PDA

View Full Version : Clemson vs Alabama; FB National Title Game



arnie
01-11-2016, 08:54 PM
Looking good early.

wavedukefan70s
01-11-2016, 08:56 PM
Wow some serious athletes playing.

OldPhiKap
01-11-2016, 08:59 PM
Great answer!

Newton_14
01-11-2016, 09:02 PM
Great answer!

Important answer.

OldPhiKap
01-11-2016, 09:14 PM
Go Tigers!

dukelifer
01-11-2016, 09:14 PM
Great answer!
Clemson looking solid. Watson is very poised.

OldPhiKap
01-11-2016, 09:15 PM
Clemson looking solid. Watson is very poised.

It looks like he throws flat-footed, so relaxed.

Troublemaker
01-11-2016, 09:21 PM
Important answer.

Yep. Theoretically Alabama's brand of football is more effective playing with the lead.

Great Q1+ for Clemson here.

Papa John
01-11-2016, 10:10 PM
They've missed two pretty obvious block-in-the back calls, and that clock SNAFU at the end of the first half was ridiculous... No stoppage of the clock for the first down, Dabo trying to point out their error by pointing to his watch and they end up charging him with a timeout? Other than that, this is a fun game to watch—two solid teams punching each other in the mouth... Gotta love it!

OldPhiKap
01-11-2016, 10:13 PM
They've missed two pretty obvious block-in-the back calls, and that clock SNAFU at the end of the first half was ridiculous... No stoppage of the clock for the first down, Dabo trying to point out their error by pointing to his watch and they end up charging him with a timeout? Other than that, this is a fun game to watch—two solid teams punching each other in the mouth... Gotta love it!

Agreed on all of that.

Clemson got pretty banged up that half. Gut check time.

Stray Gator
01-11-2016, 10:17 PM
They've missed two pretty obvious block-in-the back calls, and that clock SNAFU at the end of the first half was ridiculous... No stoppage of the clock for the first down, Dabo trying to point out their error by pointing to his watch and they end up charging him with a timeout? Other than that, this is a fun game to watch—two solid teams punching each other in the mouth... Gotta love it!

I thought they said it is a Pac 12 officiating crew. They also missed an obvious offsides violation (lined up in the neutral zone, as Herbstreit noted) and two clear holding calls (one in the secondary against a receiver, one by a lneman on a rusher) that should have been whistled against Clemson. But no question they screwed up by not stopping the clock when Clemson got the first down right before the half. That would have given the Tigers another play to get closer for the FG attempt, although who knows whether the Bama lineman would still have gotten a hand on the kick. Terrific game so far.

Papa John
01-11-2016, 10:32 PM
I thought they said it is a Pac 12 officiating crew. They also missed an obvious offsides violation (lined up in the neutral zone, as Herbstreit noted) and two clear holding calls (one in the secondary against a receiver, one by a lneman on a rusher) that should have been whistled against Clemson. But no question they screwed up by not stopping the clock when Clemson got the first down right before the half. That would have given the Tigers another play to get closer for the FG attempt, although who knows whether the Bama lineman would still have gotten a hand on the kick. Terrific game so far.

Tongue in cheek, Stray... Tongue in cheek. And, admittedly, I've only been able to watch the second quarter—I don't have a dog in the fight, and my kids come first when I get home from work. Here's looking forward to another entertaining half of football. I'd love to see this go down to the wire, regardless of who comes out on top... I can't believe tickets were available for half face value on game day—this looks to be a great matchup!

arnie
01-11-2016, 10:33 PM
Roll Tide

Stray Gator
01-11-2016, 10:51 PM
Fans of other SEC teams are either fainting or in a state of shock to see an Alabama offensive lineman called for holding twice -- not just in a season, but in a single game.

moonpie23
01-11-2016, 11:04 PM
clemson up now.....telling bama it's not over......

Atlanta Duke
01-11-2016, 11:11 PM
Alabama Fan Is On His 18th Beer

http://screengrabber.deadspin.com/this-alabama-fan-is-on-his-18th-beer-1752397011

At halftime - assume he has picked up the pace as the tension builds

OldPhiKap
01-11-2016, 11:12 PM
Fourth quarter -- a great game so far.

tux
01-11-2016, 11:19 PM
Fourth quarter -- a great game so far.


Big possession right here. Clemson starting at mid-field, up 3 early in the 4th... Great game so far! I'm pulling hard for Clemson to make a statement for the ACC.

Stray Gator
01-11-2016, 11:25 PM
Big possession right here. Clemson starting at mid-field, up 3 early in the 4th... Great game so far! I'm pulling hard for Clemson to make a statement for the ACC.

