Bucs getting early action

[Senor Capper]

Jan. 20, 2003




LAS VEGAS - The debate on the Super Bowl line between the oddsmakers at Las Vegas Sports Consultants ranged from Oakland minus 3 1/2 to 5 1/2.

In the end, the LVSC linesmakers' opening Super Bowl recommendation was Raiders minus five, with an 'over/under' of 43 1/2.

Neither side nor total was easy to make. The oddsmakers decided to let the gamblers choose, since five is considered a dead number for football betting purposes.

"I hate to send out a dead number like five because it's not going to end up there," said LVSC odds manager Cesar Robaina. "It's either going to go up to six or drop to 4 ? or four."

Robaina's preference was to shade Tampa Bay, making the number 4 1/2. The Bucs have the top defense in the NFL, allowing just 12 points per game. Bucs coach Jon Gruden also knows the Raiders well, having previously coached there.

"What Tampa has going for it is Gruden in a short week knowing the Raiders," Robaina said. "That's Tampa's advantage. But Oakland is the public team here. The Raiders have the high-profile offense, and they'll get plenty of backing being a West Coast team.

"As a bettor, I think Tampa would be worth a shot. But I do believe Oakland money will show up a lot stronger than Tampa money."

Within minutes after the Raiders defeated the Titans Sunday night, the consensus number in Las Vegas was Oakland minus four, with the total either 43 or 44.

The Stardust, Station Casinos, Leroy's and Caesars Palace were all at four. The Mirage was down to 3 1/2. A number of Internet books, including, Canbet, Skybook and Pinnacle were at minus four.

Early money often comes from professional bettors. So the line could get pushed back up to five when the public starts getting involved.

LVSC oddsmakers had a difference of opinion on the total, with ranges of 42 1/2 to 45 1/2. They opted for 43 1/2, one point higher than Robaina's opinion.

"Making the total was brutal, too," Robaina said. "Tampa doesn't play high with anybody."

The Bucs have gone 'under' the total in 11 of their 18 games. However, the Raiders have gone 'under' in 10 of their past 12 games.

The NFC hasn't covered a Super Bowl since 1995. The AFC has won four of the last seven Super Bowls and is 5-0-2 against the spread.

 

[Doc Holiday 12]

Nice write up..............Doc

 

[Senor Capper]

First set of 'props'

First set of 'props'

Jan. 21, 2003


LAS VEGAS - Bookmakers are thrilled with this year's Super Bowl matchup, especially after having the Baltimore Ravens and New England Patriots the past two years.

Not only should handle be high with the Oakland Raiders and Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the game, but it's easier to make good proposition wagers on these two teams. That's what oddsmakers at Las Vegas Sports Consultants were busy doing Monday morning.

"This year was easier than last year," said Cesar Robaina, odds manager for LVSC. "Oakland is a perfect team for 'props.'"

The Raiders certainly are, with MVP quarterback Rich Gannon and Hall of Fame wide receivers Jerry Rice and Tim Brown. But the Bucs aren't bad either, with Brad Johnson, Mike Alstott and Keyshawn Johnson. Both teams certainly have more marquee offensive stars than either Baltimore or New England.

"Both teams have guys who lend themselves well to 'props,'" Robaina said. "That Baltimore team had Trent Dilfer at quarterback."

In last year's St. Louis-New England Super Bowl, Robaina said it was more difficult to make 'props' because the Rams had all the offensive edges, and the game didn't appear to be competitive.

This year's game appears much more balanced, with Oakland resting at a four-point favorite as of Monday afternoon. St. Louis was a 14-point favorite last year.

The Raiders have the No. 1 offense, while the Bucs feature the NFL's top defense.

"The game seems much more competitive, which helps," Robaina said.

LVSC released around 50 'props' on Monday. Many of these were of the standard variety, such as margin of victory, team to score first, team to score last, quarter lines and player to score the first touchdown. Robaina said LVSC plans on releasing exotic type 'props' later in the week.

