With the SEC media days starting it's time to get serious about the upcoming season and football deserves it's own thread.

https://www.oudaily.com/sports/ou-sooners-football-sec-media-days-2024-dallas-live-updates-day-1/article_a7c30702-42b7-11ef-abf8-c77c0bd0a68e.html

I'm excited about the games we will be playing but I'm already tired of S-E-C, S-E-C fans.

I'm excited about the games we will be playing but I'm already tired of S-E-C, S-E-C fans.

Lol. You might want to invest in some ear buds to drown it out.

It is going to be hard to get used to playing in the SEC now

7-5 season incoming…

7-5 season incoming…

9-3 or 10-2

9-3 or 10-2

i have 8-4 or 9-3, depending upon if we beat texas

I'm a big fan of OU but ya'll are wild thinking 10-2. 7 wins is a good result with this schedule.

FWIW, my game-by-game breakdown would be something like the following:

Temple - 100%
Houston - 90%
Tulane - 85%
Tennessee - 55%
@ Auburn - 45%
vs Texas - 35%
South Carolina - 75%
@ Ole Miss - 35%
Maine - 100%
@ Missouri - 30%
Alabama - 55%
@ LSU - 35%

That adds up to 7.4 wins, choosing to round down from there because no one tends to do well in their first year of leveling up in conference strength (A&M being the one exception with a generational player at QB). Also, this team is 5-5 on the road in the Venables era, and the road games are brutal this year. In general, OU really drew the short end of the straw with regards to the conference opponents they are facing over the next two seasons. Sark appears to have figured things out at Texas, Missouri and Ole Miss are both punching well above their weight at the moment, I can’t see Alabama and LSU having too much of a downward slide given that they both have proven coaches, and Tennessee and Auburn seem to be on an upward trajectory. South Carolina is the only real gimme in conference play this year, but I could even see that flipping around next year as they always get a good home crowd and I suspect that they will also have a new coach by that time as well.

Most betting sites have OU at 8 wins, which is still better than 10 in the Allstate 12.

7-5 season incoming…

Maybe they will do the opposite of what they normally do and actually beat expectations instead of not meet them.

Most betting sites have OU at 8 wins, which is still better than 10 in the Allstate 12.

The sponsorship rebranding seems like should be the time to either drop the team count entirely or update it to the current team count.

Maybe they will do the opposite of what they normally do and actually beat expectations instead of not meet them.

I think OU has generally done a good job of meeting expectations over the past decade. 2015 was really the only year that they overachieved, but at the same time, I’d say that the only disappointing seasons were 2014, 2021, and 2022. The 2016-2020 teams all ended up about where you would have expected, as did last year’s team. 2017 obviously hurts because that is the one OU team in recent memory which realistically could have (and maybe should have) won the National Championship.

FWIW, I think OU could go 7-5 this season and still be one of the 20 best teams in the country. The schedule is just that challenging, even with a relatively weak non-conference slate. 10-2 would almost certainly be enough to make the playoff, and even 9-3 could potentially get it done.

It is 12-0 until they lose.

Houston - 90%

i'm closer to 75% on that one and wondering if houston could even deliver an upset this year... willie fritz was able to accomplish a lot at tulane and gave the sooners some competition when they played each other in 2021. houston doesn't exactly have a stellar roster, but i'd have to imagine that they have access to more talent than tulane.

i'm closer to 75% on that one and wondering if houston could even deliver an upset this year... willie fritz was able to accomplish a lot at tulane and gave the sooners some competition when they played each other in 2021. houston doesn't exactly have a stellar roster, but i'd have to imagine that they have access to more talent than tulane.

Houston is 100% ..

Houston is 100% ..

maybe so... it is fritz' first year and it could take him some time to build up.

Holgorsen absolutely decimated Houston’s roster…I think Fritz will have things humming there by the time OU plays Houston again in 2028, but it’s going to take him a couple of years to get things going there, IMO.

On the other hand, Tulane replaced a great coach with another really solid coach so I tend to think that will be the trickiest non-conference game (though OU should really still be winning it by 2-3 possessions).

Holgorsen absolutely decimated Houston’s roster…I think Fritz will have things humming there by the time OU plays Houston again in 2028, but it’s going to take him a couple of years to get things going there, IMO.

On the other hand, Tulane replaced a great coach with another really solid coach so I tend to think that will be the trickiest non-conference game (though OU should really still be winning it by 2-3 possessions).

that makes sense... i hadn't accounted for holgorsen's bad recruiting.

Talking heads gonna talking head. That's why we play the games.

They're saying Texas is gonna be the class of the new sec alongside Bama and UGA. Texas. Y'know, the team that couldn't be bothered to win more than 4 B12 titles. Now they're gonna come in and dominate the, supposedly, tougher sec. Texas is still getting credit for beating a Sooner team with no QB and their worst team in over a decade. OU gets no credit for beating texas' best team in over a decade last year. Funny how that works.

