Tennessee Volunteers vs. Missouri Tigers: Spread Analysis and Pick Prediction
Tennessee hasn’t won a road game since the season finale in 2010—a stretch of 11 straight losses—and hasn’t won as a road underdog since 2008.
It's no wonder, then, that the Volunteers are big underdogs against a Missouri team that has won 24 of 30 as a home favorite and is motivated after a tough loss last week.
Point Spread: Missouri opened as a 13-point favorite on Odds Shark, but the number was moving down in early wagering. The total was 55.5.
Computer Prediction: Missouri 46, Tennessee 27
Why the Volunteers Can Cover the Spread
There's never a better situation than catching a national title contender off a losing week, and with Missouri losing last week to South Carolina, the Volunteers are in a good spot to potentially hand an unsuspecting Tigers team a second straight loss.
While their road history suggests they won't win outright, 13 points is a lot of room with which to maneuver a backdoor cover.
Why the Tigers Can Cover the Spread
No. 10 Missouri will do anything to bounce back from Saturday's 27-24 double-overtime loss to South Carolina. If that means dismantling the Volunteers, so be it.
The Tigers went into last week's game averaging 44.3 points and 513.4 yards of offense per game. Leading 14-0 at halftime, Mizzou managed just three points and 99 yards in the second half.
Expect a big bounce-back outing from a team that is 7-1 ATS in eight recent games as a double-digit home favorite.
If the Seminoles are laying -21 to Miami in a Top 10 clash that is annually a big game, you have to question how the Tigers are laying just -13 to a Tennessee team that is 4-4 overall and 1-3 in SEC play.
More than halfway into the season, Missouri still has question marks at the quarterback position.
Tennessee has lost 11 straight on the road SU since the 2010 season (3-7-1 ATS).
Missouri is 7-1 ATS in eight games as a double-digit home chalk.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?