No matter the outcome, I think it's fair to say that Clemson has already made a strong statement in this game.

arnie
01-11-2016, 11:35 PM
No matter the outcome, I think it's fair to say that Clemson has already made a strong statement in this game.

Dabo might want to read up on onside kicks.

moonpie23
01-11-2016, 11:38 PM
ruh-roh...

OldPhiKap
01-12-2016, 12:09 AM
Good game.

Troublemaker
01-12-2016, 12:12 AM
Impressed with Clemson's effort overall. They weren't outmatched by any means, but the two blown coverages for TDs and the onsides kick killed them. As the cliche goes, football games tend to be decided by a handful of plays, and you can't make those mistakes.

Troublemaker
01-12-2016, 12:15 AM
Clemson deserves this backdoor cover.

arnie
01-12-2016, 12:17 AM
Great game, Clemsun special teams killed em.

Wander
01-12-2016, 12:20 AM
Clemson offense was the most impressive unit on the field... the onside kick and TD kick return decided the winner.

elvis14
01-12-2016, 01:17 AM
Disappointing loss but I'm proud of the effort the Tigers gave and I'm already looking forward to next year.

OldPhiKap
01-12-2016, 06:53 AM
Clemson offense was the most impressive unit on the field... the onside kick and TD kick return decided the winner.

Agree. Deshaun Watson was the MVP of the game. What a great performance.

jv001
01-12-2016, 07:01 AM
Disappointing loss but I'm proud of the effort the Tigers gave and I'm already looking forward to next year.

The ACC was represented well. The game was won by The Tide's special teams and was a very exciting game to watch. Now let's beat the Tigers tomorrow night. GoDuke!

left_hook_lacey
01-12-2016, 08:23 AM
Clemp-son put up a good fight. Two miscues on D and special teams sealed their fate. I really thought Clemp-son would be "Clemsoning" this game away, but they didn't.

All that being said, I put a huge chunk on Alabama moneyline. :cool:

PackMan97
01-12-2016, 09:39 AM
Clemp-son put up a good fight. Two miscues on D and special teams sealed their fate. I really thought Clemp-son would be "Clemsoning" this game away, but they didn't.

All that being said, I put a huge chunk on Alabama moneyline. :cool:

Clemson hasn't clemsoned since their clemsoning at NC State quite a few years ago.

oldnavy
01-12-2016, 11:01 AM
Clemp-son put up a good fight. Two miscues on D and special teams sealed their fate. I really thought Clemp-son would be "Clemsoning" this game away, but they didn't.

All that being said, I put a huge chunk on Alabama moneyline. :cool:

But... bama didn't cover the spread did they??? :(

OldPhiKap
01-12-2016, 11:12 AM
But... bama didn't cover the spread did they??? :(

"Deshaun Watson -- Spread Killer"

Troublemaker
01-12-2016, 11:25 AM
"Deshaun Watson -- Spread Killer"

http://cdn.wikimg.net/strategywiki/images/7/79/Contra_NES_Stage_1d.png

Pghdukie
01-12-2016, 01:23 PM
Ratings for game was 15% down from last year's game. I was really disappointed by espn's coverage. Announcers not up to the quality of the game. Plus the production truck crew must have spent all afternoon in Scottsdale.

Atlanta Duke
01-12-2016, 01:44 PM
But... bama didn't cover the spread did they??? :(

Nope - sportsbooks were happy

Clemson shifts millions in Vegas with late cover in loss to Alabama

"It was enormous for us," said Ed Salmons, race and sportsbook manager for the Westgate Superbook. "It's just like the Super Bowl. You want the favorite to win because there are a lot of underdog bets on the money line, but you don't want them to cover the spread. So it worked out perfectly for us."

http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/14553381/late-touchdown-helps-clemson-tigers-cover-point-spread-college-football-playoff-national-championship-presented-att

Dukehky
01-12-2016, 01:46 PM
Alabama is the Duke basketball of college football. Only without the high academic standards. I have no issues with Alabama. And even if they cheat, they don't get caught, which at least is respectable (cough cough, Carolina)

One of the few things I'm with Danny Kannell on is that I do not subscribe to the whole conference pride thing. I guess I would pull for other ACC teams to get to like the Elite 8 or something, but I wouldn't pull for them to win the title. That's what WE do. The conference looks just as good if they make the National Championship game or elite 8 and put up a good fight without the introduction of more obnoxious fans.

oldnavy
01-12-2016, 01:53 PM
Nope - sportsbooks were happy

Clemson shifts millions in Vegas with late cover in loss to Alabama

"It was enormous for us," said Ed Salmons, race and sportsbook manager for the Westgate Superbook. "It's just like the Super Bowl. You want the favorite to win because there are a lot of underdog bets on the money line, but you don't want them to cover the spread. So it worked out perfectly for us."

http://espn.go.com/chalk/story/_/id/14553381/late-touchdown-helps-clemson-tigers-cover-point-spread-college-football-playoff-national-championship-presented-att

Not talking about the bookies, talking about someone who bet on Alabama and gave 6.5 points.

