** 2024 Opponent Preview : Colorado (Game 2) **

Mavric said:
But there has to be a decent amount of money to go from +20000 to +12500.
Click to expand...


It doesn't take that much at those odds. If 100 people each bet $100, then they're bringing in $10,000 with a liability of 2 million. If they bring that down to +12500 they still attract the same sort of casual bettor, but their liability is almost halved.

Obviously they don't think Colorado will win the championship. Those are 1/200 odds, or .5% chance of occurring. But, if it did happen, then they have to pay. When Leicester won the English Premier League title a few years ago, some early bettors got in at 5000/1 odds and some bookmakers had to reach settlements for lower payouts with winners because the liability was so large. Those bookmakers were only paying out 40-50 bets, though. MGM is seeing 4.5% of its betting volume on people doing this with Colorado. That's too big of a liability.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They are +10000 on my site, which is basically the same as every other team that has no chance.  

Their entire season is based on SS staying healthy.  If he gets dinged up in that first game, the will be lucky to win 2 games.

 
brophog said:
It doesn't take that much at those odds. If 100 people each bet $100, then they're bringing in $10,000 with a liability of 2 million. If they bring that down to +12500 they still attract the same sort of casual bettor, but their liability is almost halved.

Obviously they don't think Colorado will win the championship. Those are 1/200 odds, or .5% chance of occurring. But, if it did happen, then they have to pay. When Leicester won the English Premier League title a few years ago, some early bettors got in at 5000/1 odds and some bookmakers had to reach settlements for lower payouts with winners because the liability was so large. Those bookmakers were only paying out 40-50 bets, though. MGM is seeing 4.5% of its betting volume on people doing this with Colorado. That's too big of a liability.
Click to expand...
In your EPL example, how come the bettors settled with the bookmakers?   Why wouldn’t they say give me all the money I am owed?  The bookmakers sure as hell doesnt settle when the Bettor loses.  Sorry for the questions but I don’t bet much at all on sports and I’m fascinated at why a settlement would occur 

 
Archy1221 said:
In your EPL example, how come the bettors settled with the bookmakers?
Click to expand...


In some cases bettors took lesser payouts before the title race was officially decided, but reports are quite a few people at the end of the day settled. 

The betting industry took it on the chin that day, but it learned, too, and the lesson it learned is it doesn't have to offer such astronomical prices for very long. Betting on long shots went up after this because it was such a huge story. This is despite the fact the following year prices went down sharply, but your average bettor now saw that it's possible for these super long shots to win.

The biggest problem bookmakers made that year was they didn't drop the price fast enough as it became more and more apparent Leicester could pull off the miracle.  In the case of Colorado, their odds of actually winning a title probably haven't changed, but by lowering the price to +12500, bookmakers can wean off the bettors who are making this bet as a potentially smart value play, and retain the suckers. It's all about managing risk for them. They want some people to bet this, because the odds of Colorado winning the title are very low, but they don't want so many betting it that they lose too much money in the event it does happen.

 
Their interior DLine appears rough again to me but it looks like they added a few good DEs. Will get a good idea early if NDSU is able to run right at them or not.

 
Archy1221 said:
In your EPL example, how come the bettors settled with the bookmakers?   Why wouldn’t they say give me all the money I am owed?  The bookmakers sure as hell doesnt settle when the Bettor loses.  Sorry for the questions but I don’t bet much at all on sports and I’m fascinated at why a settlement would occur 
Click to expand...
The EPL race that year was very nip tuck and Leicester didn't have things wrapped up until the last few matches of the year. I vaguely remember reading about this when it happened and IIRC, the average bet size on Leicester to win was something like 50 pounds. Those bookmakers were offering a few thousand to cash out your ticket early which is quite a bit of money for a ton of people and some people ended up taking the early cash out offer.

 
brophog said:
I know I have the koolaid flowing, but the guys making the betting lines usually don't and they have UNL winning a few more games than CU. They usually have a good reason for that. :D

So, there's an argument out there on offensive line talent vs continuity and what that means for CU. They went out and bought a new offensive line because baby boy got sacked too much. However, sacks are primarily a QB stat and they didn't change the QB. Sanders isn't a bad QB, but he's a frontrunner. When things are great, he looks great, but when you get to those dial a blitz downs and/or his guys don't get open, he doesn't look so good anymore. For a guy some think could be a top QB pick next year, this is a huge red flag, imo. The average pocket time for an NFL offense last year ranged from 2.1-2.7 seconds.

