Superbowl total ?

[DOGS THAT BARK]

See where Oly has over/under prop at 49.
Seems pretty steep to me considering top 5 leaders in points against are leading or tied for lead in their division.Can see several matchups that will produce lower total but just a couple that will produce higher and not much higher.Will take chance with early under in hopes of a super total hedge developing later.

 

[spanky2]

Dogs, What would you make the number if St. Louis and Raiders played??? I don't think it would be anywhere near 49,I would figure around 54 1/2 using facts I use .Plus,for some reason ,Superbowls have a history of OVER if you lok at historical results..
Spanky....

 

[djv]

St Lou,GBay,S Fran and Chigo look to be leaders from NFC. All would tend to play in a over game. Now we have Pitt,Balt is a live,Oak,Miami and NEng as possiable AFC. I see many more reasons to think over then under. Chigo Vs Balt or Pitt dead unders. Then there are about to more maybe unders.
Rest look like overs.

 

[kosar]

I agree with your thinking, DTB.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Spanky That would be a matchup I wouldn't care for.Tried to go back in archives and pick up last years post to get exact #'s but couldn't go back that far but if memory serves me correctly the early prop line was 51 with anticipation of St Louis getting in.
Had huge line to middle.Granted there are matchups that will go higher but I think more would be lower and some quite a bit lower.I wouldn't think St Louis/Oak would be a lock to go over either with St louis in top 5 in points allowed and Jekle/Hyde syndrome as witnessed yesterday of Oak.
Was just some food for thought.You have some very valid points and as always appreciate your input.

 

[REBEL YELL]

Mr. DTB, as I know that you are aware, playing longer term futures is usually easier than playing by the week. It's the same as longer term investments in the stock market (smoothes out the wrinkles). Most gamblers just don't want to tie their money up that long. I think that it is a good position to take and I am already on it. JMHP

 

[GlobalTrance]

Djv , "if" and it is a possibility Chicago were to represent the NFC in the superbowl , would not the UNDER be the play ? They do seem to better "D" then "O" . Ad that the poss. AFC contenders , other then Oak. seem to be Def. minded Point is , I would bet the OVER before anything else. History (on our side ) plus , RAMS (as I know them ) will be there . Best of it ALWAYS.

 

[GM]

I took Under 49 for the Superbowl at Carib about six weeks ago in anticipation of hitting a middle. The way I look at this line and total, the bookmaker is basically saying "We expect St Louis to be in and WIN the Superbowl". Well, not so fast....there are a lot of quality teams out there this year. Not to mention the Rams are not the defensive sieves they used to be.

It may indeed happen, but a lot can happen between now and then. If St Louis DOESN'T make it to the big game, I seriously doubt the actual total on this game is anywhere close to this number.

If you get a Balt or Miami or Pitt in the game, with someone else who has at least an average defence, it's possible you could see a total as low as 34 or 35....an enormous middling opportunity.

And if it does end up being StL vs ??, I don't see the total being very much higher than 49 regardless. I think StL/Oak is the only combo where the posted total will be higher than 49. So you could hedge it out with Over 49/47/whatever when the time comes if you really don't like the Under at that point and just pay the juice.

Grab this Under, I think.

 

[GM]

Small additional thought ... if SF or GB makes it to the SB, the total could be pretty high too. Regardless, I still see the Under as good value for a future middle.