UNC Matchup

[CaneMutiny06]

The context was, Oregon doesn't lose games they shouldn't!

No, the context was that Oregon doesn't lose games to bad teams (like UNC). And they don't. That was clearly what the point was. But you just ignored everything else that was written in that post, and fixated on that line. Re-read his post, you took it out of context.

Beyond "anything could happen", which everyone can acknowledge, what is it about this match up in particular that we should be specifically concerned about? Because all you've offered so far is "Miami almost lost to BC in 2001".

 

[fastcane]

No of course not, nor do I think Miami is nearly as good as Oregon (at least up to this point). I'm saying this because I'm giving Miami the benefit of the doubt because I'm a Canes fan. You're not talking about two top teams, We are talking about a top team and a high mid level team in Miami, again, at least up to this point. Listen, we were out gained in yardage 2-1 to a team that will probably lose 3-4 games. 5 turnovers did them in, doesn't matter why they got those turnovers. Chances are Oregon runs the table are pretty good. The odds makers thought that Oregon was a 20.5 point favorite because Stanford lost 2 games that year before they played Oregon. Stanford also had 5 games that they won by 7 or less before that Oregon game.

Oregon smoked everyone they played up to that point besides USC that they beat by 11 at USC. So the closest game they had was 11 at USC. They were a massive favorite, Much more of a favorite than Miami will be, not sure why you can't wrap your head around this one. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Miami up to this point is not nearly as good as Oregon. Just as NC is not as good as Stanford. In fact the Odds makers thought Oregon was so much better than Stanford they opened the line at 21. Let's see who is right at what the odds makers see the Miami, NC game is. With your thinking Miami should be a bigger favorite on the road, with their first road conference game? Obviously the lines makers thought Stanford was sub par competition for this game, 20.5 underdog, and gambles did too. That line only moved .5 points down, that's virtually no line move in Vegas. So how much more than 20.5 points do you think Miami will be favored? I think Miami will be favored by somewhere around 8 or 9. His exact words were, ''Oregon doesn't lose games they shouldn't''.

The context was, Oregon doesn't lose games they shouldn't!

No, the context was that Oregon doesn't lose games to bad teams (like UNC). And they don't. That was clearly what the point was. But you just ignored everything else that was written in that post, and fixated on that line. You took it out of context.

Now, do you honestly think this UNC team is comparable to Stanford?

 

[CaneMutiny06]

No of course not, nor do I think Miami is nearly as good as Oregon (at least up to this point). I'm saying this because I'm giving Miami the benefit of the doubt because I'm a Canes fan. You're not talking about two top teams, We are talking about a top team and a high mid level team in Miami, again, at least up to this point. Listen, we were out gained in yardage 2-1 to a team that will probably lose 3-4 games. 5 turnovers did them in, doesn't matter why they got those turnovers. Chances are Oregon runs the table are pretty good. The odds makers thought that Oregon was a 20.5 point favorite because Stanford lost 2 games that year before they played Oregon. Stanford also had 5 games that they won by 7 or less before that Oregon game.

Oregon smoked everyone they played up to that point besides USC that they beat by 11 at USC. So the closest game they had was 11 at USC. They were a massive favorite, Much more of a favorite than Miami will be, not sure why you can't wrap your head around this one. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Miami up to this point is not nearly as good as Oregon. Just as NC is not as good as Stanford. In fact the Odds makers thought Oregon was so much better than Stanford they opened the line at 21. Let's see who is right at what the odds makers see the Miami, NC game is. With your thinking Miami should be a bigger favorite on the road, with their first conference game? Obviously the lines makers thought Stanford was sub par competition for this game, 20.5 underdog, and gambles did too. That line only moved .5 points down, that's virtually no line move in Vegas. So how much more than 20.5 points do you think Miami will be favored? I think Miami will be favored by somewhere around 8 or 9.

The context was, Oregon doesn't lose games they shouldn't!