If you did that, you lost your money. Clemson's 40 points + 6.5 points = 46.5 points which is > 45 points... The winning bet was on Clemson.

Atlanta Duke
01-12-2016, 04:53 PM
Not talking about the bookies, talking about someone who bet on Alabama and gave 6.5 points.

If you did that, you lost your money. Clemson's 40 points + 6.5 points = 46.5 points which is > 45 points... The winning bet was on Clemson.

Sorry for the confusion - we do not disagree

As stated in the article I cited, Alabama did not cover the point spread - sorry you interpreted my "nope" to mean "nope Alabama covered the spread" rather than "nope Alabama did not cover the spread"

No question if you bet Clemson on the point spread of getting 6&1/2 points you won your bet. With regard to the reference in the article to money line bets, if you bet Clemson to win straight up on the money line odds of +225 (that I saw last night on an offshore gambling site with which I have some familiarity and which fortunately offered 9.25-1 odds on Duke winning the national championship at the start of last year's tournament), you would have lost every $100 you bet in the hope of winning $225 with a straight up Clemson win.

Worked out best for the sports books because the best outcome for them apparently was paying off on the winning Clemson point spread bets and Alabama (-255) money line bets while collecting on the losing Clemson money line and Alabama point spread bets.

At least that is how I have heard sports gambling works. :)

oldnavy
01-12-2016, 04:57 PM
Sorry for the confusion - we do not disagree

As stated in the article I cited, Alabama did not cover the point spread - sorry you interpreted my "nope" to mean "nope Alabama covered the spread" rather than "nope Alabama did not cover the spread"

No question if you bet Clemson on the point spread of getting 6&1/2 points you won your bet. With regard to the reference in the article to money line bets, if you bet Clemson to win straight up on the money line odds of +225 (that I saw last night on an offshore gambling site with which I have some familiarity and which fortunately offered 9.25-1 odds on Duke winning the national championship at the start of last year's tournament), you would have lost every $100 you bet in the hope of winning $225 with a straight up Clemson win.

Worked out best for the sports books because the best outcome for them apparently was paying off on the winning Clemson point spread bets and Alabama (-255) money line bets while collecting on the losing Clemson money line and Alabama point spread bets.

At least that is how I have heard sports gambling works. :)

I tried betting on sports once back in the mid 80's and it didn't work out for me, so I gave it up. My gambling now is limited to a nickel, dime, quarter poker game with my wife and kids about once a year when we get bored....

Atlanta Duke
01-12-2016, 06:54 PM
I tried betting on sports once back in the mid 80's and it didn't work out for me, so I gave it up. My gambling now is limited to a nickel, dime, quarter poker game with my wife and kids about once a year when we get bored...

It's fun unless you start betting amounts that cause you to treat it as more than a reasonable entertainment expense when you lose - sportsbooks are in business to make money, not provide a public service.

But at least when someone bets Alabama or Clemson to win or cover the spread they know all they have to do is be right or wrong on that point spread number or picking the winner

As opposed to daily fantasy sports, which is both gambling and rigged in favor of the most skilled players against recreational players - epic takedown of DFS in the NYT this past weekend

How the Daily Fantasy Sports Industry Turns Fans Into Suckers

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/magazine/how-the-daily-fantasy-sports-industry-turns-fans-into-suckers.html?_r=0

Troublemaker
01-12-2016, 07:11 PM
It's fun unless you start betting amounts that cause you to treat it as more than a reasonable entertainment expense when you lose - sportsbooks are in business to make money, not provide a public service.

But at least when someone bets Alabama or Clemson to win or cover the spread they know all they have to do is be right or wrong on that point spread number or picking the winner

As opposed to daily fantasy sports, which is both gambling and rigged in favor of the most skilled players against recreational players - epic takedown of DFS in the NYT this past weekend


Truth be told, there's an element of that with sports gambling as well. We know that, in the long run, the house wins and is profitable. So when a great sports gambler like a Billy Walters or a Bob Voulgaris makes millions betting on sports, who is it that they're really taking that money from? The less-skilled, bad sports gamblers, right?

wavedukefan70s
01-12-2016, 07:21 PM
My wife does a season long pool on college football.point spreads and all.as sad as it is she annihilated me to the point the playoffs didnt even matter.she doesnt even watch it.smh.

