The Pi-Rate Ratings

December 7, 2014

Introducing PiRate Basketball Ratings

Filed under: College Basketball — Tags: , , , , , — piratings @ 11:15 am

Today, the PiRate Ratings foray back into the college basketball game. Every year, usually starting after the Super Bowl, we begin to devote full time to March Madness using unique formulae to determine which teams will advance in the NCAA Tournament and which teams are pretenders.

For many years, our method was very accurate. We discovered sleepers like George Mason, Virginia Commonwealth, and Butler, when these teams made their famous runs deep into the dance. We isolated teams like Georgetown and Vanderbilt as highly vulnerable of becoming upset victims more than one time, and more than one time the Hoyas and Commodores lost to double-digit seeds in the Round of 64.

This method chose eight NCAA Champions in a period of 11 years, but in the last three years, the game seems to have changed just enough so that the formula stopped being as effective. We knew we had to come up with a different formula, and for several months, we tested certain statistical data trying to figure out how to adjust our numbers.

In the end, we chose to totally scrap the old formula and start from scratch. A few years ago, our founder, a mathematical nerd for sure, read an interesting book, at least interesting for him. This book, Basketball on Paper, written by Dean Oliver introduced him to “The Four Factors” that determine what determines the outcome of basketball games.

Oliver used the same statistical parts that any basketball fan would use, but the “All-Star Mathlete” put clout behind the obvious statistics by determining how important each statistical part is. Here is what he determined:

1. Field Goal Accuracy and Defense of the same: 40%
2. Rebounding: 20%
3. Prevention of Turnovers and Ability to Force Turnovers: 25%
4. Free Throws—both getting to the line and making them: 15%

These four factors were tested by Oliver in the NBA over the course of multiple seasons, but it was shown subsequently to be accurate for college basketball as well with a minor adjustment.

Last season, we began trying to take these Four Factors and create an algorithm that “spit out” a pointspread for college games. Obviously, there are two more factors that must be included in college basketball predictions—strength of schedule and home court advantage (also visiting team disadvantage, since some teams play worse on the road than others, while a Kentucky might actually go on the road and receive points if 5,000 Blue Misters get into the gym.)

We are big fans of backtesting. It has shown positive results in stock picking, and it has shown positive results in picking football teams against the spread. You can test as many formulae as you can and find certain tendencies that lead you to higher accuracy.

After months of backtesting over the summer, we began to find three formulae that started to come close to actual pointspreads in past NCAA Tournaments. While we are not going to announce that we have cracked the code and have found a surefire method to become wealthy, we have found what we believe is our least amount of errors when using the Four Factors.

If you know a little about statistics, you must be familiar with means and standard deviations. A mean is simply the average. If you have the numbers 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9, the mean or average of these numbers is 5. The standard deviation is a little more involved, but it basically determines the degree of variation the numbers are from the mean. In the above sample, the standard deviation is 2.9, or on average, the numbers in the sample are 2.9 away from the norm.

When the standard deviation of something is high, then the mean is not all that important in something like picking sides against a basketball pointspread. The lower the standard deviation goes, the more accurate the formula will be. For weeks, we sought a formula that produces the lowest possible standard deviation.

In the end, we found three separate formulae that at certain points in time in the NCAA past were each the lowest standard deviation formula. Thus, we will go with three ratings this year as an experiment to determine winners in college basketball games.

Because there are five of us working full-time jobs doing something else, and because figuring the Four Factors for every NCAA team is something that must be done by typing in an entirely new set of statistics after every game, we cannot possibly pick every college basketball game. Additionally, until every college team has played about 10-12 games, these formulae standard deviations are wildly too high.

Thus, beginning in January, we will start to issue our ratings and picks for select Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference, and Southeastern Conference games, as well as other top games including teams like Gonzaga and Wichita State.

Once the season ends, we will select all the March Madness games. Remember, this is strictly an experimental exercise this year as we put these formulae into use in real time.

Here in a nutshell are the Four Factors plus our added strength of schedule and home court advantage. Each set of data is used both in an offensive and defensive subset.

1. Effective Field Goal Percentage
EFG% adds three-point shooting to the equation of accuracy. If you make one three-point shot in three attempts, you have made one point per shot attempt. If you make one layup and miss one short jumper, you have also made one point per shot attempt.

Formula: [Field Goals Made+ (0.5*Three Point Shots Made)]/Field Goals Attempted

Examples
Kentucky through 8 games: FG% 222-477 3Pt FG: 41
[222+(.5*41)]/477 = .508 or 50.8%

Kentucky Defensively: FG% 116-412 3Pt FG: 36
[116+(.5*36)]/412 = .325 or 32.5%
North Carolina through 7 games: FG% 188-444 3Pt FG: 34
[188+(.5*34)]/444 = .462 or 46.2%

North Carolina Defensively: FG% 142-423 3Pt FG: 41
[142+(.5*41)]/423 = .384 or 38.4%

Kentucky has a big advantage here on the surface before you look at who the two teams played and where these games were played.

2. Rebounding Rate
Getting offensive rebounds has always been a major factor in basketball success. Offensive rebounds tend to produce higher percentage shots, like tip-ins. Preventing the opponent from getting offensive rebounds is obviously equally important. This formula calculates the rate at which a team gets an offensive rebound or prevents the opponent from getting an offensive rebound.

Formula: Offensive Rebounds/(Offensive Rebounds + Opponents’ Defensive Rebounds)

Examples
Kentucky: Offensive Rebounds: 125 Opponents’ Defensive Rebounds: 148
125/(125+148) = .458 or 45.8%

Kentucky Defensively: Opponents’ Offensive Rebounds: 100 Kentucky’s Defensive Rebounds: 214
100/(100+214) = .318 or 31.8%

North Carolina: Offensive Rebounds: 120 Opponents’ Defensive Rebounds: 163
120/(120+163) = .424 or 42.4%

North Carolina Defensively: Opponents’ Offensive Rebounds: 115 North Carolina Defensive Rebounds: 190
115/(115+190) = .377 or 37.7%

Once again, Kentucky has an advantage here all things being equal.

3. Turnover Rate
Turnover rate or turnover percentage is simply the amount of turnovers created per 100 possessions, or defensively, it is the number of turnovers forced per 100 possessions. Obviously, this adds another factor that must be calculated—possessions. There are a couple of sites online that list the average number of possessions per game for each college team, but you can approximate this number rather accurately.

Calculating possessions for each team: FGA+(.475*FTA)-OR+TO
A possession ends with: a field goal attempt that is made or missed and rebounded by the opponent; a free throw that is made or missed and rebounded by the opponent, or a turnover. Because some free throws are the front end of a two-shot foul, not all free throws are counted, thus we use the constant of .475 to multiply (thanks to Mr. Ken Pomeroy at http://www.kenpom.com for this bit of data).

Remember that possessions per game can be affected by overtime games, where the game is more than 40 minutes long. For TO rate, this does not matter, but it will when we put pace to the equation in our algorithm.

Formula: TO/100 Possessions

Examples
Kentucky Possessions per game: FGA 477, FTA 202, OR 125 TO 87 Overtime minutes: 0
477+(.475*202)-125+87=534.95 =535 in 8 games, this averages to 66.9 possessions per game
Calculating this formula defensively, UK’s opponents show 65.9 possessions per game, which can be attributed to UK winning the tip and finishing the game with the ball more than average.

Turnover Rate: 87/535*100=16.3%
Defensive Turnover Rate: 148/527*100=28.1%

North Carolina Possessions per game: FGA 444 FTA 193 OR 120 TO 90 Overtime minutes: 0
444+(.475*193)-120+90=505.7 =506 in 7 games, this averages to 72.3 possessions per game
UNC’s Opponents’ Possessions=498 or 71.1 possessions per game

Turnover Rate: 90/506*100=17.8%
Defensive Turnover Rate: 112/498*100=22.5%

Once again, Kentucky enjoys the advantage in these two examples.

4. Free Throw Rate
This calculation has multiple mathematical geniuses in a little bit of disagreement, as there are at least three different philosophies on how to calculate this stat. The stat measures both how frequent a team can get to the foul line and how accurate they shoot foul shots, but not all math wizards agree on the proper method.

Oliver, in his original book, set FT Rate at: Free Throws Attempted/Field Goals Attempted. He posited that attempting free throws was all that mattered and getting to the line satisfied this criteria, as it placed the opposing team in foul trouble as fouls added up.

A second school of thought supported the formula as: Free Throws Made/Field Goals Attempted, believing that a made free throw added the obvious point accumulation while still including the fact that a foul was committed by the opponent.

Yet a third school of thought developed later that believed that free throws made per possession was more accurate in determining how important free throws were to the game. In mathematical tests, this metric actually proved to be a tad more accurate, but also a tad more time-consuming.

Accuracy is what we are looking for, so we will use the third option of FT Made per possession and multiply it by 100 to get a rate.

Formula: FT Made/100 Possessions

Examples
Kentucky: FT Made 131 Possessions 535
131/535*100= 24.5%

Kentucky Opponents: FT Made 95 Possessions 527
95/527*100=18.0%

North Carolina: FT Made 133 Possessions 506
133/506*100=26.3%

North Carolina’s Opponents: FT Made 120 Possessions 498
120/498*100=24.1%

Kentucky enjoys a slight advantage in this statistic.

And The Rest
Our formula for determining Strength of Schedule as it applies to pointspreads and our formula for determining home court advantage (and visiting team disadvantage) has not changed. How we figure these two sets of data would take much too long to explain, especially the home/visitor advantages, since there are 16 different variables that are possible, and in the end 90% of games will be end up within a two-point swing.

Putting It All Together
Once we have the “Four Factors” calculated, and we have determined how many points to alter the final product based on schedule strength and where the game will be played, we are ready to construct a pointspread.

As previously mentioned, we ended up with three separate algorithms, each of which at some point in the 21st Century past proved to be more accurate than all others tested.

We will call these formulae: PiRate Red, PiRate White, and PiRate Blue, because there is no distinct numerical statistic that really dominates any of the trio. It is simply a rearranging of numbers, so we cannot call one rating a mean rating, another a bias rating, and the other the regular rating like we do in football.

Unlike football, where we must record the scores and stats of every game in order to calculate ratings for the entire season, this rating only requires that we have up to date cumulative statistics and whichever SOS rating we choose to use.

Using our example, since North Carolina visits Kentucky next Saturday, our three ratings show the Wildcats to be favored today by 12.7, 11.9, and 16.3 points in the three algorithms. Of course, both teams play other games prior to their meeting in Lexington, so these stats would be a little different by Saturday morning.

Since this is just an example, we will use this one for you to refer to. Hopefully, it will prove to be somewhat accurate, and the Wildcats will win by about 14 points.

Look for our select basketball predictions to begin in January. In February, we will renew our weekly look at March Madness projections. Last year, we correctly picked 67 of the 68 teams on Selection Sunday morning.

Advertisements

September 19, 2013

PiRate Picks For September 19-23, 2013

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — piratings @ 5:10 am

The PiRate Ratings Picks broke even last week, and they have not performed well at the beginning of the season.  We selected much more conservatively this week, hoping to get on the plus side.  This week, the number played more importance than the game itself, so we shall see if this method works a little better.  Trends are real in this genre, so maybe the successful trends of the last few years have now played out.

 

If you are playing for real, and thus are ignoring everything we say here (where we do not play for real), our best suggestion is to select your choices as soon as you can find a line.  Then, if the line moves enough, you can play the middle and take the other side.  That is the probably your best chance to win consistently, as it only needs to work one time in 19 for you to make a profit (not counting any pushes that leave you 1-0-1 on the selection.)

 

We chose nine selections this week, as we get a little leaner and meaner.

 

1. Minnesota -3 vs. San Jose St.

 

2. Green Bay -2 ½ vs. Cincinnati

 

3. Money Line Parlay @ -109

Florida over Tennessee

Michigan over Connecticut

Ball St. over Eastern Michigan

Toledo over Central Michigan

 

4. 10-point Teaser

Western Michigan +29 ½ vs. Iowa

Tennessee +27 vs. Florida

Rice +12 ½ vs. Houston

 

5. 13-point Teaser

Clemson -1 vs. North Carolina St.

Pittsburgh +9 vs. Duke

Michigan -5 vs. Connecticut

Ball St. +2 vs. Eastern Michigan

 

6. 13-point Teaser

Cincinnati -9 ½ vs. Miami (O)

Wyoming +9 ½ vs. Air Force

Maryland +7 ½ vs. West Virginia

Florida Atlantic +17 ½ vs. Middle Tennessee

 

7. 13-point Teaser

L S U -4 vs. Auburn

Missouri +10 ½ vs. Indiana

San Diego +16 vs. Tennessee

Baltimore +15 ½ vs. Houston

 

8. 13-point Teaser

St. Louis +17 vs. Dallas

New Orleans +5 ½ vs. Arizona

Detroit +15 ½ vs. Washington

Green Bay +10 ½ vs. Cincinnati

 

9. 13-point Teaser

NY Giants +14 ½ vs. Carolina

Atlanta +15 vs. Miami

Seattle -6 ½ vs. Jacksonville

Chicago +10 ½ vs. Pittsburgh

 

September 18, 2013

PiRate Ratings–NFL: September 19-23, 2013

Filed under: Pro Football — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — piratings @ 1:10 pm

The Continuing Demise Of The Running Game

When I was an adolescent in the 1960’s, the National Football League was a blood and guts proposition.  The successful teams of the decade ran the ball and ran it better than the weaker teams.  In the Eastern Division, Jim Brown led the Cleveland Browns to multiple division flags.  After Brown departed, LeRoy Kelly took over and continued the ground attack that won all three of the NFL’s Century Division titles.

Dallas became a juggernaut in the second half of the decades thanks to a running back corps that included Don Perkins, Dan Reeves, and Walt Garrison.  Even with Dandy Don Meredith at quarterback, passes were kept at a minimum.

In the Western Division, Green Bay was Titletown USA.  The Packers had Paul Hornung and Jim Taylor in the backfield.  Both could deliver the goods when the Packers ran their legendary power sweep.  The Green Bay playbook was full of other running plays that looked at the beginning like the sweep, hitting every hole in the line.  Bart Starr was an excellent quarterback, possibly the equal of Johnny Unitas, but he attempted around 20 passes per game, with a good percentage coming off play-action.

Even though they had what many experts believed to be the best quarterback in NFL history, the Baltimore Colts were a run-first team.  Unitas may have thrown for 6,000 yards playing a 16-game schedule under 2013 rules and philosophies.  The Colts won big when their running game worked, and were just a little above average when they had to pass the ball more than run it.

The teams that passed the ball more than 50% of the time were the ones looking up from the bottom of the standings.  They could not run, so they passed and passed often.  Interception numbers were through the roof as the good teams often picked off more than two per game.  The Bears actually picked off more than three per game in their championship year of 1963.

The so-called pass happy American Football League passed the ball about 40% of the time.  Running still came first.  Stars like Cookie Gilchrist, Paul Lowe, Keith Lincoln, Jim Nance, and Mike Garrett led their teams to the AFL Championship.

Flash forward to 2013.  There are a handful of top running backs that can pile up 100 yards per game, but these players are not wearing Super Bowl jewelry.  Adrian Peterson was unstoppable last year, and he is off to another really good season after two weeks.  His Vikings are 0-2.  Darren McFadden, LeSean McCoy, C. J. Spiller, Chris Johnson, and DeAngelo Williams make up a short list of the best backs in the league.  These five should all top 1,300 rushing yards and could top 1,500.  Their teams aren’t likely to make the playoffs much less advance to the Super Bowl.

Even Houston, with both Arian Foster and Ben Tate capable of topping 1,000 rushing yards this year, the principle offensive weapon is Matt Schaub’s passing arm.  Schaub will top 4,500 passing yards this year, if he stays healthy.  The run serves the Texans like the draw and screen once served all NFL teams.

The road to the Super Bowl travels through the arms of the quarterbacks.  Even with a plethora of dual-threat QBs, the Super Bowl champion has always been one with a prototypical dropback passer.  Sure, Roger Staubach, John Elway, and Terry Bradshaw could run the ball, but they scrambled and did not run the zone read or the option.

Until a team proves it can win any other way, look for a team that passes the ball first and foremost with a prototypical dropback passer to emerge as the Super Bowl Champion.  So, ask yourself, which old-fashioned gunslinger is most likely to announce to the world in early February that he is going to Disneyworld?  Think about Peyton Manning, Matt Ryan, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Andy Dalton, and Matt Schaub among a handful of others.  Toss out the new breed of zone read quarterbacks.  This might be the way to win a college title, but we are not onboard with this philosophy.  Quarterbacks will take too much punishment getting banged on play after play by NFL defenders.

Which Brings Up This Idea

How better could a superstar back be utilized today?  Let’s take Chris Johnson, the back with 4.24 speed in the 40 yard dash.  The Titans give him the ball between the tackles about 60% of the time he runs the ball.  Not having much power, he frequently gains less than two yards on these line plunges.  When Vince Young quarterbacked the team, defenses had to assign defenders to stop the possible bootleg away from Johnson, and Johnson rushed for 2,000 yards.  The Titans finished 8-8.

What if Johnson were moved to a slotback and a power runner like Jackie Battle moved to starting running back?  The Titans would run the ball between the tackles with a little more success but with limited breakaway threat.  However, Johnson would force defenses to stretch vertically and open up the intermediate zones for the other receivers.  He would affect the opponent blitz packages, because any mistake in a cover 0 or cover 1 could be a six-point mistake.  Johnson is always a threat to run a stretch play for a 10-20 yard gain, but that play rarely means as much as getting free for a 50-yard pass reception.  He could be a smaller Calvin Johnson.

The Ray Guy Campaign

There is a push to elect Ray Guy to the Hall of Fame as the first enshrined punter.  Guy was a great player at that position.  College football’s top punter wins the Ray Guy Award, so you know he must have been fantastic.  The term “hang-time” became widely known because of Guy’s boots.

Great he was, but he was not the best punter.  The first punter elected to the Hall of Fame should be the best.  In my opinion, three other punters rank ahead of Guy (not counting any still playing or not yet eligible for enshrinement.

Jerrel Wilson was a superior punter for 15 years.  The former Chief led the league in punting average five times with hang-time equal to Guy’s.  He was better at placing the ball inside the 20 yard line, as he perfected the coffin corner kick.  Many of his punts landed inside the opponents’ 10-yard line, where the Chiefs’ vaunted defense forced a return punt.  With quality punt returners, the Chiefs often gained 20 or more yards in the exchange of punts.  Wilson was a little better than Guy, but he still was not the best.

Have you ever heard the name “Bobby Joe Green?”  He punted for the Steelers for a couple seasons and then became the Bears punter for a decade.  Green added something to the punting game that Guy and Wilson could not.  Not only did he punt for a nice fat average, leading the NFL in average six times, his punts were the hardest to field of any punter since.  Green’s punts were a work of art; they came down straight with a tight spiral.  Many times, the Bears benefitted from recovering fumbles in enemy territory as a result of one of Green’s skyrockets.  Additionally, there were punt returners too afraid to try to field his punts, and they let the ball bounce.  Even though the ball bounced the wrong way as often as it bounced in the Bears’ favor, the threat of a punt return was eliminated.

What makes Green’s accomplishments so much better than what they are on a piece of paper is that he played for the Bears when more than half of their games were in weather not advantageous for a punter.  The Bears played their games in Wrigley Field in those days, and the wind did the same thing to a football as it did to a baseball.  In a typical season, five of the seven home games were played in autumn winds.  Now, add an annual trip to Lambeau Field and another to Metropolitan Stadium (Minnesota), where conditions were almost always miserable after October 10.  Games in Cleveland Stadium, Forbes Field in Pittsburgh, and Yankee Stadium in New York were often no picnic for a kicking game.

Guy was a terrific punter, but Oakland seldom produced bad conditions for a kicker.  The Raiders always played in San Diego, which has perfect weather for about 99 games out of 100.  Kansas City was no picnic in the Municipal Stadium days (Where Wilson punted for a good bit of his career), but by the time Guy played for the Raiders, the Chiefs had moved into Arrowhead Stadium.  Denver could present awful weather conditions, but the ball flew through the air at the high altitude.

Statistics tell the story about Guy’s handful of games played in harsh weather, as the schedule makers in the 1970’s were very kind to Oakland, giving them most of their potential frigid weather road games in September.  It helped that the Oakland A’s forced the Raiders to begin many seasons with as many as five consecutive road games to start the season.

According to data from Pro Football Reference, in 1974, the Raiders played at Kansas City in December on a day where the temperature was 23 degrees with an 18 mph wind.  He averaged just 37.2 yards per punt on five attempts.  Wilson averaged 40 yards per punt for the Chiefs.

The Raiders played at Pittsburgh in the 1975 AFC Championship Game, where  it was 18 degrees that day with a wind of 18 miles per hour.  In eight attempts, Guy averaged just 37.9 yards per punt.  His counterpart that day, Bobby Walden, averaged 38.5.

Green is definitely the best punter eligible for the Hall of Fame, but in actuality, there already is a punter in Canton, and he was the very best of all time.  Of course, he is also in the HOF for playing another position.  That man is: Sammy Baugh.

Yes, the man considered to be an all-time great quarterback was also the all-time greatest punter.  Think of Baugh as the Babe Ruth of football.  Ruth might have earned a plaque in Cooperstown if he had remained a full-time pitcher.

As a punter, Baugh averaged more than 45 yards per punt for his career.  He holds the all-time best single season average at 51.4 yards per punt in 1940.