No, the context was that Oregon doesn't lose games to bad teams (like UNC). And they don't. That was clearly what the point was. But you just ignored everything else that was written in that post, and fixated on that line. You took it out of context.

Now, do you honestly think this UNC team is comparable to Stanford?

The fact that the odds-makers under-valued Stanford doesn't make the loss look worse for Oregon. You are fixated on a line that was driven by the incorrect perception that Stanford was a sub-par team to Oregon, when in fact they weren't. Stanford's style of play does not lead to as many high-margin of victory games because they move at a much slower tempo than Oregon, which inevitably shortens the game. They are a classic "run the ball and play defense" team. Margin of victory is not the only determinant as to how good a team actually is.

At any rate Miami is 4-1 ATS so far this year though, which suggests Vegas has also under-valued this team thus far.

You mentioned the UF game and the 5 turnovers....do you realize that Miami is 3rd in the country in turnovers forced? Forcing turnovers is something our defense is actually good at, which suggests the UF game wasn't just fluke luck. Again, how you win a game does not necessarily make you are a "worse" team because of it.

 

[fastcane]

'' We may not be elite yet, but we want to believe we're heading that way in short order. We certainly appear to be a very solid, maybe even very good team this year.''

This I agree with you 100%!

They were massive favorites, we will be less of a favorite than both of those games. They also lost at home and Miami is on the road. Stanford lost 2 games and could have lost more than 5 more, they were very close. If what you are saying holds water then we will be 30 point favorites, that's not happening. 8 of Stanford's wins were 7 points or less.

'' Oregon doesn't lose games it shouldn't.''

Yes they do!


In 2011 Oregon was a huge 14.5 point favorite at HOME against USC, they lost outright!
In 2012 Oregon lost to Stanford at HOME as a massive 20.5 favorite.

Those were good teams they lost to though. SC went 10-2 and Stanford was a 12 win team last year. Not the same as a bad UNC team that will probably finish with a losing record.

Using Stanford as an example of Oregon losing games it shouldn't, within the context of what Biscuits was saying, is misleading. Stanford is/was not comparable to UNC in being a team an elite program shouldn't be losing to. Stanford had a really good team, UNC has a ****ty one. The fact that Stanford won close games doesn't make the comparison any more valid.

Exactly. When was the last time Alabama last to Vandy, or MSU? When was the last time Oregon lost to a Wazzu, or Utah, or even Oregon State? It's been a long time. They dropped a game against a 9-4 Cal team in 2008. That's the first loss I see that even comes close to what Miami losing to UNC would resemble.

My point, more finely stated, was that elite teams don't lose to bad or even average teams with any kind of frequency. We may not be elite yet, but we want to believe we're heading that way in short order. We certainly appear to be a very solid, maybe even very good team this year. UNC looks like a bad team. Sure, Miami could lose this game or play it close. But that's hard to predict by pointing to anything specific in the facts of the situation.

 

[fastcane]

It sure looked like a horrible loss to me, ask any Oregon fan how bad that loss was. Lines are driven by better's! They had 3 games that they scored about 50. They won one game 54-48 doesn't sound like a slow paced game to me. Bottom line they were not as good as Oregon all season, either on offense or defense, Oregon choked it happens. You do remember Andrew Luck not to long ago, right? They were not a classic run team by any means.

''At any rate Miami is 4-1 ATS so far this year though, which suggests Vegas has also under-valued this team thus far.''

This I agree with this because the facts are there to prove it.

Never said Miami game was a fluke, I actually believe on both sides of the ball the Miami coaches called close to a perfect game. But they had too, to win. Miami has only played one good team at home that we own for many years, one average team and 2 real bad teams and one high school team, to early to tell how good they are yet. I fully expect to win the next two games, the Florida state game will tell us where we really are. I'm just not calling for a blow out with NC at NC. Now I think Wake will be a blow out.

