|
January 23, 2008
Shouldn't anyone eyeing a serious sports bet or three on the NFL Playoffs have their TV remote set to the Weather Channel? Don't games where there is snow, rain and/or wind favor the underdog? Wasn't that drilled home to NFL betting fans when then winless Miami (+15) took Pittsburgh down to the final minute before losing 3-0 on a submerged Heinz Field, Nov. 26? Wasn't the concept of bad weather favoring the underdog reinforced Dec. 16 when the Jets (+20) only lost by 10 to the undefeated Patriots in a blizzard in Foxboro and the Redskins (+6) upset the Giants, 22-10, on a Meadowlands field where 26 mph winds made passing extremely difficult? Didn't all three of the cited examples also go under the total?
Now that Titans Coach Jeff Fisher has allegedly made good on his promise to "get" Chargers linebacker Shawne Merriman, should President Bush let Fisher go after Osama Bin Laden?
Be honest now, if, at the beginning of the season, you were offered a bet of which would happen first, a Patriots loss or a Dolphins win, you'd owe the bookmaker a bundle, wouldn't you?
Isn't there something wrong when a college football or basketball coach can, without penalty, opt out of his current contract for a more lucrative job at another university but an athlete who switches schools has to sit out an entire season?
Is there any truth to the rumor that archaeologists have discovered Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig's backbone in a dig on the outskirts of Milwaukee? When it comes to drugs, isn't thoroughbred racing, a sport that could not exist without horse betting, a good example of how the use of pharmaceuticals should be treated. Doesn't racing do the right thing when it informs the horse betting public of the use of Lasix, an anti-bleeding medication that, as a diuretic, also can hide the presence of performing-enhancing drugs, by placing a bold L on the past performance lines of horses that use it? Given that, shouldn't MLB place an S for steroids or an HGH symbol for human growth hormone next to the pitchers names?
Haven't the Celtics (20-2 straight up through Dec. 18) proven the critics wrong who said the "Big Three" of Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen couldn't get along? Isn't Boston, which also is 16-6 against the spread in the same period, a darling of NBA betting aficionados, as well? Haven't the best teams in the NBA, including Boston, Phoenix, San Antonio, Orlando and Detroit, which had a combined straight up record of 91-31 through Dec. 18, almost been the most reliable against the spread, posting a 76-45 cumulative record versus the number? Doesn't that reinforce the contention that NBA teams with winning records straight up generally also are better plays against the point spread?
Do you think 2/9 is a fair betting line for Tiger Woods leading the 2008 PGA Tour in earnings? Would you rather take 12/1 on Phil Mickelson racking up the most cash? When it comes to Major wins, would you take Tiger at 2/5 to win at least one Major or Phil at 3/1 to do the same? Isn't 25/1 a little light for Tiger winning the Grand Slam?
Speaking of Grand Slams, can't you get 8/1 on Roger Federer finally accomplishing the task in 2008? Is that a fair price given Federer's inability to beat Rafael Nadal on the slow clay courts at the French Open? Would you rather take 9/4 that Federer wins exactly three Grand Slam titles in 2008?
What's all the shock about alleged fixing of tennis matches? Isn't tennis, where you only have to influence the actions of one person, a lot easier to fix that team sports?
Isn't it true that when it comes to sports betting, it's the more adept bettors, not the more precise handicappers, who have the greater chance of success?
|