A Rare Event

At the time of this publication, the Seattle Seahawks are 20-point favorites over the Jacksonville Jaguars.  Without looking it up, I can remember very few games where a team was favored by 20 or more points.  In their first season in 1976, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, on their way to a 0-14 record, were underdogs in every game.  Against a couple of teams, they were 20-point ‘dogs.  They covered one of those games.  I could be wrong, but except for the other game in which they were trounced, I cannot remember another 20-point favorite covering in the last 37 years.  In the largest Super Bowl spread ever, the 1968 Baltimore Colts not only failed to cover against the New York Jets, they lost outright.

Seattle is nearly unbeatable at home, and the Jaguars have scored just 11 points in two weeks, but still 20 points is too much to expect for any NFL team to cover with confidence.  Consider that Seattle must play at Houston next week and at Indianapolis the following week.  Coach Pete Carroll cannot risk keeping his most important players in the game if it gets out of hand.  An injury to Russell Wilson or any of the key personnel with the ‘Hawks up by 24 points in the second half would be catastrophic.  If Seattle leads 28-0 at the half, they might be able to pull starters and still win by more than 20.  However, Jacksonville will not lay down.  Their offense is anemic, but their defense is okay.  NFL teams usually run in cycles where every third or fourth game is an aberration from the previous three or four games.  Seattle has enjoyed two top notch efforts; Jacksonville has suffered through two lousy efforts.  Chances are good that we will see Seattle go through a mediocre day, while Jacksonville plays its best game of the year.  We may not take the Jags as one of our official picks, but we definitely won’t take Seattle either.  We believe Jacksonville +33 is an excellent part of a 13-point teaser.

This Week’s PiRate Ratings

Current NFL PiRate Ratings

N F C

East

PiRate

Mean

Bias

Dallas Cowboys

100.4

102.7

100.4

New York Giants

100.1

100.0

99.0

Washington Redskins

96.2

94.9

95.0

Philadelphia Eagles

96.1

97.2

96.1

 

 

 

 

North

PiRate

Mean

Bias

Green Bay Packers

107.0

106.2

106.6

Chicago Bears

101.5

102.1

101.1

Minnesota Vikings

99.3

97.9

98.4

Detroit Lions

98.9

101.3

99.0

 

 

 

 

South

PiRate

Mean

Bias

Atlanta Falcons

103.1

104.6

102.3

New Orleans Saints

102.3

103.8

102.6

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

98.2

97.6

98.4

Carolina Panthers

98.1

96.9

97.9

 

 

 

 

West

PiRate

Mean

Bias

Seattle Seahawks

108.6

108.8

109.1

San Francisco 49ers

106.7

106.1

106.8

St. Louis Rams

98.6

99.9

98.0

Arizona Cardinals

95.5

98.3

95.5

 

A F C

East

PiRate

Mean

Bias

New England Patriots

105.9

100.8

106.0

Miami Dolphins

100.3

101.2

101.4

New York Jets

97.6

94.5

97.8

Buffalo Bills

96.1

94.7

96.4

 

 

 

 

North

PiRate

Mean

Bias

Cincinnati Bengals

102.8

102.4

102.8

Baltimore Ravens

101.8

100.6

101.3

Pittsburgh Steelers

98.2

96.9

97.6

Cleveland Browns

94.1

94.1

94.2

 

 

 

 

South

PiRate

Mean

Bias

Houston Texans

104.4

104.1

104.6

Tennessee Titans

100.1

99.5

101.0

Indianapolis Colts

98.6

97.6

99.0

Jacksonville Jaguars

88.6

87.9

88.5

 

 

 

 

West

PiRate

Mean

Bias

Denver Broncos

111.2

112.5

111.9

San Diego Chargers

98.8

100.3

99.6

Kansas City Chiefs

98.0

102.3

98.7

Oakland Raiders

92.9

92.3

93.0

This Week’s PiRate Spreads

Home Visitor

PiRate

Mean

Bias

Philadelphia Kansas City

1.1

-2.1

0.4

Baltimore Houston

0.4

-0.5

-0.3

Carolina N Y Giants

0.5

-0.6

1.4

Cincinnati Green Bay

-1.7

-1.3

-1.3

Dallas St. Louis

4.8

5.8

5.4

Miami Atlanta

-0.3

-0.9

1.6

Minnesota Cleveland

7.7

6.3

6.7

N Y Jets Buffalo

4.0

2.3

3.9

New England Tampa Bay

10.7

6.2

10.6

New Orleans Arizona

9.8

8.5

10.1

Pittsburgh Chicago

-0.3

-2.2

-0.5

San Francisco Indianapolis

11.1

11.5

10.8

Seattle Jacksonville

23.5

24.4

24.1

Tennessee San Diego

4.3

2.2

4.4

Washington Detroit

-0.2

-3.9

-1.5

Denver Oakland

21.3

23.2

21.9

 

September 12, 2013

PiRate Picks for College and NFL Football–September 12-16, 2013

A Week to Forget

Historically, the second week of the college football season and the first week of the NFL season has been a good one for us, but we stunk up the joint with our picks last week.  There is a reason the books call them “teasers.”  They tease you into thinking these selections are so easy to win, but they are quite the opposite.  Most people lose their shirts playing these sucker selections, but we have done quite well with them in the past due to the crossing of certain key numbers.  Oh, well: we wagered $0, so we would have either won big and collected $0, or lost big and lost $0.  That is how we suggest you wager as well—just for the fun of it.

 

This week, we have the following 17 fun selections for you to peruse.

 

College Sides

1. Texas Tech +3 ½ vs. T C U

2. Troy +8 vs. Arkansas St.

3. Louisville -13 ½ vs. Kentucky

4. Ohio U +8 ½ vs. Marshall

5. Virginia Tech -7 ½ vs. East Carolina

6. Connecticut +7 vs. Maryland

7. Wake Forest -3 vs. Louisiana-Monroe

8. Western Kentucky – 9 ½ vs. South Alabama

9. Illinois +10 vs. Washington

 

N F L Sides

10. Baltimore -6 ½ vs. Cleveland

11. Indianapolis -2 ½ vs. Miami

12. Oakland -5 ½ vs. Jacksonville

 

College Totals

13. Connecticut & Maryland UNDER 48

 

14. 10-point Teaser

Western Kentucky + ½ vs. South Alabama

UCLA +14 ½ vs. Nebraska

Texas +7 ½ vs. Ole Miss

 

15. 10-point Teaser

Illinois +20 vs. Washington

Ohio St. -5 ½ vs. California

Northwestern -20 vs. Western Michigan

 

16. 13-point Teaser

Bowling Green + 15 ½ vs. Indiana

Virginia Tech +5 ½ vs. East Carolina

Connecticut +19 ½ vs. Maryland

Florida St. -20 ½ vs. Nevada

 

17. 13-point Teaser

Iowa St. +15 ½ vs. Iowa

Alabama +5 vs. Texas A&M

Auburn +7 ½ vs. Mississippi St.

South Carolina – ½ vs. Vanderbilt

 

November 15, 2012

PiRate Picks For College and Pro Football–November 15-19, 2012

College Football Selections

It looks like one of those weeks where we think the odds are off in a lot of games.  Normally, we struggle to find enough games to select and have to squeeze a few more picks.  This week, we had the opposite happen.  We saw 25-30 selections that we really liked, and it took a couple of hours of research to whittle that number down to a reasonable amount.

 

We isolated several straight side selections where we believe the wrong team is favored, and we used some of those to play in 13-point teasers, in essence giving us what we believe are 15-20-point teasers.

 

1. Virginia +3 ½ vs. North Carolina

2. Kent St. +3 vs. Bowling Green

3. Mississippi St. -6 vs. Arkansas

4. Marshall -3 vs. Houston

5. Rice +3 ½ vs. S M U

6. Brigham Young -3 vs. San Jose St.

7. UT-San Antonio -6 ½ vs. Idaho

8. Ohio St. +2 ½ vs. Wisconsin

 

9. Money Line Parlay @ -118

Missouri over Syracuse

Georgia Tech over Duke

 

10. 13-point Teaser

Temple +16 vs. Army

Kent St. +16 vs. Bowling Green

Northwestern +20 ½ vs. Michigan St.

Rutgers +19 ½ vs. Cincinnati

 

11. 13-point Teaser

Kansas St. Pk. vs. Baylor

Tulsa +12 vs. Central Florida

Louisiana Tech +16 vs. Utah St.

Ohio St. +15 ½ vs. Wisconsin

 

 

N F L

This is the final week of byes; with four teams off, that reduces the number of games to 14.  With the Bears-49ers game off the board, it reduces the number of games to 13. 

 

1. Cleveland +9 ½ vs. Dallas

2. NY Jets +3 ½ vs. St. Louis

3. Cincinnati -3 vs. Kansas City

 

4. 13-point Teaser

Buffalo +12 vs. Miami

Detroit +16 ½ vs. Green Bay

Tampa Bay +12 vs. Carolina

New England +3 ½ vs. Indiana

 

5. 13-point Teaser

Houston -2 vs. Jacksonville

Cincinnati +9 ½ vs. Kansas City

New Orleans +8 ½ vs. Oakland

Baltimore +9 ½ vs. Pittsburgh

 

 

November 8, 2012

PiRate Picks For College and Pro Football–November 8-12, 2012

College

We have started to warm up in the college selections with a 60% success rate over the previous four weeks, bringing our record against the spread for the season to 56%.

 

Before we get to our picks this week, here are some interesting college tidbits:

1. If Indiana upsets Wisconsin this week, the Hoosiers would more than likely become the Leaders Division representative in the Big Ten Championship Game.  They would only need to defeat a lowly Purdue team in two weeks to secure the spot.

 

2. In the event that Louisville, Cincinnati, and Rutgers finished tied for the Big East championship with 6-1 conference marks, the automatic BCS Bowl bid goes to the highest-ranked team in the BCS rankings.  Louisville would more than likely be that team, since they would be 11-1, whereas the other two would be 10-2.

 

3. There is a possibility that at least four and maybe as many as six SEC jobs could become open at the end of the regular season.  Arkansas and Kentucky already have active job searches going on, while Auburn and Tennessee are almost foregone conclusions.  Add to this the possibility that two hot coaching commodities, Mississippi State’s Dan Mullen and Vanderbilt’s James Franklin could be on several short lists, there could be a lot of new faces next year in the top conference in the land.  However, before any hot coach considers applying for these vacancies, they may have to wait to see if another job becomes available.  Texas may or may not decide that Mack Brown is ready to retire, and if that job becomes available, just about every successful coach in the nation could become a candidate, even Nick Saban.  There is also a chance that Southern Cal may wish to end the Lane Kiffin experience.  Look for a lot of interesting and surprising moves.

 

4. Nick Saban would have nothing left to prove if he wins another National Championship at Alabama.  That would give him four total and three in four years at Alabama.  He still has desires to hoist a Lombardi Trophy, and he cannot do that at Tuscaloosa.  There will be three or four openings in the NFL at the end of the season, and he could be a candidate for any of these positions.  Carolina, New Orleans, and Tennessee come to mind.