No of course not, nor do I think Miami is nearly as good as Oregon (at least up to this point). I'm saying this because I'm giving Miami the benefit of the doubt because I'm a Canes fan. You're not talking about two top teams, We are talking about a top team and a high mid level team in Miami, again, at least up to this point. Listen, we were out gained in yardage 2-1 to a team that will probably lose 3-4 games. 5 turnovers did them in, doesn't matter why they got those turnovers. Chances are Oregon runs the table are pretty good. The odds makers thought that Oregon was a 20.5 point favorite because Stanford lost 2 games that year before they played Oregon. Stanford also had 5 games that they won by 7 or less before that Oregon game.

Oregon smoked everyone they played up to that point besides USC that they beat by 11 at USC. So the closest game they had was 11 at USC. They were a massive favorite, Much more of a favorite than Miami will be, not sure why you can't wrap your head around this one. You are trying to compare apples to oranges. Miami up to this point is not nearly as good as Oregon. Just as NC is not as good as Stanford. In fact the Odds makers thought Oregon was so much better than Stanford they opened the line at 21. Let's see who is right at what the odds makers see the Miami, NC game is. With your thinking Miami should be a bigger favorite on the road, with their first conference game? Obviously the lines makers thought Stanford was sub par competition for this game, 20.5 underdog, and gambles did too. That line only moved .5 points down, that's virtually no line move in Vegas. So how much more than 20.5 points do you think Miami will be favored? I think Miami will be favored by somewhere around 8 or 9.

The context was, Oregon doesn't lose games they shouldn't!

No, the context was that Oregon doesn't lose games to bad teams (like UNC). And they don't. That was clearly what the point was. But you just ignored everything else that was written in that post, and fixated on that line. You took it out of context.

Now, do you honestly think this UNC team is comparable to Stanford?

The fact that the odds-makers under-valued Stanford doesn't make the loss look worse for Oregon. You are fixated on a line that was driven by the incorrect perception that Stanford was a sub-par team to Oregon, when in fact they weren't. Stanford's style of play does not lead to as many high-margin of victory games because they move at a much slower tempo than Oregon, which inevitably shortens the game. They are a classic "run the ball and play defense" team. Margin of victory is not the only determinant as to how good a team actually is.

At any rate Miami is 4-1 ATS so far this year though, which suggests Vegas has also under-valued this team thus far.

You mentioned the UF game and the 5 turnovers....do you realize that Miami is 3rd in the country in turnovers forced? Forcing turnovers is something our defense is actually good at, which suggests the UF game wasn't just fluke luck. Again, how you win a game does not necessarily make you are a "worse" team because of it.

 

[CaneMutiny06]

It sure looked like a horrible loss to me, ask any Oregon fan how bad that loss was. Lines are driven by better's!

Yes, and bettors are very often wrong. The USF game line was discussed ad nauseum on this board. The line movement up to the game was towards USF....guess what, the sharp money was wrong.

Of course Oregon fans thought the loss was terrible, they hold their team to a high standard. But there really wasn't any shame in losing a close game to a 12 win team.

Tell me, if Oregon and Stanford had played again at the end of the season, do you think Vegas would have set the line at 21? **** no. Because they knew, at that point, that Stanford wasn't 21 points worse than Oregon.

You do remember Andrew Luck not to long ago, right? They were not a classic run team by any means.

Sure, but that was with Luck (and even then they leaned run). Their 2012 team, on the other hand, ran the ball 549 times vs 399 pass attempts. That's close to a 60/40 run/pass ratio.

They had 3 games that they scored about 50. They won one game 54-48 doesn't sound like a slow paced game to me.

3 games where they scored around 50 and 1 included OT. Compared to 10 games where they scored in the 20s or less. Which is more representative of the kind of team they were?

 

[TreOFive]

we cannot and should not overlook this team. Do I think we win..yes, but the team needs to approach this game no different than they approached UiF. If we approach this with the right business mentality we will be OK, if we think we going to go in , bully them and that they are just going to fold (dont care how bad they are) we will have a tough, long night.

