| ber of dicey factors, including the disparity between | | | | the first game. New players really can't be judged until |
| the nation's finest teams and those that still have | | | | bet takers see them in a game. Admittedly, the college |
| struggling programs, the massive turnover of personnel | | | | football betting public is in the same boat. |
| each year, and the absurdly large number of teams | | | | So even though responsible bookmakers put in an |
| involved, conspire to make college football betting far | | | | incredible amount of work during the summer to get a |
| more difficult than its NFL counterpart. | | | | feel for the college teams, they never know if their |
| With the college gridiron campaign currently in full | | | | assessments are valid until the teams start playing. |
| swing, bettors would be wise to join experienced | | | | The Numbers Factor: There's no doubt that it's easier |
| bookmakers in analyzing these three key factors: | | | | to keep tabs on 32 NFL teams than it is to keep track |
| The Gap Factor: The difference between upper | | | | of over 100 college squads. The NFL is all there for |
| echelon teams and middle to bottom teams can be | | | | you, on television every weekend. In college football |
| enormous in college football betting. When you have | | | | betting, the big games are there but most bet house |
| that situation, certain oddsmaking criteria go out the | | | | personnel aren’t going to see a lot of Wyoming |
| window. For example, when you have an Ohio State | | | | or Louisiana Tech on the tube. As oddsmakers, they |
| or a USC on the road, the talent level versus an | | | | need to be right on every game. The bettor only has |
| Indiana or an Arizona is going to be so wide that it will | | | | to be right on a few games each week to be |
| negate any home field advantage those teams may | | | | successful. Obviously, from the perspective of the |
| have. Of course, that goes for other college super | | | | bookmakers, it's a lot more dangerous posting |
| powers such as a Florida or a Texas. | | | | numbers on 50 college games than it is on 16 NFL |
| So, although most books use Power Ratings as a | | | | games. |
| place to begin the pointspread making process, they're | | | | There are a number of other differences between the |
| not nearly as reliable as they are for the NFL. For | | | | collegiate gridiron game and its NFL cousin. |
| example, when Texas opened the season with a | | | | For one, in general, bettors are far more willing to lay |
| sparring partner in North Texas State, it was difficult to | | | | big numbers in college than they are in the NFL. |
| know what the right number was. Most books settled | | | | It’s just the nature of the non-professional |
| on 42 with the knowledge that the final score would | | | | gambler to lay it rather than take it. Or as one |
| depend on the mercy of the Long Horns. Alas, Texas | | | | prominent bookmaker pointed out, "You have to give |
| showed little sympathy for its overwhelmed opponent, | | | | them a minus or they don't know which side to take. |
| crushing North Texas State, 56-7 for the cover. | | | | When in doubt, they go with the favorite." |
| Given the above example--Louisville (-40) versus | | | | Scheduling also is more of a consideration in college |
| Temple, Sept. 9 was another--typically, bookmakers | | | | football betting because the players lack maturity and |
| often add a touchdown or so to the raw numbers. | | | | are more susceptible to the emotional high of playing a |
| Conversely, if you're using pure Power Ratings, they | | | | rival, not to mention the letdown often associated with |
| can be skewed if you're looking at scores such as | | | | games preceding or following one of those contests. |
| 56-0, 62-0 and 72-7 heading into conference play. | | | | Another thing to watch is the emergence of a betting |
| That's a different level. | | | | glamour team. It's a team that gets hot early and |
| The People Factor: From year to year you have a | | | | captures the imagination of the college football betting |
| much greater turnover of personnel in the college | | | | public. LSU did that when it went 11-2 against the |
| game than you do in the NFL. That means there's a | | | | spread in 2003. Auburn was the hot team a year |
| sharper learning curve each year for the colleges. You | | | | before that. Bookmakers are aware of these teams |
| might get every bit of information about a team for | | | | and are constantly adjusting the numbers, but until that |
| two months but then every thought and every | | | | team loses a couple of times, the public bets them |
| projection you had for that team could change after | | | | every week. |