early bird special

[mush]

I have been following you gentleman for some time and I now feel that I am ready to join your excellent handicapping team.

Three early looks for tomorrow:
Oregon St +7 1/2
Oregon +6 1/2
Stanford over 142 best bet

any thoughts on these games???

 

[Nickelback]

Oregon is a special trap play. . . should have several cappers drooling over themselves until they catch the final score.

 

[mush]

Thanks for the reply, I know oregon won big the first time but they are still playing well and i can see them playing well and possibly winning outright.

 

[Nickelback]

lol mush. . . so will the public! Gotta remember that Oregon plays amazing at home, not so great on the road. Two different teams.

Good luck anyways but it looks like a sucker bet to me!

 

[Red Raider]

Hey Mush,

If I'd listened to Nickelback, I'd have my nickel back....wish I had.

Best part of this forum, isn't jumping on someones back and getting picks, its learning. If I do nothing else, I will try to absorb some of what these good folks say around here.

That said, you could be right. Do your homework, and go with your head.

Good Luck to you, and welcome aboard!!

------------------
I hope to break even this week. I need the money.

-UNKNOWN VETERAN GAMBLER
-------------------------

 

[mush]

Not going to argue with, you sound a little more knowledgeable so i will probably pass.
thanks..

 

[mush]

hey raider thanks for the advice, i actually played college ball in the big west and know a little bit about the pac ten and also alot of the midwest schools. i hope i can help you gentleman as well
look forward to working with you

 

[Nickelback]

Mush,

My intention was not to argue back and forth. . . but to discuss the game. You asked for thoughts on the games you listed above and I gave you mine on one specific game. I hope you stick around and are not afraid to post your sides and reasons for them. I think that's the only way we can beat the books is if we come together and lay everything out on the table for games where there might be dissention.

My arguments:

In the win against Arizona, Oregon made 13 out of 22 three pointers which is well above 50%. . . but their overall average is 43.8! Can we expect them to do the same on Arizona's floor??? I seriously doubt it, but this is for you to decide.

Also, Oregon has only played two games on the road (other games away from their house were on neutral courts) and both were losses to Portland (ouch) and Minnesota (slightly better team, but not Arizona). Arizona plays very well on their home floor and have always had a great advantage there as opposed to playing on the road. Certainly they should be focused and ready to play an Oregon team that handed them their largest defeat in over a decade!

These are the type of lines that Vegas attempts to catch some coin on. . . especially after a team that lost to the same team a short time ago is now suddenly the favorite. Looks like a steal right? 90% of the time it isn't!

Good luck to you!

 

[Nickelback]

Received this from yahoo (in order to give proper credit!):


The Ducks will leave cozy McArthur Court for rematches at Arizona (Friday) and at Arizona State (Sunday). Although the Ducks are a veteran team, they have yet to prove they can win a game without clutching tightly to the security of their home court. Counting a 90-63 win over Louisville at Portland, Oregon averages 49.4 percent 3-point shooting at home, including a 13-for-26 [this should read 13 for 22. . . the article is wrong for this stat] performance against Arizona. Oregon also has won eight straight at home, by an average of 32.1 points. But the Ducks shot only 29.6 percent from long range in three straight road losses and have yet to win outside their home state. Both Arizona and Oregon have revenge motives for their Friday night showdown: The Wildcats lost 105-75 at Oregon on Dec. 22, but Oregon was equally trounced, 104-65, the last time the teams met at McKale Center in Tucson.

=================================




[This message has been edited by Nickelback (edited 01-04-2002).]