 

[fastcane]

The USF game opened at 18.5 ended at 18, it actually went back and forth all week, I don't even consider that a line move. Those were the lines at the Hilton where I bet, look it up. It went from 16.5 to a 19.5 range, they probably had close to 50% a side that's why the line moved back and forth all week. Many games have moves like that during the week, I'm here I can tell you it's true. That's also how they get people to bet both sides.


''Of course Oregon fans thought the loss was terrible, they hold their team to a high standard. But there really wasn't any shame in losing a close game to a 12 win team.''

Are you kidding me? They blew every team out all season, the come home as a 20.5 point favorite and lose to a team that lost 2 games and won by 7 points o7 less in another 7 games or so. No shame, BS! That is the reason they were 20 point favorites. Miami fans would have had a melt down for years. lol

''Tell me, if Oregon and Stanford had played again at the end of the season, do you think Vegas would have set the line at 21? **** no. Because they knew, at that point, that Stanford wasn't 21 points worse than Oregon.''

I go by facts, no ifs, buts, maybe's, they didn't play again.

It sure looked like a horrible loss to me, ask any Oregon fan how bad that loss was. Lines are driven by better's!

Yes, and bettors are very often wrong. The USF game line was discussed ad nauseum on this board. The line movement up to the game was towards USF....guess what, the sharp money was wrong.

Of course Oregon fans thought the loss was terrible, they hold their team to a high standard. But there really wasn't any shame in losing a close game to a 12 win team.

Tell me, if Oregon and Stanford had played again at the end of the season, do you think Vegas would have set the line at 21? **** no. Because they knew, at that point, that Stanford wasn't 21 points worse than Oregon.

You do remember Andrew Luck not to long ago, right? They were not a classic run team by any means.

Sure, but that was with Luck (and even then they leaned run). Their 2012 team, on the other hand, ran the ball 549 times vs 399 pass attempts. That's close to a 60/40 run/pass ratio.

They had 3 games that they scored about 50. They won one game 54-48 doesn't sound like a slow paced game to me.

3 games where they scored around 50 and 1 included OT. Compared to 10 games where they scored in the 20s or less. Which is more representative of the kind of team they were?

 

[Biscuits]

At this point, it's pretty clear that Oregon and Stanford are similar programs on terms of success and ability. They've split the past 4. Stanford is one of two programs to beat Oregon more than once in the past five years.

I live in Oregon. Don't hear many Duck fans berating Stanford as an inferior opponent that has gotten lucky or caught Oregon on a bad day. Those were well-contested games. As has been pointed out, Stanford and SC being big dogs had no bearing on what kind of teams they wound up being. Good teams. Oregon didn't lose to bad teams, despite what the lines said.

Miami has been losing to bad teams. I think that's done. I think UNC is a bad team. I think we win.

 

[zone3cane]

we cannot and should not overlook this team. Do I think we win..yes, but the team needs to approach this game no different than they approached UiF. If we approach this with the right business mentality we will be OK, if we think we going to go in , bully them and that they are just going to fold (dont care how bad they are) we will have a tough, long night.

naw Miami is going to push them around and it's going to be over by the 3rd quarter..... the fans on this messageboard can overlook them all day, i'm overlooking them b/c I know the team isnt. That's why Miami is going to take care of business, manhandle them, and then go back home with another Win under their belt.

Last year Miami didnt lose to a team that we shouldnt have lost too, they overachieved, and the only teams that did beat us were teams that were either much better then us or just as sub par as we were.

FSU has lost to teams they shouldnt have before and that has been something they have had to fight mentally, but this team doesnt have that mental struggle to go through b/c Al Golden got these boys minds right from top to bottom.

 

[CaneMutiny06]

The whole premise of your argument is that oddsmakers must always be right. They're not. They over-value and under-value teams all the time. They under-valued Stanford in that particular matchup. You keep pointing to Oregon's MOV when I've already addressed why that's a flawed argument given the 2 teams' contrasting styles of play. Just because a team is winning by closer margins does not mean it isn't as good as the team winning by larger margins. Match ups are critical.

I go by facts, no ifs, buts, maybe's, they didn't play again.