SEC also trying to explain to us who mizzou is. Oh, I guess we had our eyes closed those 90 years we played them in the Missouri Valley, Big 6, 7, 8, and 12. Who are they again? Do they have a team at Missouri?

@ Auburn - 45%
vs Texas - 35%
@ Missouri - 30%




SEMI, I'd add about 10%-20% to each of the above and we end up at 8 wins.

I can't imagine Missouri or Auburn comes into our game with odds that heavy. Vegas has OU ahead of Missouri and Auburn in their futures forecast and, with us all in the same conference, we can deduce that means Vegas is higher on OU.

I'd put @Auburn at 60% and @ Missouri at 55%

I think Texas is 45%, mainly because it's nearly a coin flip in any year, even when one team is stronger on paper.

Don't forget, Vegas isn't in the business of predicting who will win. Their odds, point spreads, etc are designed to get the most people betting as possible.

Sooners really surprised us from going 6-7 to 10-3 last year which is a huge improvement, I have no idea what their record will be but I hope Sooners will have another winning season this year!

Don't forget, Vegas isn't in the business of predicting who will win. Their odds, point spreads, etc are designed to get the most people betting as possible.

Slight adjustment-The main purpose of the points spread is to get half the betting money on each side of the spread. Books get wiped out when either side is loaded with money.

^

And the odds makers only set the initial line; people actually putting their own money down is what determines the spreads.

^

And the odds makers only set the initial line; people actually putting their own money down is what determines the spreads.

This is coming from the guy who disagrees with sports betting, entirely ;)

This is coming from the guy who disagrees with sports betting, entirely ;)

I don't disagree with it entirely. I don't see how legalizing it in Oklahoma will help our state.

I don't disagree with it entirely. I don't see how legalizing it in Oklahoma will help our state.

It is very easy to do already even though it is illegal. The state might as well capture the tax revenue.

Slight adjustment-The main purpose of the points spread is to get half the betting money on each side of the spread. Books get wiped out when either side is loaded with money.

Yes. Good point.

I don't disagree with it entirely. I don't see how legalizing it in Oklahoma will help our state.

I'm just ribbing you from that old fantasy football discussion. As Kendrick Perkins would say, "carry on..."

I feel like the new game, College Football 25, is really selling OU short. They are going to be tough AF this year from what I can tell. Got a bunch of studs on defense and a lot of guys who can dance pretty good, from what I see on TikTok.

Slight adjustment-The main purpose of the points spread is to get half the betting money on each side of the spread. Books get wiped out when either side is loaded with money.True. But in order to do this the experts that set the spread/favorite try to be as accurate as possible. That gets both sides to bet. Therefore the initial spread should be a fairly accurate prediction of the outcome. Except of course that games go completely haywire as they get played.

True. But in order to do this the experts that set the spread/favorite try to be as accurate as possible. That gets both sides to bet. Therefore the initial spread should be a fairly accurate prediction of the outcome. Except of course that games go completely haywire as they get played.
Never forget…the purpose of the line is to get 50% of the betting money on either side of the handle. Sometimes they have to load the spread one way or the other to even out the money. The classic example is the Super Bowl III line that was set by Jimmy The Greek that had the Colts a 17 points favorite. Had to make it that big to even out the money.

I feel like the new game, College Football 25, is really selling OU short. They are going to be tough AF this year from what I can tell. Got a bunch of studs on defense and a lot of guys who can dance pretty good, from what I see on TikTok.

Defense should be stout everywhere but up front where they should still be pretty good.

Offense is a pretty big question mark. If Arnold and the line pan out, they could be very good but time will tell.

Defense should be stout everywhere but up front where they should still be pretty good.

Offense is a pretty big question mark. If Arnold and the line pan out, they could be very good but time will tell.

The schedule for OU in their inaugural SEC season is one of the toughest in all of college football. If they all click this year and kill it, they are 100% going to the playoffs and will absolutely set the tone as a major player in the SEC. Like many have said their defense will absolutely be a force the only question is how ready the offense is to compete at a high level.

True. But in order to do this the experts that set the spread/favorite try to be as accurate as possible. That gets both sides to bet. Therefore the initial spread should be a fairly accurate prediction of the outcome. Except of course that games go completely haywire as they get played.

No, they're predicting what the betting public will do, not the outcome of the game.

I feel like the new game, College Football 25, is really selling OU short. They are going to be tough AF this year from what I can tell. Got a bunch of studs on defense and a lot of guys who can dance pretty good, from what I see on TikTok.

The programmers obviously didn't think much of our D. On the RTG there was a lot of simulations in the freshman year and our opponents (even tulane) put up a lot of points.

