Ucla-Oregon 2h
- Thread starter Nelson
- Start date
The refs are the only thing keeping Oregon in this game. Think they'll ease up a little and this will go under the number.
If I were Ucla coach, I would draw 20 seconds off each offensive possession just to reduce the influence of the home cooking, ease the win in.
84 loss.
What I did wrong here was fail to realize that the refs would continue to favor Oregon in the 2h, so Ucla could not draw the game down to a close but would be pushed until it went over. In ucla this would have closed out with bruins up 25 and about 128 total. The refs aided Oregon from start to finish and allowed them to cover by 1.5 points or so.
Record: 5-4
What I did wrong here was fail to realize that the refs would continue to favor Oregon in the 2h, so Ucla could not draw the game down to a close but would be pushed until it went over. In ucla this would have closed out with bruins up 25 and about 128 total. The refs aided Oregon from start to finish and allowed them to cover by 1.5 points or so.
Record: 5-4
Funny how certain things piss you off and stick with you. I dreamed about this total last night! That's sad. So far am 8-4 in my posts here, and 2 of those losses were football sides; college hoops totals posted is 6-2. Which is same as what I've been doing privately this season.
Totals Tutorial
One of the few ways that a total can go over the number is reffing. Reffing is not fouling. Fouling is player-initiated. Reffing is official-initiated. A subjective judgment on the part of this analyst, yes, but the distinction is real. To give the NCAA credit, in recent years reffing has been at a minimum, which is great for unders players. The rare game with reffing really sticks out. The game in question was a ref-influenced total but not an egregious example. A small, consistent aid was given Oregon by the refs, from tip to buzzer. The effect was to push the total higher than it would have been naturally and to keep Oregon within ten points rather than twenty.
The totals player must try to predict where refs will help determine outcomes because reffing is one of the commoner causes of hated overs. What happened to cause my one loss of day, in the Oregon game, was that refs aided Oregon the entire game. (Causing Oregon to cover by 1' - 2 points). It was predictable, but missed by me, that the refs would continue to help Oregon in the 2h as in the 1h.
Now, here is the nugget. It takes very little to intimidate an average basketball player into turning off his defense. If he is afraid, with good reason, that he'll be victimized by a tight whistle, the average player will play only formal defense. This is exactly how it was in the Ucla-Oregon game in the 2h. It was a long way from the best example of what I'm saying, but the refs intimidated Ucla enough, as evident in their body posture, that Oregon felt more comfortable than it would have otherwise in forcing the issue. When one team senses it is being helped, it should, and usually does, force the issue: initiate more drives to basket than set shots, and initiate drives earlier in the clock. This is what causes games to go over. Shooting percentage really doesn't matter much. Pace is what makes the difference. If the refs allowed Ucla to play normal tight defense, Oregon uses another ten seconds off the clock and takes more outside shots. Ucla collects more rebounds and the game ends up under instead of 8-10 points over. And note that even with this unforunate 2h reffing, which caused the loss, it was still a close matter: Ucla continued its 1h 3-hitting pace, and added one ridiculous shot-clock buzzer beater. Every last-second shot seemed to fiind the mark. If any of these fails to fall, the under would likely have come through as it did in the other games I posted. This is why you have to have VERY strong indicators to bet over, whereas your default should be to bet under. The reffing is FAR less intrusive these days in college ball than it used to be years ago. And that is for the good. Had the refs been neutral, the game would have petered out in the 2h. My guess is at Ucla, this 2h would have had 20 fewer points. Ended in mid-sixties rather than mid-eighties. At Oregon, Ucla kept its lead and its cool. The refs wouldnt allow it to play regular defense, but even so it overcame this with superior skill, particularly in shooting. In exchange for the loss of our money on the 2h total we gained the knowledge that should oregon and ucla play again at Ucla or on a neutral court, Ucla is likelier to cover and the total is likelier to be lower than what we saw in Oregon. The reffing, in today's case, veiled the true disparity between these teams. The other lesson I learned is to keep in mind that a good team, like Oregon, with ref help, at home, is a genuine threat to an under if it is trailing but still within range of making it competitive. If I had to do this bet over again, I would not have bet over, but if I'd been thinking more clearly I would have laid off it altogether.
Totals Tutorial
One of the few ways that a total can go over the number is reffing. Reffing is not fouling. Fouling is player-initiated. Reffing is official-initiated. A subjective judgment on the part of this analyst, yes, but the distinction is real. To give the NCAA credit, in recent years reffing has been at a minimum, which is great for unders players. The rare game with reffing really sticks out. The game in question was a ref-influenced total but not an egregious example. A small, consistent aid was given Oregon by the refs, from tip to buzzer. The effect was to push the total higher than it would have been naturally and to keep Oregon within ten points rather than twenty.
The totals player must try to predict where refs will help determine outcomes because reffing is one of the commoner causes of hated overs. What happened to cause my one loss of day, in the Oregon game, was that refs aided Oregon the entire game. (Causing Oregon to cover by 1' - 2 points). It was predictable, but missed by me, that the refs would continue to help Oregon in the 2h as in the 1h.
Now, here is the nugget. It takes very little to intimidate an average basketball player into turning off his defense. If he is afraid, with good reason, that he'll be victimized by a tight whistle, the average player will play only formal defense. This is exactly how it was in the Ucla-Oregon game in the 2h. It was a long way from the best example of what I'm saying, but the refs intimidated Ucla enough, as evident in their body posture, that Oregon felt more comfortable than it would have otherwise in forcing the issue. When one team senses it is being helped, it should, and usually does, force the issue: initiate more drives to basket than set shots, and initiate drives earlier in the clock. This is what causes games to go over. Shooting percentage really doesn't matter much. Pace is what makes the difference. If the refs allowed Ucla to play normal tight defense, Oregon uses another ten seconds off the clock and takes more outside shots. Ucla collects more rebounds and the game ends up under instead of 8-10 points over. And note that even with this unforunate 2h reffing, which caused the loss, it was still a close matter: Ucla continued its 1h 3-hitting pace, and added one ridiculous shot-clock buzzer beater. Every last-second shot seemed to fiind the mark. If any of these fails to fall, the under would likely have come through as it did in the other games I posted. This is why you have to have VERY strong indicators to bet over, whereas your default should be to bet under. The reffing is FAR less intrusive these days in college ball than it used to be years ago. And that is for the good. Had the refs been neutral, the game would have petered out in the 2h. My guess is at Ucla, this 2h would have had 20 fewer points. Ended in mid-sixties rather than mid-eighties. At Oregon, Ucla kept its lead and its cool. The refs wouldnt allow it to play regular defense, but even so it overcame this with superior skill, particularly in shooting. In exchange for the loss of our money on the 2h total we gained the knowledge that should oregon and ucla play again at Ucla or on a neutral court, Ucla is likelier to cover and the total is likelier to be lower than what we saw in Oregon. The reffing, in today's case, veiled the true disparity between these teams. The other lesson I learned is to keep in mind that a good team, like Oregon, with ref help, at home, is a genuine threat to an under if it is trailing but still within range of making it competitive. If I had to do this bet over again, I would not have bet over, but if I'd been thinking more clearly I would have laid off it altogether.
Last edited:
