Latch

Agreed.

That made me laugh. Nice.

Good move for both teams. There is talk that Peppers might be going to NE and getting rid of Vrabel seems to make sense. Also, I read the Pats didn't want the #3 overall b/c it would cost them too much to sign that pick. They also got a guaranteed $18M or so off the books. Looks good for both.

They can renegotiate.

Now that is just too funny. We were telling you the whole time they did it to trade him. You thought they were going to pay him. They were only going to do that if Brady wasn't going to be ready. He obvioulsy was. QB's come back from ACL's way quicker than Brady will be coming back from his.

It also means that they were smart ebough to not let him walk.

We did. KC it is....

So NE isn't on the hook for $14M for a backup and they did actually have a plan? Shocking to me.

Agreed Totally agree w/ you. I'd think there is a good chance they cover the spread.

I agree about Knight. He's superb on Gameday too. When he picked the officials as his player to watch a few weeks back I was in tears. He mentioned something like it doesn't matter how good the players are sometimes b/c the officials can be so bad.

Where did I say I didn't think it would be used? Every school has kids transfer. I hope he recruits players better than Stewart. It could be to his advantage when he's recruiting. Other teams that recruit aren't going to tell players to come here. It will be used, but who knows if it really will hurt him that Stewart left?

Where is he getting this reputation? From fans? How many people that he recruited has he "run off"? He got a late recruit that's mom was a prophet and let that kid go which looks like a good move.

Agreed, and hopeful that it happens.

The thing that is killing them is their record against the RPI top 35. They have to get the Cuse and one other big one in the BE tourney.

Somehow they hold on. Neither team executed down the stretch. UC must beat Syracuse or win a few in the conference tourney. But at least there's a chance.

So people are upset at him for not bashing Meeks last night which was deserved, but are upset that he bashed other players. Not people on this thread but it's being talked about elsewhere. He's in a no win situation. Meeks forced too much last night and like labs said he was bad on defense. When he sat they had no chance at winning the game, yet when BCG doesn't come out and say "honestly he was terrible on D and he forced way too much even dribbling into the D instead of pulling up or dishing" he's a bad guy. I really hope when they are good the next two years all these people w/ all of these questions and answers aren't firmly on the wagon.

I just don't see why all the people are crying for adjustments. Pitino made adjusments over the years not on the fly. BCG thinks his system works. I think it will once he gets the guys in here he needs. His system landed him the job at UK while we sit on here and ask for zones. I hear stuff about his drinking, partying, and the way he conducts half time intervirews. I could care less about any of it. In fact I love the way he handles all 3. What better fit for a school in the heart of Kentucky than to have a burboun loving woman chaser who loves horse racing?

I remember some unhappy Pitino fans until they reached the promise land. To me you're only as good as your players. UK just isn't there talent wise to be as good as some fans think they should be every year.

If it were that simple how did they lose money on the SuperBowl? Why would they have rather the game gone under and the Steelers have covered? For people to think that they win money on every game b/c they get it close to the middle is naive at best. If you could turn between 5-9% profit or close to 20% or more which would you rather have? Trust me I kind of follow this stuff more than most people. I've read a lot about it. The casinos generally make more than the standard gig per year profit on sports betting.

Excpet that it isn't. There is no guarantee of profit unless it falls perfectly. Also if the line moves more than a point and they can be middled. Where oh where does the profit come from then? Years ago that may have been the case, but it is far from the case now.

No it isn't. It can simply be explained that they want as much money as possible on one side b/c they think the outcome will be different than the public in some cases. I think this weekend is a good possibilty for that. If LSU is favored I would bet the farm on them too. Basically whoever is getting points in the UK game this week will be the popular play.

However, this simple analysis only applies to single events. Most bookmakers offer wagering on many events at once, and for the most part, no single game will attract an amount of betting which is significant relative to the book's total capitalization. While having an exactly equal amount of money wagered on each contestant would guarantee the book a profit and eliminate the event risk, that won't necessarily maximize the book's profits. The book can make more money by accepting wagers at odds which are "inflated" from the true odds. For example, if the majority of customers are expected to bet on a team regardless of the price, the book set the price as high as possible. This is called "shading" the line. Generally, the public prefers to back the favorite, and unsophisticated bettors often show up during large events such as the Final Four and the Super Bowl. Popular teams often attract bettors who wager because they are fans of the team and are willing to pay higher odds, and the bookmaker will set odds to extract the maximum possible amount. Some bookmakers actually offer different prices to different customers, using past bets as an indicator of who the customer will bet on as a way of additionally increasing their potential profit. This practice is known in the industry as offering "dual lines". This came from wikipedia. I will find the article. The casinos do not try to get the game in the middle and make the juice though for the most part.

Why then can you find instances where over 80% of the public is playing one side and the money is huge on that side where the line doesn't move or it goes the opposite way of where you would think it would go? If you don't think they lay traps then we disagree.

They want to win more money than they lose. I'll look for the article, but I think I already posted it on here. It's from a few years back though so I may not find it.

I later put that if no sarcasm was intended my bad.