That's a pretty big jump, something weird is going on.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CU 11 point Underdogs at Cal...
- Thread starter DiggerBuffs
- Start date
That's a pretty big jump, something weird is going on.
Cal is averaging 47.3 points per game.
CU is averaging 25.8 points per game.
Both are giving up 29 points per game.
Quality of opposition so far is probably similar.
A bear killed a guy in New Jersey last week.
BUFFSROCKS
Well-Known Member
CU and who they've played...defensive ranking CSU 74, UMASS 113, ASU 43 HA 87
CAL and who they've played...defensive ranking NW 44, SAC ST. (NO STATS) BUT BAD, AZ 110
So looking at the scoring...CAL put up points on really bad defense....so did we.
Cal defense ranking 55
CU defense ranking 81
Be curious to see when the over/under comes out.
CAL and who they've played...defensive ranking NW 44, SAC ST. (NO STATS) BUT BAD, AZ 110
So looking at the scoring...CAL put up points on really bad defense....so did we.
Cal defense ranking 55
CU defense ranking 81
Be curious to see when the over/under comes out.
Last edited:
Yes, Cal has averaged 47.3 ppg and CU has averaged 25.8 ppg against similar opposition.
BUFFSROCKS
Well-Known Member
Yes and no...ASU and NW cancel each other...UMASS and SAC ST. cancel each other...but AZ and either HA or CSU don't cancel each other. AZ defense is really really bad, so the ppg for Cal is a little inflated and they've played one less game.
Arizona is giving up fewer points per game than CU.
There's a good difference between UA'S SOS and ours/Cal's
BUFFSROCKS
Well-Known Member
I don't buy that NW and ASU cancel each other out. NW sucks...1-2 with the win v Western Illinois
Yes, Cal's is stronger so far.
BUFFSROCKS
Well-Known Member
Was only looking at defensive ranking.
your assessments are debatable
Really? Who am I wrong on?
Lets look at the rankings.
| Offense | ||||
| Tot Yds | YDS/Gm | Pts/Gm | Avg | |
| ASU | 43 | 13 | 11 | 22 |
| UofA | 3 | 5 | 27 | 12 |
| CSU | 56 | 21 | 46 | 41 |
| NW | 115 | 106 | 104 | 108 |
| Umass | 102 | 117 | 105 | 108 |
| Hawaii | 73 | 101 | 103 | 92 |
| Sac State | N/A (FCS) | N/A (FCS) | N/A (FCS) | |
| Defense | ||||
| Tot Yds | Yds/Gm | Pts/Gm | Avg | |
| ASU | 43 | 75 | 38 | 52 |
| UofA | 110 | 97 | 85 | 97 |
| CSU | 74 | 56 | 68 | 66 |
| NW | 44 | 76 | 38 | 53 |
| Umass | 113 | 102 | 114 | 110 |
| Hawaii | 87 | 66 | 68 | 74 |
| Sac State | N/A (FCS) | N/A (FCS) | N/A (FCS) | |
| Off | Def | Avg | ||
| ASU | 22 | 52 | 37 | |
| UofA | 12 | 97 | 55 | |
| CSU | 41 | 66 | 54 | |
| NW | 108 | 53 | 81 | |
| Umass | 108 | 110 | 109 | |
| Hawaii | 92 | 74 | 83 | |
| Sac State | N/A (FCS) | N/A (FCS) |
Again.
ASU > UofA
I was wrong on CSU vs NW
UMass > Sac State
Hawaii > _____
Last edited:
BlackNGold
Club Member
Anyone who thinks the spread is all wrong, I suggest you mortgage the house, max out the credit cards and put the money on CU!!! You may be rich on Saturday night.
BUFFSROCKS
Well-Known Member
Is that a lock?
I've always thought that Vegas setting lines on California teams is a bigger challenge just because of the proximity of Reno and Vegas to the major CA cities. The last two Cal lines have seen significant movement, and I'd guess some of that is due to fans betting. Of course, I have nothing to back it up, would be interesting to see historically how much USC, UCLA, Cal, 49ers, etc line move compared to teams where fans really cannot legally bet on their teams. Sure one can bet online, but the vegas casinos don't really care since they just want to balance their books. The other effect might be that lines involving CA teams might open with more of a spread than if they weren't a CA team already expecting that 'homer' betting push.
As for this game, a 14 point line seems about right. I wouldn't touch it, and it seems posters are about 50/50 even here. That's what Vegas wants. Equal betting.