The flipside, and an example that the QB played such a big role in sacks, is Patrick Mahomes. Line was top 4 in most pressures, but the team gave up the 2nd fewest sacks. Receivers couldn't catch, they were chippin for both tackles at times. It was really a mess, but Mahomes wasn't getting sacked because he got the ball out and he's good at extending plays. Their offense wasn't nearly as good as it had been and certainly a lot of that falls on the offensive line....but they weren't taking sacks.

This is why our timing on offense was so big for us to work on this spring. Get to the top of the drop and fire. When you watch Colorado, even when they have a receiver wide open, it still takes Sanders extra time to get rid of the ball. When he gets pressured, instead of working laterally or stepping up, he tends to run backwards. For him, I think it's much less a situation that his offensive line wasn't very good and more that he can't seem to play if they're not great.
Click to expand...
This is spot on, but I’m really concerned about this game. Our qb play will be better this year, no doubt, and we have a better culture, but I’m worried about some of the things that got us in games last year. Our inability to cover speedy wide receivers cost us at least 2-3 games last year, and I’m not sure it’s fixed. We have more athletes now, but right now, Colorado seems to have the edge there.
I’m also not quite as bullish on our defense this year, because we lose the element of surprise/novelty. It will still be solid, but I think teams will adjust a bit. 

 
thatguy said:
but I’m worried about some of the things that got us in games last year.
Click to expand...


I share all of the concerns you noted. Some of them, like a tendency to give up big plays, go back to Syracuse. It's a high risk/high reward defense and the CU game last year is the ultimate example of that.

thatguy said:
Our inability to cover speedy wide receivers cost us at least 2-3 games last year, and I’m not sure it’s fixed. We have more athletes now, but right now, Colorado seems to have the edge there.
Click to expand...


It's hard to get a good feel from the spring because we sat so many guys at times, but the goal this spring was to get better at getting pressure with fewer guys. I think we will have more speed on the outside, and for the most part everywhere on defense, but we gotta get pressure with less people, more often, so we can give guys some more help.

thatguy said:
I’m also not quite as bullish on our defense this year, because we lose the element of surprise/novelty. It will still be solid, but I think teams will adjust a bit. 
Click to expand...


The biggest challenge this defense gives to an offense is multiplicity. We can present a lot of fronts and give teams a lot to think about. It's not that any one thing is all that unique, it's the sheer volume of different things being presented by one opponent. That's always going to be hard for a team to prepare for.

It is a very call dependent defense. Because it is so proactive and aggressive it's almost like an offense in that sense, and like an offense, sometimes you just make the wrong call. Other teams will certainly have more data to track White's tendencies, but he'll also have a better idea of how certain opponents want to operate, too. I'm less worried about a team 'figuring us out' and more worried about whether White has more tools to play with.

 
brophog said:
I share all of the concerns you noted. Some of them, like a tendency to give up big plays, go back to Syracuse. It's a high risk/high reward defense and the CU game last year is the ultimate example of that.

It's hard to get a good feel from the spring because we sat so many guys at times, but the goal this spring was to get better at getting pressure with fewer guys. I think we will have more speed on the outside, and for the most part everywhere on defense, but we gotta get pressure with less people, more often, so we can give guys some more help.

The biggest challenge this defense gives to an offense is multiplicity. We can present a lot of fronts and give teams a lot to think about. It's not that any one thing is all that unique, it's the sheer volume of different things being presented by one opponent. That's always going to be hard for a team to prepare for.

It is a very call dependent defense. Because it is so proactive and aggressive it's almost like an offense in that sense, and like an offense, sometimes you just make the wrong call. Other teams will certainly have more data to track White's tendencies, but he'll also have a better idea of how certain opponents want to operate, too. I'm less worried about a team 'figuring us out' and more worried about whether White has more tools to play with.
Click to expand...
Yea. All great points. Hopefully the strange bad luck of opposition weaknesses failing to materialize on game day turns this year. if Rhule plans for tat, I think we will be fine. If they expect Colorado to fall apart or just not be good because of the negative news coming out of boulder, then I think they could lose. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Listened to this on my 9 hour drive yesterday.  I think it is a subscriber only, so if you want the full thing you have to pay (but SpiltZoneDuo is worth it IMO), but was a good listen.  Basically Sheduer is a low-risk QB and takes the easy throws/checkdowns which inflates is comp % and brings down his INTs.  Also his pocket presence needs a lot of work because he scrambles backwards and takes a ton on sacks (although his O-Line wasn't terrible, just below average).



 
Back
Top