So far, against the spread, the P12 is a perfect 0-6. For those of you who bet on college football, I hope that you have been paying attention...

Source: SF Chronicle on the day of the game

Fresno (-5) v. Arizona State... Fresno 31-20
Cal (-1) v. TCU... TCU 10-7
Washington State (-2.5) v. Iowa State... Washington State 28-26
Stanford (-4.5) v. Pittsburgh... Stanford 14-13
Oregon (-2.5) v. Michigan State... Oregon 7-6
Utah (-7) v. Northwestern... Northwestern 31-20

Not necessarily a sign that the Pac-12 flubbed it during the bowl season. The spreads being larger than the actual outcomes is likely because the casual betting fan would have favored the Pac-12 teams in these particular match-ups. It seems the Pac-12, aside from Utah, played about as well as predicted.

Who cares about the spread, nobody measures that.

NVBear78 said:

---

Who cares about the spread, nobody measures that.

---

There are millions of football fans who care more about the spread than the outcome of the games......

A bit of a misleading post title.

71Bear said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

Who cares about the spread, nobody measures that.

---

There are millions of football fans who care more about the spread than the outcome of the games......

---

Let me fix that: there are millions of gamblers who care more about the spread than the outcome of the games.

I guess that Alabama is 0-1 then.

NVBear78 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

Who cares about the spread, nobody measures that.

---

There are millions of football fans who care more about the spread than the outcome of the games......

---

Let me fix that: there are millions of gamblers who care more about the spread than the outcome of the games.

---

There are millions of DEGENERATE gamblers

PAC-12 teams are averaging about 14 points per game in bowls but also holding opposing offenses to under 20. Maybe the disparity between our offense and defense was partly due to the type of competition we had in the conference. That is not to excuse our performance on offense, though.

heartofthebear said:

---

PAC-12 teams are averaging about 14 points per game in bowls but also holding opposing offenses to under 20. Maybe the disparity between our offense and defense was partly due to the type of competition we had in the conference. That is not to excuse our performance on offense, though.

---

Based on the Rose Bowl game to this point, it looks like the P12 will go a perfect 0-7 v. the spread and 3-4 overall with the champion being humiliated in the biggest bowl game.

The conference is a disgrace. A completely unbiased observer might suggest the fortunes of the conference are entirely dependent on USC. When they roll, the conference is respected. Otherwise, it is a laughingstock.

Bear19 said:

---

A bit of a misleading post title.

---

Right. All he has to is finish the thought "against the spread"

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

PAC-12 teams are averaging about 14 points per game in bowls but also holding opposing offenses to under 20. Maybe the disparity between our offense and defense was partly due to the type of competition we had in the conference. That is not to excuse our performance on offense, though.

---

Based on the Rose Bowl game to this point, it looks like the P12 will go a perfect 0-7 v. the spread and 3-4 overall with the champion being humiliated in the biggest bowl game.

The conference is a disgrace. A completely unbiased observer might suggest the fortunes of the conference are entirely dependent on USC. When they roll, the conference is respected. Otherwise, it is a laughingstock.

---

The conference is a disgrace. You don't need to introduce a completely ridiculous measure (spread) to bolster your point. If anything it gets people to dismiss your point.

TheFiatLux said:

---

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

PAC-12 teams are averaging about 14 points per game in bowls but also holding opposing offenses to under 20. Maybe the disparity between our offense and defense was partly due to the type of competition we had in the conference. That is not to excuse our performance on offense, though.

---

Based on the Rose Bowl game to this point, it looks like the P12 will go a perfect 0-7 v. the spread and 3-4 overall with the champion being humiliated in the biggest bowl game.

The conference is a disgrace. A completely unbiased observer might suggest the fortunes of the conference are entirely dependent on USC. When they roll, the conference is respected. Otherwise, it is a laughingstock.

---

The conference is a disgrace. You don't need to introduce a completely ridiculous measure (spread) to bolster your point. If anything it gets people to dismiss your point.

---

Even teams with offensive talent are performing offensively on offense

71Bear said:

---

heartofthebear said:

---

PAC-12 teams are averaging about 14 points per game in bowls but also holding opposing offenses to under 20. Maybe the disparity between our offense and defense was partly due to the type of competition we had in the conference. That is not to excuse our performance on offense, though.

---

Based on the Rose Bowl game to this point, it looks like the P12 will go a perfect 0-7 v. the spread and 3-4 overall with the champion being humiliated in the biggest bowl game.

The conference is a disgrace. A completely unbiased observer might suggest the fortunes of the conference are entirely dependent on USC. When they roll, the conference is respected. Otherwise, it is a laughingstock.

---

Well it wasn't as bad as last year when we lost every game but yeah...the conference sucks right now. Been this way for the past 3 years.


By the way...what does it say about Wilcox and Cal that we can't evem finish with a winning conference record in what is a historically weak period for the conference ?

Washington beat the spread

dajo9 said:

---

Washington beat the spread

---

Who-hoo!, We win!!

1-6 sure beats 0-7!!

71Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Washington beat the spread

---

Who-hoo!, We win!!

1-6 sure beats 0-7!!

---

Not really. I picked OSU.

PAC12: The conference formerly known as "The Conference of Champions"!

dajo9 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Washington beat the spread

---

Who-hoo!, We win!!

1-6 sure beats 0-7!!

---

Not really. I picked OSU.

---

This game was a great example of why betting on sports is foolish. I learned that lesson a long time ago.....

71Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Washington beat the spread

---

Who-hoo!, We win!!

1-6 sure beats 0-7!!

---

Not really. I picked OSU.

---

This game was a great example of why betting on sports is foolish. I learned that lesson a long time ago.....

---

So does it also mean that drawing vast conclusions about an entire conference based on how well it did against the spread is similarly foolish? Especially since many of the games were close to the spread.

Gamblers Anonymous is a good group for people who care more about the spread than the actual outcome of games.

hanky1 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Washington beat the spread

---

Who-hoo!, We win!!

1-6 sure beats 0-7!!

---

Not really. I picked OSU.

---

This game was a great example of why betting on sports is foolish. I learned that lesson a long time ago.....

---

So does it also mean that drawing vast conclusions about an entire conference based on how well it did against the spread is similarly foolish? Especially since many of the games were close to the spread.

---

You know the old saying.... Close only counts in horseshoes and grenades.

Heck, if close counted, I probably would never have gotten a job. I could have spent my life at the track every afternoon instead.

59bear said:

---

PAC12: The conference formerly known as "The Conference of Champions"!

---

conference of champions always meant "in sports no one watches."

We are still pretty good in those...

71Bear said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Washington beat the spread

---

Who-hoo!, We win!!

1-6 sure beats 0-7!!

---

Not really. I picked OSU.

---

This game was a great example of why betting on sports is foolish. I learned that lesson a long time ago.....

---

So does it also mean that drawing vast conclusions about an entire conference based on how well it did against the spread is similarly foolish? Especially since many of the games were close to the spread.

---

You know the old saying.... Close only counts in horseshoes and grenades.

Heck, if close counted, I probably would never have gotten a job. I could have spent my life at the track every afternoon instead.

---

But that didn't address his main point. In one breath you acknowledge how stupid it is to base anything on the spread. But you do that in a post you started lamenting how bad the conference did against the spread.

71Bear said:

---

So far, against the spread, the P12 is a perfect 0-6. For those of you who bet on college football, I hope that you have been paying attention...

Source: SF Chronicle on the day of the game

Fresno (-5) v. Arizona State... Fresno 31-20
Cal (-1) v. TCU... TCU 10-7
Washington State (-2.5) v. Iowa State... Washington State 28-26
Stanford (-4.5) v. Pittsburgh... Stanford 14-13
Oregon (-2.5) v. Michigan State... Oregon 7-6
Utah (-7) v. Northwestern... Northwestern 31-20

---

Maybe if Cal played better football Cal fans wouldn't need to while the hours/days/months/years away discussing horsecrap like this. On second thought, Cal fans would probably still find the time to waste on horsecrap like this. It's the nature of the beast.

Northside91 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

So far, against the spread, the P12 is a perfect 0-6. For those of you who bet on college football, I hope that you have been paying attention...

Source: SF Chronicle on the day of the game

Fresno (-5) v. Arizona State... Fresno 31-20
Cal (-1) v. TCU... TCU 10-7
Washington State (-2.5) v. Iowa State... Washington State 28-26
Stanford (-4.5) v. Pittsburgh... Stanford 14-13
Oregon (-2.5) v. Michigan State... Oregon 7-6
Utah (-7) v. Northwestern... Northwestern 31-20

---

Maybe if Cal played better football Cal fans wouldn't need to while the hours/days/months/years away discussing horsecrap like this. On second thought, Cal fans would probably still find the time to waste on horsecrap like this. It's the nature of the beast.

---

Have read other message boards? It's amazing how little the spread is discussed here.

71Bear said:

---

hanky1 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

71Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Washington beat the spread

---

Who-hoo!, We win!!

1-6 sure beats 0-7!!

---

Not really. I picked OSU.

---

This game was a great example of why betting on sports is foolish. I learned that lesson a long time ago.....

---

So does it also mean that drawing vast conclusions about an entire conference based on how well it did against the spread is similarly foolish? Especially since many of the games were close to the spread.

---

You know the old saying.... Close only counts in horseshoes and grenades.

Heck, if close counted, I probably would never have gotten a job. I could have spent my life at the track every afternoon instead.

---

I guarantee you that Stanford, Oregon, and WSU don't care that they didn't beat the spread. Close DOES count in their case, because by coming close to beating the spread, they won the game.

UW doesn't care that they did beat the spread, because they barely beat the spread, and that means that they lost.

In all those cases, yes, close counts, because the spread doesn't matter in the least unless you are engaging in the activity you acknowledge is foolish, betting on sport, and in those cases, close means winning (or in the case of UW, losing) what DOES count. Yep, close counts.

And as Vin Scully would tell you, close not only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, but also dancing.