I think CU has their work cut out for them on D, that's for sure. Cal will put 3-4 solid WR's on the field at the same time (I really think 3 of them get to the NFL), and will score. Not sure CU has the firepower to hang, but our D is obviously suspect and a lot of that comes from lack of depth in the secondary which is only made worse by the hurry up style of offense. Every team playing Cal should know never to give up now.
As for this game, a 14 point line seems about right. I wouldn't touch it, and it seems posters are about 50/50 even here. That's what Vegas wants. Equal betting.
I think CU has their work cut out for them on D, that's for sure. Cal will put 3-4 solid WR's on the field at the same time (I really think 3 of them get to the NFL), and will score. Not sure CU has the firepower to hang, but our D is obviously suspect and a lot of that comes from lack of depth in the secondary which is only made worse by the hurry up style of offense. Every team playing Cal should know never to give up now.
Last edited:
ASU is not a slam dunk over uofa. Both are undefeated and it's not like ASU has played anyone (Weber state, new mexico and CU???) In the next three weeks we will find out who ASU is without a doubt: UCLA, SC and Stanford. Yikes
You're going to nitpic over umas and sac state? Both fall into one category: random creampuff schools who don't take football seriously
Playing Hawaii is an opportunity to show something and CU didn't
In my view the SOS is more or less even thus far
Surprised it's not higher
BUFFSROCKS
Well-Known Member
Up to 14.5 now.
This is so much better than lose by 11, don't get too down and bring your lunch pails to practice next week, lose by 3, don't get too down and get your horns out for the next game...
It's a long way out, but the tide has turned.
BehindEnemyLines
beware the habu
Screw the spread. Just go win.
Like I said, ASU is no lock over AZ based on what we've seen so far, and especially after last night.
You are hoping the tide will turn, but that has not actually happened yet. Bottom feeder teams tend to stay on the bottom despite endless talk of growth and rebuilding. Can CU break the cycle like Baylor, KSU and maybe Washington? Remains to be seen. Washington was about as bad as you can get. In 2008 they were 0-12. I think Washington is the most comparable school to CU in terms of football tradition, football demographics/support, recruiting landscape (low population density out west), realistic expectations, etc. In 2010 Washington won 7 games including a bowl win over the huskers.
Lots of these big turnarounds seem to include a standout player at the qB position, not just serviceable, but a game changer. That was Locker at Washington. After Locker it was Keith Price, another badass.
Baylor had RG3. KSU has had a string of outstanding running quarterbacks that were excellent within the purple wizard's system. Texas had Vince Young and Colt McCoy.
BUFFSROCKS
Well-Known Member
Your flaw is that we aren't and haven't been bottom feeders till recently. We were #3 in the nation...a few thousandths of a point away from playing in a national championship in 2001. Putting Baylor in as a comparison doesn't work.
Well, I guess it depends on your definition of bottom feeder. You are referencing a point in time that was 13 years ago. True, when KSU broke through they had zero history of ever being good...of ever being mediocre. That's obviously not the case with CU, but those golden days for CU are ancient history to most people in the sporting universe sitting here now in late 2014. Take the temperature of fans around the country if you don't believe me. I think most would put CU in the bottom feeder category.
For 2006-2013 CU's winning percentage of 29% is ranked 108th out of 120 teams
Here are the only teams that have done worse than CU and none are the traditional "bottom feeders" from the p5 conferences (e.g. Indiana, Iowa State, etc.)
110t Miami-Ohio
110t New Mexico
112t Florida International
112t Tulane
114 Memphis
115 Nevada-Las Vegas
116 UAB
117 Akron
118 Idaho
119 New Mexico State
120 Eastern Michigan
BUFFSROCKS
Well-Known Member
Oh so bottom feeders to you only goes back 8 years....good stats
ok, what's your definition? And please identify those teams
BUFFSROCKS
Well-Known Member
Not the history of the whole program...because we actually rank #35 on the all time wins list in the history of college football. Stanford Oregon Arizona Wisconsin Missouri Cal Ole Miss South Carolina Okie St. all below us. So yeah your stats back all that up. Traditional bottom feeders we are...f*** tard.
Oh actually sorry, we're #24, I didn't sort the columns....but it helps your case.
Oh actually sorry, we're #24, I didn't sort the columns....but it helps your case.
ok we'll use 17 years, starting at the end of the golden era through last year
That' puts CU ranked #83, right behind Rice. CU's winning % during that time is 43%, same as Washington State. Would you call WSU a p12 bottom feeder? I think most would. If WSU is not a P12 bottom feeder, then who is?
[h=2]1997-2013 (17 years)[/h]