Parity is a word frequently associated with the NFL.
But according to handicapper and researcher Andy Iskoe, there's also plenty of parity in college football.
Asked how home schools had done against the spread lately, Iskoe uncovered an interesting statistic. Home favorites are exactly 50/50 against the number during the past five seasons.
Home college favorites are 965-965 against the spread since 1998, with 26 pushes. Home 'dogs were slightly better at 539-518-21 (51 percent), according to Iskoe.
"The last two years, though, home 'dogs have been a losing proposition," Iskoe said.
However, Iskoe discovered that college 'dogs had a big edge playing at neutral sites, evidenced by their 94-54-3 record (63.5 percent).
But from 1988 through 1997, the trend was reversed. Underdogs went just 48-77-5 on neutral fields. This could mean one of two things.
"It seems like we have greater parity," Iskoe said, "Or it shows that underdogs are somewhat cyclical."
It was a big year for underdogs in the NFL. 'Dogs went 146-111-6 (56.6 percent) through the regular and post-season. This was quite an aberration since favorites and 'dogs usually finish about 50/50.
This past college season was more normal, with underdogs going 349-344-11 against the number.
Iskoe also researched how often 'dogs cover in the NFL.
According to his data, he found 'dogs went 620-556-20 (52.7 percent) the past five years. Since 52.4 percent is the break-even point (because of the bookie's juice) this would mean a slight profit of about two units per season.
Iskoe then went all the way back to 1982 and discovered 'dogs were 2,359-2,170-121 against the number the past 20 seasons. That comes out to 52 percent, which would mean a small loss if you had just blindly bet underdogs each game.
Yet, it's still much better than betting all favorites, which was a 48 percent result.
"In general you won't get hurt if you play underdogs in football," Iskoe said.
But according to handicapper and researcher Andy Iskoe, there's also plenty of parity in college football.
Asked how home schools had done against the spread lately, Iskoe uncovered an interesting statistic. Home favorites are exactly 50/50 against the number during the past five seasons.
Home college favorites are 965-965 against the spread since 1998, with 26 pushes. Home 'dogs were slightly better at 539-518-21 (51 percent), according to Iskoe.
"The last two years, though, home 'dogs have been a losing proposition," Iskoe said.
However, Iskoe discovered that college 'dogs had a big edge playing at neutral sites, evidenced by their 94-54-3 record (63.5 percent).
But from 1988 through 1997, the trend was reversed. Underdogs went just 48-77-5 on neutral fields. This could mean one of two things.
"It seems like we have greater parity," Iskoe said, "Or it shows that underdogs are somewhat cyclical."
It was a big year for underdogs in the NFL. 'Dogs went 146-111-6 (56.6 percent) through the regular and post-season. This was quite an aberration since favorites and 'dogs usually finish about 50/50.
This past college season was more normal, with underdogs going 349-344-11 against the number.
Iskoe also researched how often 'dogs cover in the NFL.
According to his data, he found 'dogs went 620-556-20 (52.7 percent) the past five years. Since 52.4 percent is the break-even point (because of the bookie's juice) this would mean a slight profit of about two units per season.
Iskoe then went all the way back to 1982 and discovered 'dogs were 2,359-2,170-121 against the number the past 20 seasons. That comes out to 52 percent, which would mean a small loss if you had just blindly bet underdogs each game.
Yet, it's still much better than betting all favorites, which was a 48 percent result.
"In general you won't get hurt if you play underdogs in football," Iskoe said.