Right, rather than acknowledging you know that the line would NOT have been -21 had they played again. Because Vegas would have learned from the first match up that Stanford was a lot better than they realized, and would have adjusted accordingly.

Oregon's style is well suited for blowing out weaker opponents, but runs into trouble against teams that play tough, physical defense and can dominate time of possession.

 

[SmokeyRone]

I just hope the Canes come out real thirsty for a big grudge match style win!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1Sx4lxkV5Y

 

[jakeman1]

On paper, Miami wins, home or away.

GT was close, only because of the combination of the turnovers and the quick score. If Miami had a good, LONG, grinding-it-out-drive, the D'Onofrio would have had time to make the changes early, and GT's offense would have been stuffed. Think about it. Miami turned the ball over four times, and still ran away with the game at the end.

The things that make a game like this close or an upset are turnovers, or some kind of wrinkle that's thrown in that Miami can't adjust to, or both. I haven't seen anything like that happen this year. I do not miss wide-open TE's and RB's running unmolested across the field. I don't miss running QB's gashing the defense, or bad QB's looking like All-Americans. This is a solid team. I don't think there's any other word for it. I don't think it's a great team yet, but it's solid, with some special players mixed in. The coaches can fix the mistakes now. They couldn't do that last year with the youth they were having to play.

 

[The Franchise]

The USF game opened at 18.5 ended at 18, it actually went back and forth all week, I don't even consider that a line move. Those were the lines at the Hilton where I bet, look it up. It went from 16.5 to a 19.5 range, they probably had close to 50% a side that's why the line moved back and forth all week. Many games have moves like that during the week, I'm here I can tell you it's true. That's also how they get people to bet both sides.


''Of course Oregon fans thought the loss was terrible, they hold their team to a high standard. But there really wasn't any shame in losing a close game to a 12 win team.''

Are you kidding me? They blew every team out all season, the come home as a 20.5 point favorite and lose to a team that lost 2 games and won by 7 points o7 less in another 7 games or so. No shame, BS! That is the reason they were 20 point favorites. Miami fans would have had a melt down for years. lol

''Tell me, if Oregon and Stanford had played again at the end of the season, do you think Vegas would have set the line at 21? **** no. Because they knew, at that point, that Stanford wasn't 21 points worse than Oregon.''

I go by facts, no ifs, buts, maybe's, they didn't play again.

It sure looked like a horrible loss to me, ask any Oregon fan how bad that loss was. Lines are driven by better's!

Yes, and bettors are very often wrong. The USF game line was discussed ad nauseum on this board. The line movement up to the game was towards USF....guess what, the sharp money was wrong.

Of course Oregon fans thought the loss was terrible, they hold their team to a high standard. But there really wasn't any shame in losing a close game to a 12 win team.

Tell me, if Oregon and Stanford had played again at the end of the season, do you think Vegas would have set the line at 21? **** no. Because they knew, at that point, that Stanford wasn't 21 points worse than Oregon.

You do remember Andrew Luck not to long ago, right? They were not a classic run team by any means.

Sure, but that was with Luck (and even then they leaned run). Their 2012 team, on the other hand, ran the ball 549 times vs 399 pass attempts. That's close to a 60/40 run/pass ratio.

They had 3 games that they scored about 50. They won one game 54-48 doesn't sound like a slow paced game to me.

3 games where they scored around 50 and 1 included OT. Compared to 10 games where they scored in the 20s or less. Which is more representative of the kind of team they were?

Basically, what you're saying is that it's all relative. A bad loss for a top tier team is different than a bad loss for a mid-level team. If dudes don't want to pay attention to Vegas lines, then how do they go about knowing who is the underdog and who is the favorite? That's how it's determined. If you're a 20 point favorite, and you lose, then it's a bad loss.

UM fans sometimes get too caught up in UM's past greatness. They saw the UVA and UNC games last year as bad losses when, in fact, UNC had more talent/depth/experience than UM last year, and UVA was pretty much even when it came to the teams that actually lined up THAT DAY. This year, if UM is a 20 point favorite against UNC and loses, then that will be a bad loss.