 

Here are this week’s college picks:

 

1. Louisville -2 ½ vs. Syracuse

2. Central Michigan -3 vs. Eastern Michigan

3. Kent St. -6 ½ vs. Miami (O)

4. Southern Cal -9 vs. Arizona St.

5. Arkansas +14 vs. South Carolina

 

6. 10-point Teaser

UL-Monroe +17 vs. Arkansas St.

Louisville +7 ½ vs. Syracuse

Miami +11 vs. Virginia

 

7. 10-point Teaser

North Carolina +1 vs. Georgia Tech

Alabama -3 ½ vs. Texas A&M

Georgia -5 ½ vs. Auburn

 

8. 10-point Teaser

Penn St. +17 ½ vs. Nebraska

Southern Cal +1 vs. Arizona St.

Texas Pk. vs. Iowa St.

 

9. 10-point Teaser

San Diego St. + ½ vs. Air Force

U C L A -4 ½ vs. Washington St.

Memphis +11 vs. Tulane

 

10. 13-point Teaser

Minnesota +10 vs. Illinois

Washington +14 ½ vs. Utah

Missouri +16 vs. Tennessee

Marshall +10 ½ vs. U A B

 

11. Money Line Parlay @ +106

Wisconsin over Indiana

Iowa over Purdue

 

12. Money Line Parlay @ -119

North Carolina over Georgia Tech

Kent St. over Miami (O)

 

13. Money Line Parlay @ -110

Georgia over Auburn

Southern Cal over Arizona St.

Texas over Iowa St.

 

 

N F L

We removed the totals from our teasers last week, and it worked to the tune of a 4-1 mark against the spread.  So, this week, we are continuing to rely on teasing just sides.  We have isolated a pair of games that we really like, so we are going to key them in three separate selections.  It will be feast or famine, but that’s what makes it so exciting!

 

1. Denver -3 ½ vs. Carolina

2. Philadelphia +1 ½ vs. Dallas

3. Houston +1 vs. Chicago

 

4. 10-point Teaser

Indianapolis +7 vs. Jacksonville

New England -1 vs. Buffalo

NY Giants +6 vs. Cincinnati

 

5. 10-point Teaser

San Francisco -1 vs. St. Louis

Houston +11 vs. Chicago

Pittsburgh -2 vs. Kansas City

 

6. 13-point Teaser

Denver +9 vs. Carolina

Baltimore +5 ½ vs. Oakland

Tampa Bay +10 vs. San Diego

Miami +7 ½ vs. Tennessee

 

7. 13-point Teaser

Denver +9 vs. Carolina

Baltimore +5 ½ vs. Oakland

New Orleans +15 ½ vs. Atlanta

Philadelphia +14 ½ vs. Dallas

 

8. 13-point Teaser

Denver +9 vs. Carolina

Baltimore +5 ½ vs. Oakland

New England +2 vs. Buffalo

Pittsburgh Pk. vs. Kansas City

 

9. Money Line Parlay @ -117

Pittsburgh over Kansas City

Baltimore over Oakland

New England over Buffalo

November 7, 2012

PiRate Ratings For College Football: November 6-10, 2012

This Week’s PiRate Ratings

# Team PiRate
1 Alabama 134.8
2 Kansas St. 131.1
3 Oregon   130.9
4 Oklahoma 129.0
5 L S U   125.5
6 Notre Dame 124.5
7 Florida St. 124.4
8 Texas A&M 123.9
9 South Carolina 122.6
10 Oklahoma St. 122.5
11 Georgia 121.1
12 Florida 121.1
13 Clemson   120.9
14 U S C 120.0
15 Stanford 117.6
16 Texas 117.0
17 Michigan 116.9
18 Nebraska 115.8
19 U C L A 114.8
20 Texas Tech 113.8
21 B Y U 113.8
22 Ohio St. 113.5
23 Oregon St. 113.2
24 T C U 112.5
25 Wisconsin    112.3
26 Utah 111.4
27 Iowa St. 110.8
28 West Virginia 110.6
29 Baylor 110.4
30 Michigan St. 110.3
31 North Carolina 109.9
32 Vanderbilt 109.4
33 Arizona 109.3
34 Missouri 109.2
35 Tennessee 109.2
36 Penn St. 108.4
37 Mississippi St. 108.4
38 Arizona St. 107.6
39 Washington 107.4
40 Central Florida 106.7
41 Ole Miss 106.4
42 Louisiana Tech   106.4
43 Rutgers 106.1
44 Boise St. 105.9
45 Louisville 104.9
46 Northern Illinois   104.0
47 Utah St. 104.0
48 California 104.0
49 Pittsburgh 103.8
50 Georgia Tech 103.4
51 Northwestern 103.3
52 Arkansas 103.0
53 Virginia Tech 102.9
54 Cincinnati 102.7
55 Fresno St. 102.7
56 Tulsa 102.4
57 Syracuse 101.4
58 Miami-FL 101.3
59 South Florida 100.8
60 Toledo 100.6
61 Auburn 100.6
62 North Carolina St. 99.9
63 San Diego St. 99.6
64 Purdue 98.6
65 San Jose St. 98.0
66 Duke 97.8
67 Iowa 97.8
68 Kent St. 97.2
69 Minnesota 96.8
70 Indiana 96.6
71 Virginia 96.6
72 Maryland 96.2
73 Nevada 96.1
74 Louisiana-Monroe 96.1
75 Kansas 96.1
76 Ball St. 96.0
77 Wake Forest 95.5
78 S M U 95.5
79 Western Kentucky 95.4
80 Arkansas St. 95.1
81 East Carolina 94.8
82 Bowling Green 94.5
83 Boston College 94.4
84 Washington St. 93.7
85 Connecticut 93.5
86 Ohio U 93.4
87 Western Michigan 93.4
88 Navy 93.1
89 UL-Lafayette 92.6
90 Houston 92.5
91 Illinois 91.0
92 Marshall 90.2
93 Air Force 89.2
94 Rice 89.0
95 Kentucky 88.6
96 Troy 88.3
97 U T E P 88.2
98 Temple 87.9
99 Wyoming 87.2
100 Army 87.0
101 Middle Tennessee 86.5
102 North Texas 86.4
103 Miami (O) 85.4
104 UNLV 85.1
105 U A B 84.4
106 Southern Mississippi   84.2
107 Central Michigan 84.0
108 Buffalo 84.0
109 Florida International 83.5
110 New Mexico 83.2
111 Colorado St. 80.9
112 Eastern Michigan 80.2
113 Colorado 78.9
114 Texas St. 78.3
115 Florida Atlantic 78.2
116 Hawaii 76.7
117 Tulane 76.6
118 U T S A 75.9
119 Akron 75.6
120 Idaho 75.2
121 Memphis 74.7
122 South Alabama 74.6
123 New Mexico St. 74.3
124 Massachusetts 65.7

 

This Week’s PiRate Vintage Ratings

# Team Vintage
1 Alabama 129.0
2 Kansas St. 127.0
3 Oregon 127.0
4 Georgia  126.5
5 Notre Dame 123.5
6 Florida  123.5
7 L S U 123.0
8 Florida St. 122.0
9 Ohio State 121.5
10 Texas A&M 121.0
11 S. Carolina 120.5
12 Stanford 119.5
13 Clemson 118.5
14 Oklahoma 118.5
15 Nebraska 116.5
16 U S C 116.5
17 Michigan 115.5
18 Oklahoma St. 115.5
19 U C L A 113.5
20 N. Carolina 113.0
21 Louisville 112.5
22 Penn State 112.5
23 B Y U 112.0
24 Miami 111.5
25 Mississippi St. 111.5
26 Michigan St. 111.0
27 Texas 110.5
28 Washington 110.5
29 Oregon St. 110.0
30 Vanderbilt 110.0
31 Wisconsin 109.5
32 Texas Tech 109.5
33 San Diego St. 109.0
34 Boise St. 108.5
35 Ole Miss 108.5
36 Utah 107.5
37 T C U 107.5
38 Rutgers 107.0
39 Northwestern 107.0
40 Arkansas 106.5
41 West Virginia 106.5
42 Fresno St. 106.0
43 Cincinnati 106.0
44 La. Tech 105.5
45 Missouri 105.5
46 Central Fla. 105.0
47 Arizona 104.5
48 Tennessee 104.5
49 Utah St. 104.0
50 Kent St. 103.5
51 Northern Ill. 103.5
52 Virginia Tech 103.5
53 Iowa St. 103.5
54 N. Carolina St. 103.0
55 Tulsa 103.0
56 Arizona St. 103.0
57 Baylor 102.5
58 Pittsburgh 102.0
59 Indiana 101.0
60 Iowa 100.0
61 Syracuse 99.5
62 Toledo 99.5
63 Nevada 99.5
64 San Jose St. 99.0
65 Duke 99.0
66 Minnesota 98.5
67 Bowling Green 98.0
68 Ohio U 98.0
69 Wake Forest 97.5
70 Georgia Tech 97.5
71 Virginia 97.5
72 California 97.5
73 Auburn 97.0
74 Navy 96.5
75 Arkansas St. 95.0
76 Ball St. 95.0
77 Maryland 94.5
78 Boston College 94.0
79 S M U 94.0
80 S. Florida 93.5
81 Air Force 93.5
82 Temple 93.0
83 East Carolina 93.0
84 Purdue 93.0
85 UL-Monroe 92.5
86 Western Mich. 92.5
87 Kansas 92.0
88 UL-Lafayette 91.0
89 Middle Tenn. 91.0
90 Western Ky. 91.0
91 Kentucky 91.0
92 Illinois 91.0
93 UNLV 90.0
94 Army 90.0
95 Miami (O) 90.0
96 Central Mich. 90.0
97 Washington St. 90.0
98 Connecticut 89.5
99 New Mexico 89.0
100 Colorado 88.5
101 Houston 88.0
102 Marshall 87.5
103 Rice 87.0
104 Colorado St. 86.5
105 Buffalo 85.5
106 Wyoming 85.0
107 Troy 84.5
108 Tulane 84.0
109 UTSA 84.0
110 U A B 83.5
111 U T E P 83.5
112 Texas St. 83.0
113 Akron 82.5
114 Florida Int’l 81.5
115 Eastern Mich. 79.5
116 Hawaii 79.0
117 Memphis 77.5
118 N. Texas 77.5
119 Idaho 77.5
120 Florida Atl. 77.0
121 Southern Miss. 76.5
122 S. Alabama 75.0
123 U. Mass. 73.5
124 N. Mexico St. 71.0

 

Ratings By Conference

Atlantic Coast Conference
Atlantic Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Florida St. 5-1 8-1 124.4 122.0
Clemson   5-1 8-1 120.9 118.5
North Carolina St. 2-3 5-4 99.9 103.0
Maryland 2-3 4-5 96.2 94.5
Wake Forest 3-4 5-4 95.5 97.5
Boston College 1-5 2-7 94.4 94.0
         
