You know what's weird?
>> Wednesday
...That the Patriots aren't more of an overwhelming favorite on Sunday.
I just saw on the ESPN Bottom Line that NationOfStupidSportsFans (I think that's what they call it) are only 61.4%-38.6% picking the Pats over the Giants. Granted, I know there's a bunch of New York bias in that number, but I'm still surprised it's not more lopsided.
More surprisingly, the spread on the game is only Pats -12. Yes, I realize that's a pretty good margin as far as football games go, and especially as far as Super Bowls go.
But we're talking about a regular-season 16-0 team vs. a regular-season 10-6 team. I'm not entirely sure about this, but I believe that the Rams-Pats Super Bowl in '02--a matcup of 14-2 vs. 11-5 had a larger spread. And I know that the '95 Super Bowl between the 13-3 49ers and 11-5 Chargers was something like 19 at the start of the game (which, incredibly, the 'Niners covered).
At the time, the NFC was much better. But I think most people would agree that the AFC is just as superior now as the NFC was then. So why does a 6-game margin now mean less than a 2-game margin then? Are people just getting wiser, or is the league that much tighter in terms of team-to-team talent? (Data says, not necessarily.)
So what gives?
Posts
2 comments:
Easy answer. People are stupid, and gamblers are stupider.
The opening line was probably appropriate (-14). But enough idiots would love to have bragging rights 10 years from now and be able to say, "Oh yeah, I bet against the 18-0 Pats. I knew it."
What do they have to lose? Yeah, some money. However, these people obviously make a different sort of gamble... They ask, "Is it worth spending enough money on the huge underdog just to brag?" I guess the answer is yes.
People also have short-term memory. Just because the Pats weren't winning by 30 points a game the last few weeks doesn't mean they can't. Sure, they had perfection to play for... but really, did they have to give 100% each game all season to achieve perfection? I doubt it. They've coasted for a while and will turn it on in the Super Bowl just to shut everyone up.
On a related note, I don't get why people are seeing Randy Moss's unimpressive playoff performance thus far as a knock against the Patriots.
The way I see it (which naturally makes it the RIGHT way to see it) the fact that the Patriots have won without the superhuman feats of Randy Moss makes them even more intimidating.
Moss didn't all of a sudden turn into Marty Booker. The talent is still there, and he's just as likely to go off for 170 yards and 2 TDs as ever. But even if he doesn't, the Patriots can find other ways to win.
And in case you're wondering, yes, Moss WILL win the Super Bowl MVP. You can take that to the bank.
Post a Comment