 

[ScubaCane]

I'm depressed, just realized that I have a work commitment next Thursday night and won't be able to watch the game

 

[fastcane]

If Stanford has won every single game and only by a small margin then I think your point would be well taken, but they did not. They lost two games before they even played Oregon. I always go by facts and odds and more times than not the odds makers get it right. Me personally, I would have thought the line would be 14 or so for that first game and if they played again that year I'd bet they would have won AT HOME. But obviously that line on the second game would have been less, you're stating nothing but the obvious. It was still a bad loss when a no loss team who has crushed all of it's competition up to that point, then loses at home to a two loss team which most of the teams they played kept it close.

''
Oregon's style is well suited for blowing out weaker opponents, but runs into trouble against teams that play tough, physical defense and can dominate time of possession. ''

Up to that point Stanford didn't dominate one good team except TOP, in fact they just barely did enough to win games as I have stated before, they lost two outright and 10 games were as close as 7 points. I wouldn't call that dominating by any means other than time of possession. Time of possession is pretty far down the list of what really matters in a game. In fact I have many things I look for in a game and never even take that into consideration. I have never had a losing season in Vegas, 4-1 so far this year.

''
''Oregon's style is well suited for blowing out weaker opponents, but runs into trouble against teams that play tough, physical defense''

I don't disagree with this!


UOTE=CaneMutiny06;1622115]The whole premise of your argument is that oddsmakers must always be right. They're not. They over-value and under-value teams all the time. They under-valued Stanford in that particular matchup. You keep pointing to Oregon's MOV when I've already addressed why that's a flawed argument given the 2 teams' contrasting styles of play. Just because a team is winning by closer margins does not mean it isn't as good as the team winning by larger margins. Match ups are critical.

I go by facts, no ifs, buts, maybe's, they didn't play again.

Right, rather than acknowledging you know that the line would NOT have been -21 had they played again. Because Vegas would have learned from the first match up that Stanford was a lot better than they realized, and would have adjusted accordingly.

Oregon's style is well suited for blowing out weaker opponents, but runs into trouble against teams that play tough, physical defense and can dominate time of possession.[/QUOTE]

 

[fastcane]

''Basically, what you're saying is that it's all relative. A bad loss for a top tier team is different than a bad loss for a mid-level team.''

I'm saying it's the same, you might have just not added a no there before different. Yes, it's all relative correct.

''If dudes don't want to pay attention to Vegas lines, then how do they go about knowing who is the underdog and who is the favorite?''

When I'm at the top of my game, Sunday night I make up my own odds up for every game I like. I have a bunch of things that have to match up before I'll bet it. I had two weeks last year where I couldn't find anything I liked, I was stumped, lol. After years of doing this I can get it pretty close most of the time, sometimes there is an off line. Usually it's in a very small game, not the big time games. Those are the ones I play for more money. The lines are made up what they think the public perception of that game is so they can get 50% on each side. On that Oregon game people bet close to 50% on either side or that line would have moved. Yes, if you are a twenty point favorite and lose it's a bad loss IMO, there are only an handful of those games all season. Only one I can think of off hand this year, but I didn't go threw them all.

One stat for you for the first week of the season next year if you want to bet. For the past 10 years, now I believe 11 years, only one team as a 14 point favorite has lost outright. That sets up very good money line parley bets. That was the bet for the first week. The smart betters cleaned up. Those are odds I can live with.


''UM fans sometimes get too caught up in UM's past greatness. They saw the UVA and UNC games last year as bad losses when, in fact, UNC had more talent/depth/experience than UM last year, and UVA was pretty much even when it came to the teams that actually lined up THAT DAY. This year, if UM is a 20 point favorite against UNC and loses, then that will be a bad loss. ''

I agree 100% with everything here!

