That's accounted for in the betting line via handicappers, like you just said. So, did you cover?Home field advantage
That's accounted for in the betting line via handicappers, like you just said. So, did you cover?Home field advantage
You want to win the game regardless of where the game is played. It's more impressive to win against a good team on the road than a good team at home, but just because you lose by 2 on the road, it doesn't mean you then won the game by 1.Most reasonable folks agree that winning on the road than at home.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that.
No idea..what was the line?That's accounted for in the betting line via handicappers. Did you cover?
You want to win the game regardless of where the game is played. It's more impressive to win against a good team on the road than a good team at home, but just because you lose by 2 on the road, it doesn't mean you then won the game by 1.
Exactly. Lol had Iowa State beat Iowa by 1 I would have not said we actually lost the game by 2. The home field advantage factor determines the betting lines, however do nothing to the final score of the game.I don't care if we win by 1 or 20. As Al Davis used to say, "Just Win Baby!".
So Vegas had the hawks as the better team by 4.5 on a neutral field?The line was UI -1.5.
I took the line when it was set at UI -3. Took Iowa State to cover and we did. Made the loss sting a bit less.The line was UI -1.5.
Exactly. Lol had Iowa State beat Iowa by 1 I would have not said we actually lost the game by 2. The home field advantage factor determines the betting lines, however do nothing to the final score of the game.
Oh it 100% has an effect on the game. If the game was in Kinnick it's an entirely different game. Maybe we lose by 10? Maybe for some reason Iowa lays an egg and we win.. You never know. You just have to show up, play, and come out on top.Home field obviously affects a game or should affect a game if you have a good home field. But I also agree that I wouldn't say Iowa won by four either.
What is the point of this thread? Curious what the objective of the OP was when posting.
Potentially, yes. They would not have met that, either (assuming the same game, I guess, which obviously the weather delays and such were a huge outlier).So Vegas had the hawks as the better team by 4.5 on a neutral field?
Oh...hawks didn’t cover
So asking what the purpose of the thread is "creative" on my part and indicative that we ought not discuss. That is "creative". I was simply asking what your objective was because it very quickly went away from what you wanted to "discuss" and became an odd thread about odds and other weird things not remotely related.There were two players that PFF thought were top 50 players nationally going into this season: Epenesa and Purdy. One of them is thriving while the other looks to have regressed into a mediocre every down player. It's the ISR forum, not sure why we can't discuss it
He’s been fine.
Epenesa hasn't performed up to expectations.
So asking what the purpose of the thread is "creative" on my part and indicative that we ought not discuss. That is "creative". I was simply asking what your objective was because it very quickly went away from what you wanted to "discuss" and became an odd thread about odds and other weird things not remotely related.
There are only two elite college football players? Who are they?When there are two elite college football players in the state and one has significantly regressed I think it's OK to start a thread about it. I wouldn't blame Iowa fans if they started a thread about how great Purdy has been this year
When there are two elite college football players in the state and one has significantly regressed I think it's OK to start a thread about it. I wouldn't blame Iowa fans if they started a thread about how great Purdy has been this year
How about when a team regresses like ISU has so far this year?