Blackman said:
Not bashing anyone who did, we all have our reasons, but from here on out I don't see how anyone can justify a bet on the Texans or Jets. Neither have demonstrated they can be the least bit competitive.
True, neither has demonstrated a competitive nature. However, I dont think its a question of "avoiding" backing these teams. Think about the vikings last week. Nobody bet the vikes based on what the vikes could do for the game. They didnt do anything. The giants handed them the game with turnovers and AWFUL special teams play.
I think the best way to avoid betting on crappy teams is to think of it this way. If there are reasons why the favorite might not cover, (letdown game, turnovers, not playing well on road, injuries, special teams, weather) WHATEVER it may be, just AVOID the game. Dont think that just because the "chiefs" might not cover, that houston will play a great game. The factors working AGAINST KC have nothing to do with how the DOG will actually perform. In many cases, the favorite's B or C game will be enough to still cover against the Texans, Jets, Lions, Cards, etc.
Just because a team might not cover, you shouldnt start looking for the best ML for the underdog. Dont bet the game. There are certain teams that do not deserve your $$ in football. Other sports are different, like basketball and baseball where there are way more regular season games. The value of each game is less, therefore reducing the effects of a loss, making upsets more likely. In football, this is NOT the case. The statistical anomolies are few and far between. I think two examples this season were the Vikings last week and South Florida whoopin Louisville in NCAA.