Coastal Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
North Carolina 3-2 6-3 109.9 113.0
Georgia Tech 3-3 4-5 103.4 97.5
Virginia Tech 2-3 4-5 102.9 103.5
Miami-FL 4-2 6-3 101.3 111.5
Duke 3-3 6-4 97.8 99.0
Virginia 1-4 3-6 96.6 97.5
         
         
Conference Means 103.95   103.60 104.3

 

 

Big East Conference
         
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Rutgers 4-0 7-1 106.1 107.0
Louisville 4-0 9-0 104.9 112.5
Pittsburgh 1-3 4-5 103.8 102.0
Cincinnati 2-1 6-2 102.7 106.0
Syracuse 3-2 4-5 101.4 99.5
South Florida 1-4 3-6 100.8 93.5
Connecticut 0-4 3-6 93.5 89.5
Temple 2-3 3-5 87.9 93.0
         
         
Conference Means 100.256   100.14 100.4

 

 

Big Ten
         
Leaders Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Ohio St. 6-0 10-0 113.5 121.5
Wisconsin   3-2 6-3 112.3 109.5
Penn St. 4-1 6-3 108.4 112.5
Purdue 0-5 3-6 98.6 93.0
Indiana 2-3 4-5 96.6 101.0
Illinois 0-5 2-7 91.0 91.0
         
Legends Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Michigan 4-1 6-3 116.9 115.5
Nebraska 4-1 7-2 115.8 116.5
Michigan St. 2-4 5-5 110.3 111.0
Northwestern 3-2 7-2 103.3 107.0
Iowa 2-3 4-5 97.8 100.0
Minnesota 1-4 5-4 96.8 98.5
         
Conference Means 105.763   105.11 106.4

 

 

Big 12
         
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Kansas St. 6-0 9-0 131.1 127.0
Oklahoma 4-1 6-2 129.0 118.5
Oklahoma St. 3-2 5-3 122.5 115.5
Texas 4-2 7-2 117.0 110.5
Texas Tech 3-3 6-3 113.8 109.5
T C U 3-3 6-3 112.5 107.5
Iowa St. 2-4 5-4 110.8 103.5
West Virginia 2-3 5-3 110.6 106.5
Baylor 1-4 4-4 110.4 102.5
Kansas 0-6 1-8 96.1 92.0
         
         
Conference Means 112.34   115.38 109.3

 

 

Conference USA
East Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Central Florida 5-0 7-2 106.7 105.0
East Carolina 5-1 6-4 94.8 93.0
Marshall 3-2 4-5 90.2 87.5
U A B 1-4 2-7 84.4 83.5
Southern Mississippi   0-5 0-9 84.2 76.5
Memphis 1-4 1-8 74.7 77.5
         
West Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Tulsa 5-0 7-2 102.4 103.0
S M U 3-2 4-5 95.5 94.0
Houston 3-2 4-5 92.5 88.0
Rice 2-4 4-6 89.0 87.0
U T E P 1-4 2-7 88.2 83.5
Tulane 2-3 2-7 76.6 84.0
         
         
Conference Means 89.2375   89.93 88.5

 

 

Independents
         
Team   Overall Rating Vintage
Notre Dame   9-0 124.5 123.5
B Y U   5-4 113.8 112.0
Navy   6-3 93.1 96.5
Army   2-7 87.0 90.0
         
         
Conference Means 105.05   104.60 105.5

 

 

Mid American Conference
East Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Kent St. 5-0 8-1 97.2 103.5
Bowling Green 4-1 6-3 94.5 98.0
Ohio U 4-1 8-1 93.4 98.0
Miami (O) 3-2 4-5 85.4 90.0
Buffalo 1-4 2-7 84.0 85.5
Akron 0-6 1-9 75.6 82.5
Massachusetts 0-5 0-9 65.7 73.5
         
West Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Northern Illinois   6-0 9-1 104.0 103.5
Toledo 5-0 8-1 100.6 99.5
Ball St. 3-2 6-3 96.0 95.0
Western Michigan 2-4 4-6 93.4 92.5
Central Michigan 1-4 3-6 84.0 90.0
Eastern Michigan 0-5 1-8 80.2 79.5
         
         
Conference Means 90.1923   88.77 91.6

 

 

Mountain West Conference
         
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Boise St. 4-1 7-2 105.9 108.5
Fresno St. 5-1 7-3 102.7 106.0
San Diego St. 5-1 7-3 99.6 109.0
Nevada 3-2 6-3 96.1 99.5
Air Force 4-1 5-4 89.2 93.5
Wyoming 1-4 2-7 87.2 85.0
UNLV 2-3 2-8 85.1 90.0
New Mexico 1-4 4-6 83.2 89.0
Colorado St. 1-4 2-7 80.9 86.5
Hawaii 0-5 1-7 76.7 79.0
         
         
Conference Means 92.63   90.66 94.6

 

 

Pac-12 Conference
North Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Oregon   6-0 9-0 130.9 127.0
Stanford 5-1 7-2 117.6 119.5
Oregon St. 5-1 7-1 113.2 110.0
Washington 3-3 5-4 107.4 110.5
California 2-5 3-7 104.0 97.5
Washington St. 0-6 2-7 93.7 90.0
         
South Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
U S C 4-3 6-3 120.0 116.5
U C L A 4-2 7-2 114.8 113.5
Utah 2-4 4-5 111.4 107.5
Arizona 2-4 5-4 109.3 104.5
Arizona St. 3-3 5-4 107.6 103.0
Colorado 1-5 1-8 78.9 88.5
         
         
Conference Means 108.2   109.07 107.3

 

 

Southeastern Conference
East Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
South Carolina 5-2 7-2 122.6 120.5
Georgia 6-1 8-1 121.1 126.5
Florida 7-1 8-1 121.1 123.5
Vanderbilt 3-3 5-4 109.4 110.0
Missouri 1-5 4-5 109.2 105.5
Tennessee 0-5 4-5 109.2 104.5
Kentucky 0-7 1-9 88.6 91.0
         
West Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Alabama 6-0 9-0 134.8 129.0
L S U   3-2 7-2 125.5 123.0
Texas A&M 4-2 7-2 123.9 121.0
Mississippi St. 3-2 7-2 108.4 111.5
Ole Miss 2-3 5-4 106.4 108.5
Arkansas 2-3 4-5 103.0 106.5
Auburn 0-6 2-7 100.6 97.0
         
         
Conference Means 112.921   113.13 112.7

 

 

Sunbelt Conference
         
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Louisiana-Monroe 4-1 6-3 96.1 92.5
Western Kentucky 3-2 6-3 95.4 91.0
Arkansas St. 4-1 6-3 95.1 95.0
UL-Lafayette 3-2 5-3 92.6 91.0
Troy 3-3 4-5 88.3 84.5
Middle Tennessee 4-1 6-3 86.5 91.0
North Texas 2-3 3-6 86.4 77.5
Florida International 1-5 2-8 83.5 81.5
Florida Atlantic 1-4 2-7 78.2 77.0
South Alabama 1-4 2-7 74.6 75.0
         
         
Conference Means 86.635   87.67 85.6

 

 

Western Athletic Conference
         
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Louisiana Tech   3-0 8-1 106.4 105.5
Utah St. 4-0 8-2 104.0 104.0
San Jose St. 3-1 7-2 98.0 99.0
Texas St. 1-2 3-5 78.3 83.0
U T S A 1-3 5-4 75.9 84.0
Idaho 1-3 1-8 75.2 77.5
New Mexico St. 0-4 1-8 74.3 71.0
         
         
Conference Means 88.2929   87.44 89.1

 

This Week’s PiRate Spreads

This Week’s Games
         
Favorite Underdog PiRate Vintage  
Tuesday, November 6      
TOLEDO Ball St. 7.6 7.5  
         
Wednesday, November 7      
OHIO U Bowling Green 1.4 2.5  
         
Thursday, November 8      
Florida St. VIRGINIA TECH 18.0 15.0  
ARKANSAS ST. UL-Monroe 2.0 5.5  
         
Friday, November 9      
Pittsburgh CONNECTICUT 7.3 9.5  
         
Saturday, November 10      
MICHIGAN Northwestern 16.6 11.5  
CLEMSON Maryland 27.7 27.0  
NORTH CAROLINA ST. Wake Forest 6.9 8.0  
RUTGERS Army 21.1 19.0  
Louisville SYRACUSE 0.5 10.0  
Miami (Fl) VIRGINIA 1.7 11.0  
Minnesota ILLINOIS 2.8 4.5  
Wisconsin INDIANA 12.7 5.5  
IOWA Purdue 2.2 10.0  
OLE MISS Vanderbilt 0.0 1.5  
NORTH CAROLINA Georgia Tech 9.5 18.5  
Central Michigan EASTERN MICHIGAN 1.8 8.5  
Kent St. MIAMI (O) 9.3 11.0  
B Y U Idaho 41.6 37.5  
AKRON Massachusetts 12.4 11.5  
Western Michigan BUFFALO 6.4 4.0  
ALABAMA Texas A&M 13.9 11.0  
Georgia AUBURN 17.5 26.5  
NEBRASKA Penn St. 10.4 7.0  
Notre Dame BOSTON COLLEGE 27.1 26.5  
SOUTHERN CAL Arizona St. 15.4 16.5  
Utah WASHINGTON 1.0 -6.0  
Wyoming NEW MEXICO 1.0 -7.0  
San Jose St. NEW MEXICO ST. 21.2 25.5  
Oregon CALIFORNIA 23.9 26.5  
OKLAHOMA ST. West Virginia 14.9 12.0  
Kansas St. T C U 15.6 16.5  
Cincinnati TEMPLE 12.3 10.5  
TENNESSEE Missouri 3.0 2.0  
TEXAS Iowa St. 9.2 10.0  
SAN DIEGO ST. Air Force 13.4 18.5  
S M U Southern Miss. 13.8 20.0  
Marshall U A B 3.3 1.5  
Tulsa HOUSTON 6.9 12.0  
U n l v COLORADO ST. 1.2 0.5  
Boise St. HAWAII 25.2 25.5  
U c l a WASHINGTON ST. 18.1 20.5  
Central Florida U T E P 15.5 18.5  
ARIZONA Colorado 33.4 19.0  
SOUTH CAROLINA Arkansas 22.6 17.0  
TEXAS TECH Kansas 20.7 20.5  
Louisiana Tech TEXAS ST. 25.6 20.0  
OKLAHOMA Baylor 21.6 19.0  
MEMPHIS Tulane 0.6 -4.0  
STANFORD Oregon St. 7.4 12.5  
L S U Mississippi St. 20.1 14.5  
Fresno St. NEVADA 3.6 3.5  
WESTERN KENTUCKY Florida Atlantic 20.2 17.0  
Navy TROY 1.8 9.0  
NORTH TEXAS South Alabama 14.8 5.5  
FLORIDA UL-Lafayette 31.5 32.5  

 

Let’s Go Bowling

As of today, we project exactly 70 teams to finish bowl eligible, which is the exact number needed to fill 35 bowl games.  We project that 11 of these bowl bids will go to at-large teams needed to fill spots not provided by the conference tie-ins.