The USF game opened at 18.5 ended at 18, it actually went back and forth all week, I don't even consider that a line move. Those were the lines at the Hilton where I bet, look it up. It went from 16.5 to a 19.5 range, they probably had close to 50% a side that's why the line moved back and forth all week. Many games have moves like that during the week, I'm here I can tell you it's true. That's also how they get people to bet both sides.


''Of course Oregon fans thought the loss was terrible, they hold their team to a high standard. But there really wasn't any shame in losing a close game to a 12 win team.''

Are you kidding me? They blew every team out all season, the come home as a 20.5 point favorite and lose to a team that lost 2 games and won by 7 points o7 less in another 7 games or so. No shame, BS! That is the reason they were 20 point favorites. Miami fans would have had a melt down for years. lol

''Tell me, if Oregon and Stanford had played again at the end of the season, do you think Vegas would have set the line at 21? **** no. Because they knew, at that point, that Stanford wasn't 21 points worse than Oregon.''

I go by facts, no ifs, buts, maybe's, they didn't play again.

It sure looked like a horrible loss to me, ask any Oregon fan how bad that loss was. Lines are driven by better's!

Yes, and bettors are very often wrong. The USF game line was discussed ad nauseum on this board. The line movement up to the game was towards USF....guess what, the sharp money was wrong.

Of course Oregon fans thought the loss was terrible, they hold their team to a high standard. But there really wasn't any shame in losing a close game to a 12 win team.

Tell me, if Oregon and Stanford had played again at the end of the season, do you think Vegas would have set the line at 21? **** no. Because they knew, at that point, that Stanford wasn't 21 points worse than Oregon.

You do remember Andrew Luck not to long ago, right? They were not a classic run team by any means.

Sure, but that was with Luck (and even then they leaned run). Their 2012 team, on the other hand, ran the ball 549 times vs 399 pass attempts. That's close to a 60/40 run/pass ratio.

They had 3 games that they scored about 50. They won one game 54-48 doesn't sound like a slow paced game to me.

3 games where they scored around 50 and 1 included OT. Compared to 10 games where they scored in the 20s or less. Which is more representative of the kind of team they were?

Basically, what you're saying is that it's all relative. A bad loss for a top tier team is different than a bad loss for a mid-level team. If dudes don't want to pay attention to Vegas lines, then how do they go about knowing who is the underdog and who is the favorite? That's how it's determined. If you're a 20 point favorite, and you lose, then it's a bad loss.

UM fans sometimes get too caught up in UM's past greatness. They saw the UVA and UNC games last year as bad losses when, in fact, UNC had more talent/depth/experience than UM last year, and UVA was pretty much even when it came to the teams that actually lined up THAT DAY. This year, if UM is a 20 point favorite against UNC and loses, then that will be a bad loss.

 

[fastcane]

I agree, Oregon didn't lose to a bad team, but they did lose to someone they were supposed to beat that one specific game. IMO, they choked, it happens. You're right, both of those were good teams, nothing more. Just as Miami is a good team up to this point and NC is a bad ACC team up to this point. It's all relative that's all I'm saying. Miami is not going to be a 20 point favorite, what does that tell you? I still think they win! They could win by 1 or 30, it's a pretty hard game to call at least for me.

At this point, it's pretty clear that Oregon and Stanford are similar programs on terms of success and ability. They've split the past 4. Stanford is one of two programs to beat Oregon more than once in the past five years.

I live in Oregon. Don't hear many Duck fans berating Stanford as an inferior opponent that has gotten lucky or caught Oregon on a bad day. Those were well-contested games. As has been pointed out, Stanford and SC being big dogs had no bearing on what kind of teams they wound up being. Good teams. Oregon didn't lose to bad teams, despite what the lines said.

Miami has been losing to bad teams. I think that's done. I think UNC is a bad team. I think we win.

 

[Notsince1985]

Why are there 4 pages of Oregon **** on here? Can we at least talk about ******s?

 

[Notsince1985]

In case anyone is wondering, ECU, who beat UNC, 55-31, is losing to Tulane 16-9 in the 4th quarter and TU is without Nick Montana, their starting QB.