Some of the 'props' regarding individual players include Gannon 'over/under' 250 1/2 passing yards, Brad Johnson 'over/under' 231 1/2 passing yards, and 'over/under' five receptions apiece for Keyshawn Johnson and Jerry Rice.

Individual matchup 'props' pit tight ends Doug Jolley against Ken Dilger for most receiving yards and Rice against Keyshawn Johnson in receiving yards. There is also a ?prop? asking which kicker will have more points, Sebastian Janikowski or Martin Gramatica.

Charlie Garner and the 'field' are the co-favorites to score the first touchdown at 9/2. Alstott is next at 6/1, followed by Jerry Porter and Keyshawn Johnson each at 7/1. Rice and Zach Crockett are next at 8/1. All together, 16 players are listed on the 'prop,' with the rest comprising a 'field' bet.

 

[Senor Capper]

The Super Bowl in perspective

The Super Bowl in perspective

Jan. 21, 2003


It took the Super Bowl a while, but the event has finally started to live up to its name. And, for us, it?s not a moment too soon. We were getting a bit tired of the mindless musings of the majority of sports journalists, many of whom, up to a short time ago, played up the ?mismatch? angle as if it were something unique to the Super Bowl, and to no other championship-level sporting event. Not to mention their long fastening of a ?can?t lose? tag on the NFC rep, whomever it might be, months before the actual event.

The facts are these. Five of the last seven Super Bowls have been lively, competitive contests. Three of those have been decided in the final moments; two of those (Rams-Titans three seasons ago and Rams-Patriots last year) went down to the very last play. That once-ballyhooed ?NFC supremacy? angle is long forgotten, as NFC reps have failed to cover any of the past seven Super Bowls (AFC stands 5-0-2 vs. the line in those games, the ?pushes? being Packers-Patriots in SB XXXI and Rams-Titans in SB XXXIV).

But back to that ?mismatch? thing. Though a bit overblown by the media in its uniqueness to the Super Bowl itself (the preceding conference championship round has had a ?blowout? angle throughout the years perhaps even more pronounced than the Super Bowl), the proclivity for one-sided results is still a not-to-be-ignored reality of championship-level football -- even though we?ve been treated to some exciting Super Bowls in recent years. To wit. Routs in championship-level football games go back way before Joe Montana?s San Francisco 49ers or the ?Super Bowl Shuffle? Chicago Bears were doing their respective things in the ?80s.

More than half (20) of the 36 Super Bowls so far have been decided by 14 points or more. Championship-game results in the AFL & NFL in the 1960s featured scorelines of 37-0, 51-10, 27-0, 23-0, 31-7, 40-7, 34-0, & 27-7. During the 1950s, there were three 40-plus point blowouts in NFL Championship games (scores like 56-10, 47-7, & 59-14!). The worst beating in the history of the NFL occurred in the 1940 championship game when George Halas? Bears destroyed the Washington Redskins 73-0.

As mentioned before, the preceding conference championship games have long featured one-sided results (more than two-thirds of those games decided by double-digit margins since the 1970 merger). More recently, college football?s BCS/Alliance ?title? games have generally demonstrated the same one-sided characteristics (6 of 8 being rather one-sided affairs decided by double-digit margins, the recent Ohio State-Miami overtime thriller being one of the exceptions).

A lot of savvy observers believe that the nature of championship-level football lends itself to one-sided results. They reason that a superior team rarely eases up in a championship game as it might do in a regular-season contest. Title-seeking squads tend to go for the jugular at every opportunity, thus minimizing the chance they?ll be beaten by a fluke play or desperation, last-minute comeback. And many times those desperate rallies by the trailing team end up with disastrous results, often adding to the final winning margin.

Does that mean we can expect a one-sided Super Bowl this week? Not necessarily. After all, those recent championship-game patterns might suggest an altogether different conclusion. And, besides, we wouldn?t ever advocate the analysis of an upcoming contest based simply upon past results. After 47 years, we?ve found that a well-rounded approach that includes a variety of elements (including historical data) is usually preferable. But if one side ends up a blowout winner, it certainly shouldn?t come as a shock to you.