 

Because of this, two conferences should see a bonanza of bowl invitations.  The Mid-American Conference and the Sunbelt Conference are projected to provide seven additional teams to the bowls.  When you add the bowl tie-ins from those two leagues, it brings the total to 12 invited teams (seven from the MAC and five from the SBC).  That means that better than one out of every six bowl invitations will go to members from one of these conferences.

 

Our bowl projections are always different from others you may find online.  We don’t just project the bowls based on current standings or even projected standings.  We look at the political, geographical, and historical aspects and then search for additional evidence that might give us a clue or two.

 

For instance, this year we will rely more on geographical aspects when the opportunity exists to favor one team over another based on proximity to the host city.  It is our opinion that bowls would rather fill their stands with local teams or teams within driving distance of the city than teams that would fill hotel rooms. 

 

For instance, the WAC has just one bowl tie-in—the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl goes to the league champion.  As of this writing, we project Louisiana Tech to win out and finish 11-1.  However, we see an opportunity to put more seats in stadiums and project the folks in Boise, Idaho, to take Utah State.  That would leave La. Tech to fill an at-large spot in the Independence Bowl.

 

The BCS Bowls

As of today, we have Alabama, Kansas State, Oregon, and Notre Dame finishing undefeated.  If this happens, Alabama and Kansas State will be facing off for the national championship.

 

We have Florida State, Louisville, and Nebraska joining the quartet above as automatic qualifiers, which leaves three teams to fill at-large spots in BCS Bowls.  Since Boise State lost and fell out of contention, we are going with Clemson, Oklahoma, and LSU to be those three teams.  The SEC could send Georgia or Florida, but we believe the Sugar Bowl will want LSU instead.

 

Oregon and Nebraska would be contractually bound for the Rose Bowl, and Florida State would go to the Orange Bowl.  Here is how we see the rest of the BCS Bowls to pan out.

 

The National Championship Game would pit Alabama and Kansas State.  That means the Sugar Bowl would get first choice to select a team, and the Fiesta Bowl would get the second choice.  In 2012-13, the order of picking teams would then go Fiesta, Sugar, and Orange.

 

This is where we believe the Sugar Bowl would take LSU to guarantee a sold out stadium in New Orleans.  The Fiesta Bowl would then bypass a Big 12 team with Notre Dame available.  The Fiesta Bowl would then choose again, but they would be forced to bypass Oklahoma because they have already played the Fighting Irish.  This would leave them with Clemson.  The Sugar Bowl would then take Oklahoma, which means they would be marrying the Big 12 and SEC just after the two leagues settled on the Sugar Bowl for the future.  That leaves Louisville for the Orange Bowl.

 

Here is our list in full.

 

Bowl Conference Team Conference Team
New Mexico MWC # 4/5 Nevada Pac12 #7 / WAC Arizona
Famous Idaho Potato MAC #3 Northern Illinois WAC #1/2 Utah St.
Poinsettia MWC #2 Fresno St. BYU/WAC B Y U
Beef O’Brady’s Big East #6 (UL-Lafayette) C-USA #2-5 (4) East Carolina
New Orleans Sunbelt #1 Arkansas St. C-USA #2-5 (5) (San Jose St.)
MAACO MWC #1 Boise St. Pac 12 #5 U C L A
Hawaii MWC #3/Hawaii San Diego St. C-USA #2-5 (2) Tulsa
Little Caesar’s Pizza Big 10 #8 (Western Ky.) MAC #1 Kent St.
Military ACC #8 (Bowling Green) Army/CUSA (Arizona St.)
Belk ACC #5 Duke Big East #3 Rutgers
Holiday Pac 12 #3 Washington Big 12 #5 Oklahoma St.
Independence ACC #6/7 (7) (Ball St.) SEC #10 (La. Tech)
Russell Athletic Big East #2 Cincinnati ACC #3 North Carolina St.
Meineke Car Care of Texas Big 12 #6 T C U Big 10 #6 Minnesota
Armed Forces C-USA #3 S M U MWC #4-5 Air Force
Kraft Fight Hunger Pac 12 #6 Oregon St. Navy/ACC Navy
Pinstripe Big East #4 Pittsburgh Big 12 #7 Iowa St.
Alamo Big 12 #3 Texas Tech Pac 12 #2 Stanford
Buffalo Wild Wings Big 12 #4 West Virginia Big 10 #4 or 5 Northwestern
Music City SEC # 7 Vanderbilt ACC #6 (Middle Tennessee)
Sun ACC #4 Virginia Tech Pac 12 #4 Southern Cal
Liberty SEC#8-9/BigEast Ole Miss C-USA #1 Central Fla.
Chick-fil-A SEC #5 South Carolina ACC #2 Miami-Fla
Heart of Dallas Big 10 #7 (Western Mich.) Big 12 #8 (Utah)
Gator Big 10 #4 or 5 Michigan St. SEC #6 Mississippi St.
Capital One Big 10 #2 Michigan SEC #2 Georgia
Outback SEC #3 or 4 Florida Big 10 #3 Wisconsin
Rose BCS Pac12 Oregon BCS Big 10 Nebraska
Orange BCS ACC Florida St. BCS At-Large Louisville
Sugar BCS SEC L S U BCS At-Large Oklahoma
Fiesta BCS Big 12 Notre Dame BCS At-Large Clemson
Cotton Big 12 #2 Texas SEC #3 or 4 Texas A&M
BBVA Compass Big East#5/CUSA (Ohio U) SEC #8 or 9 Tennessee
GoDaddy.com Sunbelt # 2 UL-Monroe MAC #2 Toledo
National Championship *** BCS #1 *** Alabama *** BCS #2 *** Kansas St.

 

November 1, 2012

PiRate Picks For College and Pro Football–November 1-5, 2012

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — piratings @ 4:22 am

Even though we are coming off a hot month with our college picks, we don’t feel comfortable with a lot of the lines this week.  We anticipate what the lines will be, and this week, they were too close to what we thought they would be.  So, we will rely more on the teasers this week.

 

As for the NFL, we cannot get out of the mediocrity range, hovering at 50%.  Maybe the second half of the season will give us some better results now that we have started to notice certain trends.  We actually like the pro selections more than the college selections this week.

 

College

1. Penn State -3 ½ vs. Purdue

2. Clemson -13 vs. Duke

3. Kansas State -9 ½ vs. Oklahoma State

4. UCLA -3 ½ vs. Arizona

5. New Mexico +4 vs. UNLV

 

6. 10-point Teaser

Western Kentucky +1 vs. Middle Tennessee

Miami-FL +11 vs. Virginia Tech

Washington +14 ½ vs. California

 

7. 10-point Teaser

Kent State -9 vs. Akron

Kentucky +17 vs. Vanderbilt

Iowa +12 vs. Indiana

 

8. 10-point Teaser

Tulsa +18 vs. Arkansas

Colorado St. +18 vs. Wyoming

Missouri +27 ½ vs. Florida

 

9. 10-point Teaser

Michigan St. +12 vs. Nebraska

Notre Dame -6 ½ vs. Pittsburgh

Central Florida -2 vs. SMU

 

10. 10-point Teaser

Miami-OH +13 ½ vs. Buffalo

Utah -2 vs. Washington State

Oklahoma -1 vs. Iowa State

 

11. 10-point Teaser

New Mexico +14 vs. UNLV

Navy -6 vs. Florida Atlantic

Louisiana-Monroe – ½ vs. Louisiana-Lafayette

 

N F L

1. 13-point Teaser

San Diego +5 ½ vs. Kansas City

Denver +9 ½ vs. Cincinnati

Green Bay +2 vs. Arizona

Miami +10 ½ vs. Indianapolis

 

2. 13-point Teaser

Indianapolis +15 ½ vs. Miami

Baltimore +9 ½ vs. Cleveland

Houston +2 ½ vs. Buffalo

Washington +10 vs. Carolina

 

3. 13-point Teaser

Jacksonville +16 ½ vs. Detroit

Chicago +10 vs. Tennessee

Seattle +18 vs. Minnesota

Oakland +11 ½ vs. Tampa Bay

 

4. 13-point Teaser

Detroit +9 ½ vs. Jacksonville

Pittsburgh +16 ½ vs. NY Giants

Atlanta +9 vs. Dallas

New Orleans +10 vs. Philadelphia

 

5. Money Line Parlay (at -100)

Atlanta over Dallas

San Diegoover Kansas City

October 31, 2012

PiRate Ratings For College Football: November 1-3, 2012

The PiRate Ratings

# Team PiRate
1 Alabama 135.2
2 Kansas St. 130.8
3 Oregon   130.2
4 Oklahoma 129.0
5 Notre Dame 127.0
6 L S U   125.1
7 Florida St. 124.4
8 Oklahoma St. 122.8
9 South Carolina 122.6
10 Florida 122.2
11 Texas A&M 121.8
12 U S C 120.7
13 Georgia 120.0
14 Clemson   118.8
15 Michigan 116.4
16 Stanford 115.8
17 Nebraska 115.5
18 Texas 115.5
19 Texas Tech 115.3
20 B Y U 113.8
21 Arizona 113.3
22 Ohio St. 112.9
23 Wisconsin   112.3
24 T C U 112.2
25 Oregon St. 112.2
26 West Virginia 110.9
27 Iowa St. 110.8
28 U C L A 110.8
29 Michigan St. 110.6
30 Mississippi St. 110.5
31 Tennessee 110.0
32 North Carolina 109.9
33 Baylor 109.1
34 Arizona St. 108.6
35 Utah 108.6
36 Boise St. 108.2
37 Missouri 108.1
38 Ole Miss 107.5
39 Louisiana Tech   107.1
40 Vanderbilt 106.9
41 Rutgers 106.1
42 California 106.0
43 Penn St. 105.9
44 Washington 105.4
45 Central Florida 105.0
46 Louisville 104.3
47 Virginia Tech 104.2
48 Utah St. 103.7
49 North Carolina St. 103.5
50 Northwestern 103.3
51 Arkansas 102.8
52 Tulsa 102.6
53 Syracuse 102.2
54 Fresno St. 102.2
55 Georgia Tech 102.0
56 Cincinnati 101.9
57 Northern Illinois   101.9
58 Pittsburgh 101.3
59 Purdue 101.1
60 South Florida 100.8
61 Toledo 100.6
62 Miami-FL 100.0
63 Auburn 100.0
64 Duke 99.9
65 Louisiana-Monroe 99.1
66 Kent St. 99.0
67 Iowa 98.3
68 Maryland 97.6
69 Western Kentucky 97.6
70 Kansas 97.4
71 Minnesota 97.3
72 San Diego St. 97.3
73 S M U 97.2
74 San Jose St. 97.2
75 Washington St. 96.5
76 Indiana 96.1
77 Nevada 96.1
78 Ball St. 96.0
79 BostonCollege 95.5
80 Houston 94.9
81 Bowling Green 94.5
82 Wake Forest 94.4
83 Navy 93.9
84 Connecticut 93.5
85 Virginia 93.0
86 Western Michigan 92.9
87 Arkansas St. 92.7
88 East Carolina 92.4
89 Illinois 91.6
90 Ohio U 91.6
91 Air Force 91.6
92 Kentucky 91.1
93 Marshall 90.8
94 UL-Lafayette 89.6
95 Rice 89.5
96 North Texas 88.8
97 Temple 88.5
98 U T E P 88.2
99 Troy 87.5
100 Wyoming 86.7
101 New Mexico 86.5
102 Southern Mississippi   85.9
103 Miami (O) 85.7
104 Army 84.6
105 Central Michigan 84.5
106 Middle Tennessee 84.3
107 Buffalo 83.7
108 Florida International 83.3
109 U A B 82.7
110 Eastern Michigan 82.0
111 UNLV 81.8
112 Colorado St. 81.4
113 Colorado 80.7
114 Texas St. 78.6
115 Florida Atlantic 77.4
116 Hawaii 77.2
117 Tulane 76.1
118 Idaho 76.0
119 U T S A 75.2
120 New Mexico St. 74.9
121 South Alabama 74.8
122 Memphis 74.1
123 Akron 73.8
124 Massachusetts 67.8

