Just a side note: FWIW
I was reading some opinions from some capper newsletters today that were released later this week, several days after I posted my play on this game.
In summary - all the reasons were why they thought Alabama was going to win SU Monday and cover the line.
Many here have focused on WR John Metchie being out for Bama. Its true, that losing any top WR in a game would have an impact.
If what I wrote in my first post earlier this week, was right about the spread being lowered from 6-to- 3 in the rematch - you would expect the line to go up with such a top WR out for the second game with these two but the masses are still on Alabama at 63%?
My explanation was how the masses are on Bama and Vegas opened at -3. In spite of the mass bettors still all over Alabama and the fact that they no longer have Metchie, this line hasn't changed. In fact its been lowered to 2.5. Again another small move in favor of Georgia.
If anything - the line should have opened at pk with that SU loss. Instead they moved it in their favor by only 3 points against the public from the first game, knowing that money was still going to be pouring in on Bama.
At pk they might have had more of a balance on the action?
I dont know if Im right until I win, but I can't recall one game in pro or college that didnt move the line to compensate for a loss that big with a starter out and then actually go in the wrong direction.
In my opinion, that makes me believe that Vegas has the public right where they wanted all along and found no betting changes in the masses, on the team that won SU as a 6 pt dog in the first game.
This game reminds me of my Super Bowl analysis last year when they gave Tampa the same line in the SB that KC gave them earlier in the year.
Yet - what I knew in changes after that first game - made my play on Tampa easy. They held the masses again on KC and cashed big on the losses for the Chiefs.
Those masses were on the team that won the fist game SU between those two.
Lets hope I'm right again..
GL
