College Football Week 6 Quick Hitters: Betting Nuggets and Featured Pick
After taking a mini-hiatus last week, Quick Hitters is back and ready to look at some key situations for a great college football Saturday. Instead of beating around the bush (like USC did with former head coach Lane Kiffin), let’s dive right into the action. The featured pick is now 1-1 on the season, thanks in large part to the unemployed man mentioned in the previous sentence, but we should expand on that this week with a quality selection.
In case you are new to this segment, this article will point out the top betting nuggets of the week by identifying trends, stats, and situations to be aware of. As I mention every week, it is important to remember that these trends and stats are only one piece of the puzzle when trying to figure out which team to place a wager on. They shouldn’t be followed blindly, but instead they should be considered and factored into the broader context and reasoning for selecting a side.
2 thoughts on “College Football Week 6 Quick Hitters: Betting Nuggets and Featured Pick”
Leave a Reply
MAXIMIZE YOUR EDGE
I think the problem with a lot of the games this week and the reason why handicapping can sometimes be harder these days is because of weeks like this where it’s pretty obvious that the oddsmakers have already heavily factored in the situational stuff into many of these games. In the past games like Georgia, LSU and OU would have probably been closer to 14 point favorites than 10. But I believe that the oddsmakers have already adjusted these lines for the sandwich, letdown and lookahead spots. Which makes these games much more difficult if you were contemplating taking the dogs. Now you’ve got a line that makes you think hard before pulling the trigger knowing that the game is likelier to fall closer to the opening number.
A quick opinion about some of these games. I’m kind of liking SMU against Rutgers, as bad as they are. They’ve played a very tough schedule this season so far, and I thought they played fairly well last week even though they made too many mistakes against TCU. Plus Rutgers injury list looks like a red cross hospital right now. If nothing else, I really like the over in that game. But you need to watch the weather, it’s suppose to be nasty here in the Southwest this weekend.
As for some of these other games and the public betting percentages, I agree that you really need to tread lightly when these percentages get up around 80% or more. Teams who didn’t cover last week at 80% or over were FSU (81%)Texas A&M (83%)and two forum/service play favorites Wyoming (82%)and Navy (79%). But these teams covered: Miami (85%) Clemson (81%) Missouri (80%)NC St (81%). So you can’t always let the betting percentages keep you off these teams if your really believe in your play. All of these teams who covered are teams who are playing very good right now, and all were playing pretty much helpless opponents. Something to keep in mind.
Right now the teams who are getting 80% or more of the public betting action are:
Louisville 80% (Louisville might cover this number. You just have to remember their on the road)
Buffalo 83% (helpless opponent but the MAC is a shady conference)
Georgia State 81% (public dog)
Miami 91%!! (is GT really that bad?)
Northern Illinois 86% (great spot for Kent St)
Clemson 87% (better opponent this week and on the road)
Georgia 88% (Tough call, but I wouldn’t want to be giving many points on the road with that defense)
Bowling Green 86% (helpless opponent)
East Carolina 85% (MTS isn’t a helpless opponent, EC on the middle leg of a 3 game road trip)
Oregon 89% (it all depends on what Oregon wants to do-which score do they name?)
LSU 86% (Miss St could be a tough cover this week after a bye)
Cincinnati 84% (pretty much a helpless opponent, but USF doesn’t have that bad a defense-and is Cincy really that trustworthy? I’m not a big Tubberville fan)
Naturally not all of these teams are going to lose ATS. But you have to ask yourself which of these teams are playing the helpless opponents they can just walk over, and which are not.