 

The PiRate Vintage Ratings

# Team Vintage
1 Alabama 129.5
2 Kansas St. 126.5
3 Oregon 125.5
4 Notre Dame 124.0
5 Georgia  124.0
6 Florida  123.0
7 L S U 122.5
8 Florida St. 122.0
9 Ohio St. 121.5
10 Texas A&M 120.5
11 S. Carolina 119.0
12 Clemson 118.0
13 Oklahoma 118.0
14 Boise St. 117.5
15 Stanford 116.5
16 B Y U 116.0
17 Oklahoma St. 115.5
18 U S C 115.0
19 Nebraska 115.0
20 Miss. State 113.0
21 Michigan 113.0
22 U C L A 111.5
23 N. Carolina 111.5
24 Ole Miss 111.0
25 Penn St. 110.5
26 Texas Tech 110.5
27 Michigan St. 110.0
28 Louisville 109.5
29 Wisconsin 109.5
30 Arizona 109.5
31 Northwestern 109.0
32 West Virginia 109.0
33 N.C. St. 109.0
34 Washington 108.5
35 Miami 108.5
36 Tennessee 108.0
37 Oregon St. 107.5
38 Vanderbilt 107.0
39 Va. Tech 106.5
40 Texas 106.5
41 Rutgers 106.0
42 S.D. St. 106.0
43 Arizona St. 106.0
44 Kent St. 105.0
45 Fresno St. 105.0
46 Cincinnati 104.5
47 Iowa St. 104.0
48 Arkansas 104.0
49 La. Tech 103.5
50 Missouri 103.5
51 T C U 103.5
52 Utah St. 103.0
53 Utah 103.0
54 N I U 102.5
55 Air Force 102.5
56 Tulsa 102.0
57 U C F 102.0
58 Baylor 101.5
59 Syracuse 101.5
60 Iowa 100.5
61 Duke 100.5
62 Maryland 100.0
63 Toledo 99.5
64 Nevada 99.5
65 Pittsburgh 99.0
66 Minnesota 99.0
67 U L M 98.0
68 B G U 98.0
69 Indiana 98.0
70 S.J. St. 98.0
71 S M U 98.0
72 Georgia Tech 98.0
73 Ohio U 97.5
74 California 97.0
75 New Mexico 97.0
76 Boston Coll. 96.5
77 Navy 96.0
78 Auburn 96.0
79 Miami (O) 96.0
80 Wake Forest 95.5
81 Western Ky. 95.0
82 Ball St. 95.0
83 Houston 95.0
84 Temple 94.5
85 Virginia 94.0
86 Ark. St. 93.5
87 Kentucky 93.5
88 Kansas 93.0
89 Purdue 92.5
90 Washington St. 92.0
91 Connecticut 91.0
92 E C U 91.0
93 Illinois 90.5
94 W M U 90.0
95 C M U 89.5
96 S. Florida 89.5
97 Colorado 89.5
98 Texas St. 89.0
99 Colo. St. 88.5
100 U L L 88.0
101 Marshall 87.0
102 Rice 87.0
103 MTSU 87.0
104 UTSA 86.0
105 UNLV 85.0
106 Tulane 84.5
107 Army 84.5
108 Buffalo 84.5
109 U T E P 84.0
110 Troy 83.0
111 N. Texas 82.5
112 U A B 82.0
113 Akron 82.0
114 E M U 82.0
115 Wyoming 81.5
116 Sou. Miss. 81.5
117 F I U 81.0
118 F A U 79.5
119 Hawaii 79.5
120 Memphis 79.0
121 S. Alabama 79.0
122 Idaho 77.5
123 U. Mass. 75.5
124 N. Mex. St. 75.0

 

Ratings By Conference

Atlantic Coast Conference
Atlantic Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Florida St. 5-1 8-1 124.4 122.0
Clemson   4-1 7-1 118.8 118.0
North Carolina St. 2-2 5-3 103.5 109.0
Maryland 2-2 4-4 97.6 100.0
Boston College 1-4 2-6 95.5 96.5
Wake Forest 2-4 4-4 94.4 95.5
         
Coastal Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
North Carolina 3-2 6-3 109.9 111.5
Virginia Tech 2-2 4-4 104.2 106.5
Georgia Tech 2-3 3-5 102.0 98.0
Miami-FL 3-2 5-3 100.0 108.5
Duke 3-2 6-3 99.9 100.5
Virginia 0-4 2-6 93.0 94.0
         
         
Conference Means 104.30   103.60 105.0

 

 

Big East Conference
         
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Rutgers 4-0 7-1 106.1 106.0
Louisville 3-0 8-0 104.3 109.5
Syracuse 3-1 4-4 102.2 101.5
Cincinnati 1-1 5-2 101.9 104.5
Pittsburgh 1-3 4-4 101.3 99.0
South Florida 0-4 2-6 100.8 89.5
Connecticut 0-3 3-5 93.5 91.0
Temple 2-2 3-4 88.5 94.5
         
         
Conference Means 99.6313   99.83 99.4

 

 

Big Ten
         
Leaders Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Ohio St. 5-0 9-0 112.9 121.5
Wisconsin   3-2 6-3 112.3 109.5
Penn St. 3-1 5-3 105.9 110.5
Purdue 0-4 3-5 101.1 92.5
Indiana 1-3 3-5 96.1 98.0
Illinois 0-4 2-6 91.6 90.5
         
Legends Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Michigan 3-1 5-3 116.4 113.0
Nebraska 3-1 6-2 115.5 115.0
Michigan St. 2-3 5-4 110.6 110.0
Northwestern 3-2 7-2 103.3 109.0
Iowa 2-2 4-4 98.3 100.5
Minnesota 1-3 5-3 97.3 99.0
         
Conference Means 105.429   105.11 105.8

 

 

Big 12
         
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Kansas St. 5-0 8-0 130.8 126.5
Oklahoma 3-1 5-2 129.0 118.0
Oklahoma St. 3-1 5-2 122.8 115.5
Texas 3-2 6-2 115.5 106.5
Texas Tech 3-2 6-2 115.3 110.5
T C U 2-3 5-3 112.2 103.5
West Virginia 2-2 5-2 110.9 109.0
Iowa St. 2-3 5-3 110.8 104.0
Baylor 0-4 3-4 109.1 101.5
Kansas 0-5 1-7 97.4 93.0
         
         
Conference Means 112.09   115.38 108.8

 

 

Conference USA
East Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Central Florida 4-0 6-2 105.0 102.0
East Carolina 4-1 5-4 92.4 91.0
Marshall 2-2 3-5 90.8 87.0
Southern Mississippi   0-4 0-8 85.9 81.5
U A B 0-4 1-7 82.7 82.0
Memphis 1-3 1-7 74.1 79.0
         
West Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Tulsa 5-0 7-1 102.6 102.0
S M U 3-1 4-4 97.2 98.0
Houston 3-1 4-4 94.9 95.0
Rice 1-4 3-6 89.5 87.0
U T E P 1-4 2-7 88.2 84.0
Tulane 2-2 2-6 76.1 84.5
         
         
Conference Means 89.6833   89.95 89.4

 

 

Independents
         
Team   Overall Rating Vintage
Notre Dame   8-0 127.0 124.0
B Y U   5-4 113.8 116.0
Navy   5-3 93.9 96.0
Army   1-7 84.6 84.5
         
         
Conference Means 104.975   104.83 105.1

 

 

Mid American Conference
East Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Kent St. 4-0 7-1 99.0 105.0
Bowling Green 4-1 6-3 94.5 98.0
Ohio U 3-1 7-1 91.6 97.5
Miami (O) 3-1 4-4 85.7 96.0
Buffalo 0-4 1-7 83.7 84.5
Akron 0-5 1-8 73.8 82.0
Massachusetts 0-4 0-8 67.8 75.5
         
West Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Northern Illinois   5-0 8-1 101.9 102.5
Toledo 5-0 8-1 100.6 99.5
Ball St. 3-2 6-3 96.0 95.0
Western Michigan 1-4 3-6 92.9 90.0
Central Michigan 1-3 3-5 84.5 89.5
Eastern Michigan 0-4 1-7 82.0 82.0
         
         
Conference Means 90.4231   88.77 92.1

 

 

Mountain West Conference
         
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Boise St. 4-0 7-1 108.2 117.5
Fresno St. 4-1 6-3 102.2 105.0
San Diego St. 4-1 6-3 97.3 106.0
Nevada 3-2 6-3 96.1 99.5
Air Force 4-1 5-3 91.6 102.5
Wyoming 0-4 1-7 86.7 81.5
New Mexico 1-3 4-5 86.5 97.0
UNLV 1-3 1-8 81.8 85.0
Colorado St. 1-3 2-6 81.4 88.5
Hawaii 0-4 1-6 77.2 79.5
         
         
Conference Means 93.55   90.90 96.2

 

 

Pac-12 Conference
North Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Oregon   5-0 8-0 130.2 125.5
Stanford 4-1 6-2 115.8 116.5
Oregon St. 4-1 6-1 112.2 107.5
California 2-4 3-6 106.0 97.0
Washington 2-3 4-4 105.4 108.5
Washington St. 0-5 2-6 96.5 92.0
         
South Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
U S C 4-2 6-2 120.7 115.0
Arizona 2-3 5-3 113.3 109.5
U C L A 3-2 6-2 110.8 111.5
Arizona St. 3-2 5-3 108.6 106.0
Utah 1-4 3-5 108.6 103.0
Colorado 1-4 1-7 80.7 89.5
         
         
Conference Means 107.929   109.07 106.8

 

 