No, they're predicting what the betting public will do, not the outcome of the game.
I know that. But the betting public isn't likely to bet as much, or they'll place bets that quickly change the line, if the initial line is way off from what should actually happen.

I know that. But the betting public isn't likely to bet as much, or they'll place bets that quickly change the line, if the initial line is way off from what should actually happen.

I'm here to tell ya, the line setters and the oddsmakers have nothing to do with the outcome of the game. To say otherwise is to sound like Jim Traber.

I'm here to tell ya, the line setters and the oddsmakers have nothing to do with the outcome of the game. To say otherwise is to sound like Jim Traber.

Of course they have nothing to do with the outcome. Never said that. But to get maximum betting from both sides it's best if they set the spread close to what should happen in the game.

For instance. Two really closely matched FB teams meet. Position by position they match up equally. The spread is going to be pick-em to probably the home team favored by a couple points. That's going to make betters on both sides believe their side can be a winning bet. The setters are never going to set the spread 8 or 9 points for such game.

If two FB teams are both 5-0 against the same common opponents but one team has won by an average of 21 points and the other has squeaked by an average 3 points the spread for that game won't be 2 or 3 points. That won't get both sides betting. It will be somewhere between the 3 and 21 points depending on who's home and any matchup differences, etc.

And here's 2 quotes and a picture taken from COVERS.com illustrating my take on setting the initial line.

Quotes:
Sam Russell, BetSperts. Com
“A betting line is a number set by oddsmakers to represent the expected outcome of a particular event”.
Christopher Feery, LegalSportsReport.com
“Oddsmakers set betting lines based on their expectations of what will happen in a sporting event”.

19047

Of course they have nothing to do with the outcome. Never said that. But to get maximum betting from both sides it's best if they set the spread close to what should happen in the game.

For instance. Two really closely matched FB teams meet. Position by position they match up equally. The spread is going to be pick-em to probably the home team favored by a couple points. That's going to make betters on both sides believe their side can be a winning bet. The setters are never going to set the spread 8 or 9 points for such game.

If two FB teams are both 5-0 against the same common opponents but one team has won by an average of 21 points and the other has squeaked by an average 3 points the spread for that game won't be 2 or 3 points. That won't get both sides betting. It will be somewhere between the 3 and 21 points depending on who's home and any matchup differences, etc.

I don't recall what the point spread was for OU/Texas 2003, but I can guarantee you OU wasn't giving anywhere near 52 points.

They predict what they think the betting public will do and then move the line accordingly. They do not care about predicting the outcome of the game.

And here's 2 quotes and a picture taken from COVERS.com illustrating my take on setting the initial line.

Quotes:
Sam Russell, BetSperts. Com
“A betting line is a number set by oddsmakers to represent the expected outcome of a particular event”.
Christopher Feery, LegalSportsReport.com
“Oddsmakers set betting lines based on their expectations of what will happen in a sporting event”.

19047

Your first quote proves my point. It's to represent the expected outcome. In other words, what the betting public expects to happen. No one expected OU to win 65-13 in 2003.

Your first quote proves my point. It's to represent the expected outcome. In other words, what the betting public expects to happen. No one expected OU to win 65-13 in 2003.The bold has been my point the whole discussion. The closer they get to that number the more betting they'll get on both sides.
The 2003 OU-UT game is a great example of everybody missing the expected outcome. It happens. But all that shows is that the spreads can be off. Way off. As a side note lots of us that bet on OU and the points that day won!

The bold has been my point the whole discussion. The closer they get to that number the more betting they'll get on both sides.
The 2003 OU-UT game is a great example of everybody missing the expected outcome. It happens. But all that shows is that the spreads can be off. Way off. As a side note lots of us that bet on OU and the points that day won!

Yes, they can be way off which was my original point; they don't care about predicting the actual outcome of the game. They care about what the bettors will do.

They could've set the 2003 OU/TX line at 52. And they would've been correct. But they would've gotten a lot fewer bettors and the ones who did bet would've put the money all on one side. But they would've gotten it right.

Yes, they can be way off which was my original point; they don't care about predicting the actual outcome of the game. They care about what the bettors will do.

They could've set the 2003 OU/TX line at 52. And they would've been correct. But they would've gotten a lot fewer bettors and the ones who did bet would've put the money all on one side. But they would've gotten it right.You're making the same point that I am.

You're making the same point that I am.

I think it's the other way around. My point has always been that they don't care to predict the actual outcome. Glad to see you finally came over to my side.

I think it's the other way around. My point has always been that they don't care to predict the actual outcome. Glad to see you finally came over to my side.
I haven't come around to anything. They try to predict the point difference as closely as possible in order to get both sides to bet. I never said anything otherwise. If I did please show me where. It must have been late at night and I'd had a couple cold beers.

They try to predict the point difference as closely as possible in order to get both sides to bet.

Oh, I guess that's why they got so close on that 2003 OU/Tx score.

