until late to get it together and should have lost.  Then there was 'Bama.

But again you look at motivation for teams like BYU or for Boise, or USC (that UCLA loss) and look at the results.  Or how about FSU not having had a losing season in 30 years under Bobby B. 

At the same time, something I discovered to be over-hyped this year, the "this team hasn't been to a bowl in 40 years" comment.  Wasn't it Rice that hadn't seen a bowl in 35 years or something like that only to get blown out?  There was another one, too.  So some of these trumped up motivational angles can suck you in.

Good point, Doggy.  I think the problem with recent performances is that it can be deceiving.  Some teams that have played very poorly get a month to straighten it out--some do, others just want to go home and quit.  I think some of that gets wrapped up into other factors, like coaching (can he motivate them to perform) and motivation (do they want to be there, do they want to redeem themselves).

The other problem with that is that during the timeoff, some teams get key guys back from injury.  So there's a chance that their chemistry problem was due to injury less than them, you know, sucking.

Also, doesn't Clemson fall into the coaching category as well? 

And the motivation one? 

What were they win this year, the Pep Boys' Transmission Overhaul Bowl? 

You know, Three, I'd love to hear from somebody on that particular game, because in that case I have to plead ignorance.  I know nothing about either of those teams.  Zero.  I can't name a player, and I'm not sure of Tulsa's nickname, I think it's like the Tornados or something.

Not only that, I didn't see a play of the game, or a highlight afterward, so like I said, I'd love to hear more on that one. 

But to the larger point, I wouldn't necessarily pull out one of the above and ask it to single-handedly carry a bet.

It's like the LSU thing above, going by the sheet, I would probably lay off, because even though LSU seems to have an advantage in many of the positions, it's not clear enough for me to jump on them with such a big number.

Good point on dogs after X-Mas, guys.