Southeastern Conference
East Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
South Carolina 5-2 7-2 122.6 119.0
Florida 6-1 7-1 122.2 123.0
Georgia 5-1 7-1 120.0 124.0
Tennessee 0-5 3-5 110.0 108.0
Missouri 1-4 4-4 108.1 103.5
Vanderbilt 2-3 4-4 106.9 107.0
Kentucky 0-6 1-8 91.1 93.5
         
West Division        
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Alabama 5-0 8-0 135.2 129.5
L S U   3-1 7-1 125.1 122.5
Texas A&M 3-2 6-2 121.8 120.5
Mississippi St. 3-1 7-1 110.5 113.0
Ole Miss 2-2 5-3 107.5 111.0
Arkansas 2-3 3-5 102.8 104.0
Auburn 0-6 1-7 100.0 96.0
         
         
Conference Means 112.796   113.13 112.5

 

 

Sunbelt Conference
         
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Louisiana-Monroe 4-0 6-2 99.1 98.0
Western Kentucky 3-1 6-2 97.6 95.0
Arkansas St. 3-1 5-3 92.7 93.5
UL-Lafayette 2-2 4-3 89.6 88.0
North Texas 2-2 3-5 88.8 82.5
Troy 3-3 4-4 87.5 83.0
Middle Tennessee 3-1 5-3 84.3 87.0
Florida International 0-5 1-8 83.3 81.0
FloridaAtlantic 1-4 2-6 77.4 79.5
South Alabama 1-3 2-6 74.8 79.0
         
         
Conference Means 87.08   87.51 86.7

 

 

Western Athletic Conference
         
Team Conf. Overall Rating Vintage
Louisiana Tech   2-0 7-1 107.1 103.5
Utah St. 3-0 7-2 103.7 103.0
San Jose St. 2-1 6-2 97.2 98.0
Texas St. 1-1 3-4 78.6 89.0
Idaho 1-2 1-7 76.0 77.5
U T S A 1-2 5-3 75.2 86.0
New Mexico St. 0-4 1-7 74.9 75.0
         
         
Conference Means 88.9071   87.53 90.3

 

 

This Week’s PiRate Ratings Spreads

Favorite Underdog PiRate Vintage Line
Thursday, November 1      
OHIO U Eastern Michigan 12.1 18.0 17   
Virginia Tech MIAMI (FLA) 1.2 -5.0 1 1/2
WESTERN KENTUCKY Middle Tennessee 15.8 10.5 9   
         
Friday, November 2      
CALIFORNIA Washington 3.6 -8.5 4   
         
Saturday, November 3      
Penn St. PURDUE 1.8 15.0 3 1/2
Air Force ARMY 4.0 15.0 7 1/2
KENT ST. Akron 27.7 25.5 19 1/2
Vanderbilt KENTUCKY 12.8 10.5 7   
NORTHERN ILLINOIS Massachusetts 37.1 30.0 35   
LOUISVILLE Temple 18.8 18.0 15 1/2
WAKE FOREST Boston College 1.9 2.0 3 1/2
EAST CAROLINA Houston 0.5 -1.0 -3 1/2
INDIANA Iowa 0.8 0.5 1 1/2
Georgia Tech MARYLAND 1.4 -5.0 7 1/2
Clemson DUKE 15.9 14.5 13 1/2
ARKANSAS Tulsa 3.2 5.0 7 1/2
AUBURN New Mexico St. 28.6 24.5 22 1/2
Stanford COLORADO 32.1 24.0 28   
UTAH ST. Texas St. 28.1 17.0 26   
Alabama L S U 6.6 3.5 9 1/2
WYOMING Colorado St. 8.3 -4.0 8   
NORTH CAROLINA ST. Virginia 13.5 18.0 9 1/2
OREGON ST. Arizona St. 6.6 4.5 4 1/2
FLORIDA Missouri 17.1 22.5 17   
Nebraska MICHIGAN ST. 1.9 2.0 2   
WEST VIRGINIA T c u 1.7 8.5 6 1/2
OHIO ST. Illinois 24.3 34.0 27 1/2
NOTRE DAME Pittsburgh 29.2 28.5 16 1/2
LOUISIANA TECH U t s a 34.9 20.5 32   
San Jose St. IDAHO 18.7 18.0 19   
CENTRAL FLORIDA S m u 10.8 7.0 12   
SOUTH FLORIDA Connecticut 10.3 13.5 8 1/2
Western Michigan CENTRAL MICHIGAN 5.9 -2.0 2 1/2
BUFFALO Miami (O) 0.5 -9.0 3 1/2
GEORGIA Ole Miss 15.5 16.0 14   
CINCINNATI Syracuse 2.7 6.0 4 1/2
UTAH Washington St. 15.1 14.0 11 1/2
SOUTHERN MISS. U a b 5.7 2.0 3   
MARSHALL Memphis 19.7 11.0 20 1/2
Michigan MINNESOTA 16.1 11.0 12 1/2
KANSAS ST. Oklahoma St. 11.0 14.0 9 1/2
TEXAS TECH Texas 2.8 7.0 7 1/2
Texas A&M MISSISSIPPI ST. 8.3 4.5 7   
BAYLOR Kansas 14.7 11.5 18 1/2
Oklahoma IOWA ST. 15.2 11.0 11 1/2
Oregon SOUTHERN CAL 6.0 7.0 8   
Rice TULANE 10.9 0.0 4 1/2
FRESNO ST. Hawaii 28.5 29.0 34 1/2
U C L A Arizona 0.5 5.0 3 1/2
New Mexico U N L V 2.2 9.5 -4   
BOISE ST. San Diego St. 13.9 14.5 13 1/2
NAVY Florida Atlantic 19.5 19.5 16   
Florida Int’l SOUTH ALABAMA 6.0 -0.5 3 1/2
TENNESSEE Troy 25.5 28.0 18 1/2
Arkansas St. NORTH TEXAS 1.4 8.5 6   
UL-MONROE UL-Lafayette 11.5 12.0 10   

 

This Weeks Bowl Speculation

Teams in (Parentheses) are at-large selections 

Bowl Conference Team Conference Team
New Mexico MWC # 4/5 New Mexico Pac12 #7 / WAC Washington
Famous Idaho Potato MAC #3 Northern Illinois WAC #1/2 Louisiana Tech
Poinsettia MWC #2 San Diego St. BYU/WAC B Y U
Beef O’Brady’s Big East #6 (Bowling Green) C-USA #2-5 (4) East Carolina
New Orleans Sunbelt #1 Western Kentucky C-USA #2-5 (5) S M U
MAACO MWC #1 Nevada Pac 12 #5 Arizona
Hawaii MWC #3/Hawaii Fresno St. C-USA #2-5 (2) Tulsa
Little Caesar’s Pizza Big 10 #8 (Middle Tennessee) MAC #1 Kent St.
Military ACC #8 (Utah St.) Army/CUSA (Central Michigan)
Belk ACC #5 Virginia Tech Big East #3 Cincinnati
Holiday Pac 12 #3 Southern Cal Big 12 #5 West Va.
Independence ACC #6/7 (7) (San Jose St.) SEC #10 (Miami-OH)
Russell Athletic Big East #2 Rutgers ACC #3 Miami-Fla
Meineke Car Care of Texas Big 12 #6 Iowa St. Big 10 #6 Minnesota
Armed Forces C-USA #3 Houston MWC #4-5 Air Force
Kraft Fight Hunger Pac 12 #6 U C L A Navy/ACC Navy
Pinstripe Big East #4 Pittsburgh Big 12 #7 (Arizona St.)
Alamo Big 12 #3 Texas Pac 12 #2 Stanford
Buffalo Wild Wings Big 12 #4 Oklahoma St. Big 10 #4 or 5 Northwestern
MusicCity SEC # 7 Ole Miss ACC #6 Duke
Sun ACC #4 North Carolina St. Pac 12 #4 Oregon St.
Liberty SEC#8-9/BigEast Tennessee C-USA #1 Central Fla.
Chick-fil-A SEC #5 Texas A&M ACC #2 Clemson
Heart of Dallas Big 10 #7 (Ohio U) Big 12 #8 (Arkansas St.)
Gator Big 10 #4 or 5 Wisconsin SEC #6 Mississippi St.
Capital One Big 10 #2 Michigan St. SEC #2 Florida
Outback SEC #3 or 4 South Carolina Big 10 #3 Michigan
Rose BCS Pac12 Oregon BCS Big 10 Nebraska
Orange BCS ACC Florida St. BCS At-Large Louisville
Sugar BCS SEC Notre Dame BCS At-Large Boise St.
Fiesta BCS Big 12 Oklahoma BCS At-Large Georgia
Cotton Big 12 #2 Texas Tech SEC #3 or 4 L S U
BBVA Compass Big East#5/CUSA (Ball St.) SEC #8 or 9 Vanderbilt
GoDaddy.com Sunbelt # 2 UL-Monroe MAC #2 Toledo
National Championship *** BCS #1 *** Alabama *** BCS #2 *** Kansas St.

 

October 25, 2012

PiRate Picks For College and Pro Football–October 25-29, 2012

Rarely do we find so many games this late in the season that we feel so passionate about, but this week, the PiRates believe many of the college lines are out of whack.  We are going with a baker’s dozen picks, with 12 being straight side selections, something we rarely ever do.

 

College

1. Clemson -11 ½ vs. Wake Forest

2. Miami (O) +7 vs. Ohio U

3. Ball St. -4 ½ vs. Army

4. Maryland +1 ½ vs. Boston College

5. North Carolina St. +7 ½ vs. North Carolina

6. Boise St. -16 ½ vs. Wyoming

7. Georgia +7 vs. Florida

8. Missouri -13 ½ vs. Kentucky

9. Arizona St. -6 ½ vs. UCLA

10. Kansas St. -7 vs. Texas Tech

11. Notre Dame +11 vs. Oklahoma

12. Michigan +2 vs. Nebraska

 

13. 10-point Teaser

Iowa +16 vs. Northwestern

Maryland +11 ½ vs. Boston College

Indiana +12 vs. Illinois

 

N F L

1. Minnesota -6 ½ vs. Tampa Bay

2. St. Louis +7 vs. New England

3. Atlanta +3 vs. Philadelphia

4. New York Jets -2 ½ vs. Miami

5. Oakland +1 vs. Kansas City

6. New York Giants -1 vs. Dallas

 

7. 13-point Teaser

Indianapolis +16 ½ vs. Tennessee

Green Bay -2 ½ vs. Jacksonville

Cleveland +15 ½ vs. San Diego

Atlanta +16 vs. Philadelphia

 

8. 13-point Teaser

Detroit +11 vs. Seattle

New York Jets +10 ½ vs. Miami

Oakland +14 vs. Kansas City

New York Giants +11 vs. Dallas

 

9. 13-point Teaser

Indianapolis & Tennessee OVER 33 ½

Green Bay & Jacksonville OVER 32 ½

Atlanta & Philadelphia OVER 32

Oakland & Kansas City OVER 28 ½

 

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.