Atlanta Duke
01-12-2016, 08:12 PM
Truth be told, there's an element of that with sports gambling as well. We know that, in the long run, the house wins and is profitable. So when a great sports gambler like a Billy Walters or a Bob Voulgaris makes millions betting on sports, who is it that they're really taking that money from? The less-skilled, bad sports gamblers, right?

If I bet +6 it does not move - the pros may have better information and analytics on how to bet the number but the number I bet or team I bet on odds to win straight up stays there. As you note, the pay the house $11 when you lose and get paid $10 when you win gets you eventually - if you bet the same amount on every game you need to win around 53% of your wagers to break even

It is like going to Vegas - treat it as an entertainment expense you can afford to lose, not a way to pay the mortgage

But when you enter DFS your team is swarmed by the sharps fielding massive numbers of teams - your team has to beat the swarm, not a fixed target

DFS is like the current stock market as described by Michael Lewis in Flash Boys - the high frequency traders rule the roost

Atlanta Duke
01-13-2016, 07:22 AM
Ratings for game was 15% down from last year's game. I was really disappointed by espn's coverage. Announcers not up to the quality of the game. Plus the production truck crew must have spent all afternoon in Scottsdale.

This nugget regarding the ratings decline was interesting

The national title game drew a 25.7 million viewers on ESPN, down 23% from the 2015 championship. (That game—Ohio State’s 42–20 win over Oregon—drew 33.8 million viewers.) If you factor in ESPN's complete Megacast coverage, the viewership was 26.182 million...

For an interesting comparison: The Duke-Wisconsin men’s basketball national title game last April drew 28.3 million viewers on CBS on a Monday night. Rarely does college basketball trump college football in this kind of head-to-head comparison.

http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/01/12/college-football-national-title-game-espn-megacast

elvis14
01-13-2016, 09:31 AM
This nugget regarding the ratings decline was interesting

The national title game drew a 25.7 million viewers on ESPN, down 23% from the 2015 championship. (That game—Ohio State’s 42–20 win over Oregon—drew 33.8 million viewers.) If you factor in ESPN's complete Megacast coverage, the viewership was 26.182 million...

For an interesting comparison: The Duke-Wisconsin men’s basketball national title game last April drew 28.3 million viewers on CBS on a Monday night. Rarely does college basketball trump college football in this kind of head-to-head comparison.

http://www.si.com/college-football/2016/01/12/college-football-national-title-game-espn-megacast

I figured the ratings would be down just because you have 2 Souteastern schools playing in the championship game. I would think that the ratings in the Southeast were big but other areas of the country (Pac10, Northeast, etc.) would have lower ratings. Also, Clemson football fans are fantastic but I don't think the school brings in casual fans from around the country (although I would think that Alabama would).

left_hook_lacey
01-13-2016, 11:41 AM
But... bama didn't cover the spread did they??? :(

No, but I didn't bet the spread. I bet the Moneyline. The Moneyline on Alabama was (-235), so I put down enough to make it worth the while. I was confident that Bama would win, but I wasn't willing to gamble on the points they would win by(good thing, shew!).

Thurber Whyte
01-13-2016, 12:23 PM
Truth be told, there's an element of that with sports gambling as well. We know that, in the long run, the house wins and is profitable. So when a great sports gambler like a Billy Walters or a Bob Voulgaris makes millions betting on sports, who is it that they're really taking that money from? The less-skilled, bad sports gamblers, right?

As you note, the pay the house $11 when you lose and get paid $10 when you win gets you eventually - if you bet the same amount on every game you need to win around 53% of your wagers to break even

Sports books do not make their money by winning bets they make it on the fees they charge to place a bet, the "vigorish" or "vig." Indeed, the lines they create are designed to line money up evenly on both sides, not predict the actual outcome of the game because many people will bet on certain teams for sentimental reasons. Once they set a line, they are reluctant to change it even if new information such as an injury to a particular player comes out because that would allow someone who bet on Team A at Time 1 to bet on Team B at Time 2 with the result that he is only out the vig for both bets if the score is outside the margin between the two lines because he will win one or the other of his bets, but he can win both bets if it is inside. The latter is called getting middled and it is the only way sports books are really exposed to large losses. All this is why I never take discussions of Vegas lines as useful insights into the actual relative strengths of teams or predictors of scores.