Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

We're Not The Underdogs?


beastson

Recommended Posts

It's called an upset because we are favored, not because of how an individual analyst sees the teams or outcome.

But we're going to lose

If you feel we're going to lose why call it an upset? I dont see how its an upset when its the first game of the season, anything can happen. Its not like its week 13 and we're the ones with the much better record. They are picking the Bucs cause of FA and preseason game against the Pats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we're going to lose

If you feel we're going to lose why call it an upset? I dont see how its an upset when its the first game of the season, anything can happen. Its not like its week 13 and we're the ones with the much better record. They are picking the Bucs cause of FA and preseason game against the Pats

Because we are the odds favorite.........Like I meant, when I said "We are favored"........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Analysts don't go off Vegas, or should I say they shouldn't go off Vegas. They go off the tape, record, and who has the best players. You know that

If the analysts don't go off Vegas, then where does "upset" and "underdogs" come from?

I think that's what this thread is asking about. Not quite sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the analysts don't go off Vegas, then where does "upset" and "underdogs" come from?

I think that's what this thread is asking about. Not quite sure.

Both kinda go off the same thing, Im saying analysts don't go look at the odds and say oh they're the favorite. They have their own measures on who's who

What I'm saying is I don't get the term upset when both teams are 0-0, but since they're still picking them to win... doesn't that make them the favorite and we're the underdog?

The reason we're this "favorite" is cause of last year records, thats Vegas. I'm going off the analysts that actually digs deeper, which I said is obviously just off acquisitions and the game against the Pats. Thats ridiculous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both kinda go off the same thing, Im saying analysts don't go look at the odds and say oh they're the favorite. They have their own measures on who's who

What I'm saying is I don't get the term upset when both teams are 0-0, but since they're still picking them to win... doesn't that make them the favorite and we're the underdog?

The reason we're this "favorite" is cause of last year records, thats Vegas. I'm going off the analysts that actually digs deeper, which I said is obviously just off acquisitions and the game against the Pats. Thats ridiculous

The terms: Favorite, Underdog, Upset, Odds-on Favorite, etc. - Have always been tied into odds. You seem to think that these terms are based on records and other factors, and to an extent they are, but records are usually indicators of the strength of a team. For instance, Vegas isn't going to favor a 2-11 team over a 14-0 team, it's just not going to happen (baring some extreme circumstance). So odds generally begin to fall in line with overall records. The odds for the initial part of the season are best guesses and analysis by the odds makers. If you think that Vegas just put this line up based on last years record then you are fuging clueless. They do just as much analysis as the people who write for ESPN, if not more.

Point is, the term "upset" is based on the vegas line, in this case, whether you want to accept that or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I see progress and improvements. We aren't the same team we were even at the beginning of this year. You want to harp on the past while I am all about the present and future. Do I know thinks are going to be great moving forward? Actually I don't but I prefer to look at the good instead of the bad. Since he is surely going to be the QB the rest of this year barring injury, I am going to root for him to succeed instead of fail. I always said if we are going to finish at 500 for the year I prefer we win at home since I will be there and want to see wins and crying opposing fans like the cowboys. So far mission accomplished. Now we have to show we can win on the road.
    • Yeah and I am doubtful he can offer that consistently. I don’t have many years left at my age and in my view we have wasted two and this whole exercise with him was always a three year minimum.  I am out on that with a guy I don’t believe in, and never believed in, it has sucked. To me it is a costly detour off the right track. Years.    But I am not so rigid that I can’t see excellence. He needs to display it though, consistently before I change my outlook.  
    • No, when I said rage, I meant rage, which only applies to certain fans on this board. Your timeline of trying to assess whether he is the future or not is really tied to the discussions surrounding his second contract. If this team is going to commit to some monster contract while he has shown nothing but glimpses of brilliance would be deservedly worrisome, so the clock is genuinely ticking for him to settle into something resembling his final form. Perhaps a best case scenario is that he plays well, the team succeeds, but he does so with a more limited role that makes the rest of the league view him as a game manager, and his second contract value reflects that. Then he continues to improve and becomes a bargain comparatively while not handicapping the team around him, and we enter an era of consistent championship competitiveness that the fanbase has craved for decades and has never really experienced before. But that requires many, many things to go right and for Bryce himself to facilitate that if he ends up being the quarterback of the future.
×
×
  • Create New...