Oh, I guess that's why they got so close on that 2003 OU/Tx score.That outcome has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Except to say nothing predicted before hand is perfect. That's why gambling is called gambling.
And if I remember right the spread on that game was something like OU +7. On paper that's what the game should have played out. But sports is sports and odd things happen. And why a bunch of us OU fans made money that day and a bunch of UT fans lost.

That outcome has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

To quote Ross Gellar; You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would fail.

To quote Ross Gellar; You could not be more wrong. You could try, but you would fail.

You obviously don't bet FB spreads and have no idea how it really works. Save your snarky remarks unless you can justify them. And especially do not defile Friends.
To say one game has anything to do with spread setting in general is asinine.
So, does a weather forecast predicting clear skies and then the day has thunderstorms mean that weather forecasting is completely wrong.

You obviously don't bet FB spreads and have no idea how it really works. Save your snarky remarks unless you can justify them. And especially do not defile Friends.
To say one game has anything to do with spread setting in general is asinine.
So, does a weather forecast predicting clear skies and then the day has thunderstorms mean that weather forecasting is completely wrong.

Wow

It's amazing that you could misunderstood this so badly.

Your basic premise is that those who set the lines have to get close to the actual final score so that people will bet. I said that they set the line to what bettors would expect it to be, not what it actually is. I provided the 2003 OU/Tx score as evidence of that. I also used a quote that YOU provided as evidence of that.

How are you not getting this? It's laughable. They don't care if they get it spot on or are off by 200 points. They care if they made money. How do they make money? By predicting what they think people laying bets think and believe. If they were wrong about what the bettors think then they will move the line to get closer to even money.

This really isn't that difficult. You're making it so much more difficult than it needs to be.

Wow

It's amazing that you could misunderstood this so badly.

Your basic premise is that those who set the lines have to get close to the actual final score so that people will bet. I said that they set the line to what bettors would expect it to be, not what it actually is. I provided the 2003 OU/Tx score as evidence of that. I also used a quote that YOU provided as evidence of that.

How are you not getting this? It's laughable. They don't care if they get it spot on or are off by 200 points. They care if they made money. How do they make money? By predicting what they think people laying bets think and believe. If they were wrong about what the bettors think then they will move the line to get closer to even money.

This really isn't that difficult. You're making it so much more difficult than it needs to be.
Please go reread every single comment I've typed. Nowhere have I said anything about the bookmakers trying to predict a final score. Get off of that. They do predict a range of points the spread "should" end up at using a ton of analysis that goes into setting a spread. If you don't get that I hope you don't bet spreads. They don't just pull a number out of a hat hoping that's the best betting bait. Or try to read the minds of bettors to divine what number bettors will bite on.

Pretty obvious here who knows a thing or two about how sports wagering works. And who doesn't. Bill you know how it works, and I would assume you have placed a wager or two. You back up your argument with actual books and don't invoke fictional tv characters from the last century.

Pretty obvious here who knows a thing or two about how sports wagering works. And who doesn't. Bill you know how it works, and I would assume you have placed a wager or two. You back up your argument with actual books and don't invoke fictional tv characters from the last century.
Thank you. I've studied mainly football betting the spread for decades. And I do place a decent number of bets each year. Last season I had a little better than 70% winning average. I don't make anything. I bet enough that it makes it interesting but not enough that losing would hurt.

True. But in order to do this the experts that set the spread/favorite try to be as accurate as possible. That gets both sides to bet. Therefore the initial spread should be a fairly accurate prediction of the outcome. Except of course that games go completely haywire as they get played.

You told me to find it so here it is. Do I need to find others?

According to what you said here, the initial spread should be fairly accurate. So no need to move the line if that's true.

Again, they don't care how accurate they are. They're interested in the psyche of the bettors. How can they get more people to bet? Not how close can they be to getting the spread exactly right.

Oh, and I've bet on games too but I'm not gonna pretend that makes me an expert.

You told me to find it so here it is. Do I need to find others?

According to what you said here, the initial spread should be fairly accurate. So no need to move the line if that's true.

Again, they don't care how accurate they are. They're interested in the psyche of the bettors. How can they get more people to bet? Not how close can they be to getting the spread exactly right.Of the spread not the actual score. If you don't understand how accurate spread prediction generates maximum betting on both sides from the initial release you will never understand betting the spread. Period. There is no way for bookmakers to read the psyche of bettors.

Thank you. I've studied mainly football betting the spread for decades. And I do place a decent number of bets each year. Last season I had a little better than 70% winning average. I don't make anything. I bet enough that it makes it interesting but not enough that losing would hurt.

Wow. Decades? And you still don't understand it. That's not even funny anymore. That's just sad.

Wow. Decades? And you still don't understand it. That's not even funny anymore. That's just sad.
One of us understands. It's not you.