South Carolina-Florida: Mitch's Pick for Feb. 3, 2009
South Carolina (16-4) at Florida (18-4)
The Line: Florida - 8 1/2
Time: 9 PM EST
Two giants in the college basketball world collide on the court in Gainesville in the first rematch of the year in the Southeastern Conference. This gem between Florida and South Carolina matches two of the top teams in the SEC, and really two of the best teams in the country, as Florida looks to avenge a one-point loss earlier this season at Columbia.
In their last game, South Carolina went into Kentucky and took down the Wildcats outright as nearly a double-digit underdog. Florida, on the other hand, finally cooled off from a red-hot shooting stretch they had been on and dropped one in Knoxville to Tennessee in a game the Volunteers controlled from start to finish.
Erratic performances are to be expected from this young Gator team, but after shooting over 70 percent for prolonged stretches in the prior games, it almost looked like the rebuilding process was over and they were already back among the national elite. South Carolina enters this one as winners of their last four in a row.
South Carolina enters this game at 7-7-1 against the spread, while Florida is 6-8-1 against the number and is undefeated straight up at home so far this year. South Carolina is 6-2-1 against the spread in their last nine SEC games and 5-2-1 against the spread in their last eight games against teams with a winning record. Florida is 4-1-1 against the spread in their last six SEC games but are just 5-13 against the spread in their last 18 home games.
The road team is 6-0-1 against the spread in the last seven meetings between these two, the underdog is 7-2-1 against the spread in the last 10, South Carolina is 5-2-1 against the spread in the last eight meetings, and South Carolina has covered in each of their last five trips to Florida.
Mitch's Pick: South Carolina +8 1/2
See the rest of Mitch's free College Basketball picks against the spread.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?