College Football Spreads Vegas Got Wrong for Week 7
Week 7 was "upset Saturday" in college football, as Georgia, Stanford and Oklahoma—all ranked in the top 10 of at least one poll—were felled by underdogs.
Weekends like that are good news for sports books, which usually take heavy money on favorites and name-brand programs (like the three just mentioned).
When underdogs win, often times so do the oddsmakers, but that doesn't mean it was all roses on Saturday. Sharp bettors were able to find some good value on the board and win some money from the house.
Even Vegas gets some lines wrong.
Closing lines courtesy of Vegas Insider.
Important Note
1 of 8
There's a difference—albeit a subtle one—between "spreads Vegas got wrong" and "games that easily covered the spread."
Missouri, for example, was a 6.5-point underdog at Georgia but won by 14 points. On the surface, that seems like an ATS blowout. But that the Tigers were giving less than a touchdown Between the Hedges suggests that Vegas thought they might win.
That spread wasn't necessarily wrong.
This list was not as simple as looking at the final scores, comparing them with the spread and sorting the biggest differences. It's more of a detailed look at what Vegas tried to say with each number and why it ended up so wrong.
Just remember that before you start complaining.
Oklahoma vs. Texas (+13.5)
2 of 8
Final Score: Texas 36, Oklahoma 20
Texas was supposed to roll over and die against its hated rival, giving the Sooners almost two full touchdowns on the closing line.
Obviously that didn't happen. Mack Brown rallied his troops and came out with an awesome game plan—attack Oklahoma down the middle—to help the Longhorns roll in the Red River Shootout.
This line reflected a lack of confidence in Texas but also an inflated perception of Oklahoma. Blake Bell is not the answer at quarterback—which was proven explicitly on Saturday.
He shouldn't be laying 13.5 points against a competent secondary.
Boston College (+24) at Clemson
3 of 8
Final Score: Clemson 24, Boston College 14
Clemson is always tough for handicappers to peg.
Pure power numbers say it should be a heavy favorite in most games, but who wants to lay big points on a team that's...well...Clemson?
After it earned bettors' trust with a lopsided road win at Syracuse, the books had to push up the line past three touchdowns against Boston College. Even though the Eagles hung with Florida State, the Tigers were supposed to blow them out.
Wrong. This is still Clemson. Tajh Boyd & Co. needed all four quarters to eke out a close win.
Some things never change.
.jpg?w=256 "Ohio State Team Doctor")
Bowling Green (+10.5) at Mississippi State
4 of 8
Final Score: Mississippi State 21, Bowling Green 20
Bowling Green is probably the second-best team from the MAC, a compliment given that Northern Illinois is undefeated and ranked in both polls.
But the MAC doesn't get much respect, and the SEC—even its bottom-feeding teams—gets a little more than it deserves (from oddsmakers, that is).
There was no reason this game should have landed over the key number of ten, which suggests the Bulldogs are two meaningful scores better than BGSU.
From what both teams had shown this season, this number should have been closer to seven or six. And the way Saturday's game played out did nothing to dispel that.
Stanford at Utah (+7.5)
5 of 8
Final Score: Utah 27, Stanford 21
Unlike Georgia, which books favored by less than a touchdown in Athens, Stanford was laying over the key number of seven on the road.
Books thought the Cardinal would have a little bit of trouble against Utah, but that eventually they would find a way to tire it out and separate themselves.
That never happened.
The hard-fought Washington game in Week 6 took a clear toll on Stanford's players, tiring them out and not allowing them to dominate physically (which is their calling card).
Utah might also be better than people think.
Nebraska at Purdue (+14)
6 of 8
Final Score: Nebraska 44, Purdue 7
Purdue is by far the worst team in the Big Ten and might be one of the worst in the country. Even at home, it seemed unlikely that the Boilers might keep up with Nebraska.
The line of "just" 14 suggests potential for Purdue to keep it close. A lot of that has to do with Nebraska's defense, which has been (rightfully) portrayed as terrible by the media. People though Purdue's offense might be able to score enough points to cover.
Here's the problem: No matter how bad Nebraska's defense is, Purdue's offense is definitely worse.
The Huskers should always score between 35-50 points against a bad defense, so a bet for Purdue would have been a bet for them to score somewhere in the high 20s or low 30s.
This line should have been much higher.
South Carolina at Arkansas (+5)
7 of 8
Final Score: South Carolina 52, Arkansas 7
So much for that upset alert in Fayetteville.
Arkansas had shown some pluck in losses against Texas A&M and Florida, and with South Carolina not firing on all cylinders, bookmakers kept this well below the key number of seven.
But the Gamecocks showed up in a big way, playing their best, most complete game of the season. None of the "controversy" surrounding Jadeveon Clowney's injury slowed them down as they held a passable offense under 300 total yards.
This line suggested a close game. There weren't many games less close than this one.
Iowa State (+14.5) at Texas Tech
8 of 8
Final Score: Texas Tech 42, Iowa State 35
For the second consecutive week, Vegas undervalued the Cyclones, who may be a little bit better than anyone seems willing to admit.
They should enjoy some value in the rest of Big-12 play, and Texas Tech should continue to be a bit overvalued because of its undefeated record.
Laying more than two touchdowns against a competent team is a feat reserved for America's best programs. The Red Raiders have yet to beat anyone of import and have now struggled to beat both Iowa State and (surprisingly awful) TCU on their home field.
How will they fare once the games get harder?
.jpg?w=480 "Ohio State Team Doctor")
