Still think weāll fall victim to media narrative, which is somewhat fair, that our offense is pathetic and donāt deserve to make it because of that. Even though our record clearly is deserving of getting in. 22-9 in the ACC and fighting to stay in the last 4 in is insane to me and makes think weāll get passed over to get Villanova in or some upstart/mid major program that is more exciting
1 Like
This doesnāt make sense at all. If we beat clemson, weāve got to be a lock. Ignoring that weād still have a shot if we lost, do they think we have less than a 1/3 chance of beating Clemson?
Yeah, thatās crazy. Thatās a huge leap from a week ago.
Hereās a bracketologist who does a pretty good job chiming in last night. Whatās the disconnect? Dunn injury?
https://x.com/JBRBracketology/status/1766654909691089043?s=20
Same book has Villanova at -138 to make tourney.
What?
Strange stuff.
This has made me realize that I donāt understand betting markets AT ALL. We had a solid win and largely positive bubble results elsewhere, but are now less likely to get in?
Both Drake and Indiana State look mediocre at best. GT or ND, for example, would easily beat either of these teams. Indiana State doesnāt have a quality win.
Something funky with these.
They were live for like 24 hrs. It had Cuse at -130 6 days ago and us at +152. Then the option to bet went away for 5 days.
Now itās back with us in far worse (probability) shape than before after a solid win and Nova loss.
Fan duel VA has the same line. They are only offering that plus some long odds in Iowa. Canāt bet on VA teams so not sure if we still appear in some other state.
1 Like
FWIW, DraftKings had UVA at +110 to make the tournament prior to yesterdays game (earlier this week), so odds have been all over
1 Like
Very concerning. Letās try to make some sense of it.
If we play Clemson in the ACCT, kenpom says we are 6.5 point dogs. I looked up a game with a 6 point favorite today (Chatanooga vs someone) and the money line was -270/+230, so the true odds are 1/3.5 or about 28.5% of the upset happening there and similar for us to upset Clemson.
Of course we arenāt guaranteed to play Clemson. We could get BC or Miami and be about 3.5 point favorites. Thatās like todayās Michigan St game which has -185/160 odds, so true odds of 1/2.725 or about 63% chance the favorite wins.
Weāre probably about 80% to play Clemson and 20% to play Miami/BC.
.8 * .285 (chance of playing Clem * chance of beating them) + .2 * .63 (chance of playing BC/MIA * chance of beating them) = .354 or 35.4% for us to win ACC QF
You didnāt post the UVA miss tournament odds, but Iāll assume they are -245, so true odds of 1/3.25 or 31% chance to make tourney and 63% to miss according to Fanduel.
So it seems like Fanduel says we need to win the QF to make the tourney and just did some math on how likely that is.
3 Likes
Indiana State came from 18 down in 2nd half to tie it.
Have sport books been good at predicting at-large bids for the Tourney in the past? I feel like Iām missing something.
1 Like
Sure but that seems to be out of step with the good bracketologists who think we have a very very good shot regardless of Thursday game. Which begs the questions:
- has something changed we donāt know about (injury, etc)?
- are they calculating something really differently about bid stealers or other bubble teams? Why?
Sports books are good at predicting everything related to sports. Thatās why they make money and bettors lose.
+205 is free money.
I thought they make money by playing bettors from either side against each other to basically eliminate any risk of losing money, regardless of outcome.
2 Likes
I donāt think that is out of step with good bracketologists. I saw one good one said we are a lock, but just because he is good at producing a final bracket doesnāt mean heās good at simulating what likely outcomes are for conference tourneys and how that affects us. I posted some of the quality win chances above for the teams around us. Some of those, probably, will be converted. If we lose to Clemson, we are in big trouble, especially if there are bid thieves.
Also, it is definitely possible that sharps (in this case people with inside knowledge of the committee room) are hammering the line. I assume the max bet is WAY lower for this market than for a game or who will win the natty, since this market isnāt some objective fact. Betting on whoās in is betting on the subjective evaluation of the committee, and they could find ways to get bets down illegally. (Same reason when you see Oscars odds or something the max bet is tiny.)
Yes, but there is enough money controlled by sharp (smart, winning) bettors that if they get the line wrong, sharps pound it mercilessly and the line moves to where it is right (on average). So I think itās equally true to say that books get almost every line right, at least eventually.
Seriously put some money down at +205 lol. Iād have us at -180 or something similar.
If they set the max bet really low, then the real sharps might not even waste their time. It also seems really hard to find this bet nationally. It seems like theyāre dangling some lines for bubble teams but then may pull them if itās too heavy on one side