Super Bowl Trends: Why San Francisco 49ers Have Betting Edge on Baltimore Ravens
There will be plenty of position-by-position analysis of Super Bowl XLVII, but what about trends analysis of how these teams got here and who can continue to win?
But the trends—like the point spread—favors the 49ers.
Underdog vs Favorite Role
For starters, San Francisco has thrived in the role as chalk (favorite). In their past 10 games, the Niners are 8-1-1 straight-up (SU), with that one sloppy tie against St. Louis creating that ugly record, according to the database results at OddsShark.com.
Baltimore, meanwhile, has won three of four recent games as an underdog, but they are just 5-11 SU in their past 16 games when an underdog of four points or less. That is likely to be the scenario when kickoff happens on Feb. 3.
NFC Has Dominated ATS
For a long time, the AFC dominated the Super Bowl, winning eight of 10 games from 1998 to 2007. But lately, the NFC has been winning and covering the spread.
NFC teams have won four of the last five games and are 5-0 against the spread (ATS), according to the Super Bowl odds history chart (the Cardinals covered the spread in their Super Bowl XLIII loss to the Steelers).
Both Teams Perfect in Playoffs
Niner bettors, however, were lucky in the NFC title game, as the San Francisco rally and 28-24 win meant that bettors who got their team at -3.5 were winners. Those who bet early in the week when the point spread was -4.5 were losers at the sportsbook window.
Human handicappers like the 49ers and so does the math-based, objective prediction computer. The OddsShark.com NFL picks tool has predicted a 30-25 victory for San Francisco.
Other Super Bowl Trends
Underdogs have dominated the betting recently, going 8-3 ATS in 11 games.
The Ravens are 11-3 SU in their past 14 games vs NFC West teams (dating back to 1999).
The 49ers have played 7 straight UNDERs vs AFC North teams.
The 49ers have played 6 straight OVERs during the past six weeks.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?