Good question, Ripper. Before the total came out, I was thinking OVER because many superbowls go over the total. I was guessing it would be around 42. Then it opened at 46 and jumped to 48.
If we look at point totals for this season, Philly's games hit a total of 48 points or more in 5 of 18 games. NE hit 48 points in 9 of 18 games. Philly is 5/12/1 O/U, NE is 9/8/1 O/U.
It's tough not to over-react based on the NE/Pitt game. NE scored 41 on the best defense (statistically) in the NFL. Granted, 17 of those points came from turnovers, but still 41 points in a game where the posted total was 35! Equally disturbing is that Pitt scored 27 points on NE despite turning the ball over 3 times and not making it on their 4th down attempt. You can see why the SB total is so high based on the AFC championsip game....maybe too high.
Will Philly's d-backs be able to prevent those long bombs from Brady? Will NE go with more of a grinding run game as they were predicted to do against Pitt? Will Philly's pass-happy offense be able to exploit the NE d-backs with any success? Will McNabb be able to scramble his way out of trouble like he did against the Falcons' D?
If this game were being playing during the regular season, I would take the UNDER 48, but not for a huge amount (maybe 1 unit). Let's hope the betting public keeps driving it up. GL
If we look at point totals for this season, Philly's games hit a total of 48 points or more in 5 of 18 games. NE hit 48 points in 9 of 18 games. Philly is 5/12/1 O/U, NE is 9/8/1 O/U.
It's tough not to over-react based on the NE/Pitt game. NE scored 41 on the best defense (statistically) in the NFL. Granted, 17 of those points came from turnovers, but still 41 points in a game where the posted total was 35! Equally disturbing is that Pitt scored 27 points on NE despite turning the ball over 3 times and not making it on their 4th down attempt. You can see why the SB total is so high based on the AFC championsip game....maybe too high.
Will Philly's d-backs be able to prevent those long bombs from Brady? Will NE go with more of a grinding run game as they were predicted to do against Pitt? Will Philly's pass-happy offense be able to exploit the NE d-backs with any success? Will McNabb be able to scramble his way out of trouble like he did against the Falcons' D?
If this game were being playing during the regular season, I would take the UNDER 48, but not for a huge amount (maybe 1 unit). Let's hope the betting public keeps driving it up. GL
Good questions El Iguana,
I’m in no way ready to pull the trigger on this one yet. I do agree with you however, if this were a regular season game, playing Under the total would make sense.
My gut feeling says, if New England gets more than two or three scores ahead, the Eagles will try to force the ball downfield. This in turn will produce more turnovers, giving good field position and more scoring opportunities. If the Pats get a big enough lead (which I think they will), they will more than likely go to a prevent type Defense, much like they did with the Steelers, allowing the Eagles to drive downfield in time consuming short yardage plays. Giving up the late score didn't seem to concern the Patriots once the game was in hand (at least it didn’t during the last game).
Not quite sure yet on this play.. For now, it’s just a thought.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o
></o>
I’d like to get some more dialog on this subject.
<o></o>
<o></o>
Thanks for the response,
<o></o>
RIPPER
I’m in no way ready to pull the trigger on this one yet. I do agree with you however, if this were a regular season game, playing Under the total would make sense.
My gut feeling says, if New England gets more than two or three scores ahead, the Eagles will try to force the ball downfield. This in turn will produce more turnovers, giving good field position and more scoring opportunities. If the Pats get a big enough lead (which I think they will), they will more than likely go to a prevent type Defense, much like they did with the Steelers, allowing the Eagles to drive downfield in time consuming short yardage plays. Giving up the late score didn't seem to concern the Patriots once the game was in hand (at least it didn’t during the last game).
Not quite sure yet on this play.. For now, it’s just a thought.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o>I’d like to get some more dialog on this subject.
<o
></o><o
></o>Thanks for the response,
<o
></o>RIPPER
Historic FYI
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXXVIII</TD><TD>Feb. 1, 2004</TD><TD>New England 32, Carolina 29</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXXVII</TD><TD>Jan. 26, 2003</TD><TD>Tampa Bay 48, Oakland 21</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXXVI</TD><TD>Feb. 3, 2002</TD><TD>New England 20, St. Louis 17</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXXV</TD><TD>Jan. 28, 2001</TD><TD>Baltimore 34, N.Y. Giants 7</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXXIV</TD><TD>Jan. 30, 2000</TD><TD>St. Louis 23, Tennessee 16</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXXIII</TD><TD>Jan. 31, 1999</TD><TD>Denver 34, Atlanta 19</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXXII</TD><TD>Jan. 25, 1998</TD><TD>Denver 31, Green Bay 24</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXXI</TD><TD>Jan. 26, 1997</TD><TD>Green Bay 35, New England 21</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXX</TD><TD>Jan. 28, 1996</TD><TD>Dallas 27, Pittsburgh 17</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXIX</TD><TD>Jan. 29, 1995</TD><TD>San Francisco 49, San Diego 26</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXVIII</TD><TD>Jan. 30, 1994</TD><TD>Dallas 30, Buffalo 13</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXVII</TD><TD>Jan. 31, 1993</TD><TD>Dallas 52, Buffalo 17</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXVI</TD><TD>Jan. 26, 1992</TD><TD>Washington 37, Buffalo 24</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXV</TD><TD>Jan. 27, 1991</TD><TD>N.Y. Giants 20, Buffalo 19</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXIV</TD><TD>Jan. 28, 1990</TD><TD>San Francisco 55, Denver 10</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXIII</TD><TD>Jan. 22, 1989</TD><TD>San Francisco 20, Cincinnati 16</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXII</TD><TD>Jan. 31, 1988</TD><TD>Washington 42, Denver 10</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXI</TD><TD>Jan. 25, 1987</TD><TD>N.Y. Giants 39, Denver 20</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XX</TD><TD>Jan. 26, 1986</TD><TD>Chicago 46, New England 10</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XIX</TD><TD>Jan. 20, 1985</TD><TD>San Francisco 38, Miami 16</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XVIII</TD><TD>Jan. 22, 1984</TD><TD>L.A. Raiders 38, Washington 9</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XVII</TD><TD>Jan. 30, 1983</TD><TD>Washington 27, Miami 17</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XVI</TD><TD>Jan. 24, 1982</TD><TD>San Francisco 26, Cincinnati 21</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XV</TD><TD>Jan. 25, 1981</TD><TD>Oakland 27, Philadelphia 10</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XIV</TD><TD>Jan. 20, 1980</TD><TD>Pittsburgh 31, L.A. Rams 19</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XIII</TD><TD>Jan. 21, 1979</TD><TD>Pittsburgh 35, Dallas 31</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XII</TD><TD>Jan. 15, 1978</TD><TD>Dallas 27, Denver 10</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XI</TD><TD>Jan. 9, 1977</TD><TD>Oakland 32, Minnesota 14</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>X</TD><TD>Jan. 18, 1976</TD><TD>Pittsburgh 21, Dallas 17</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>IX</TD><TD>Jan. 12, 1975</TD><TD>Pittsburgh 16, Minnesota 6</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>VIII</TD><TD>Jan. 13, 1974</TD><TD>Miami 24, Minnesota 7</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>VII</TD><TD>Jan. 14, 1973</TD><TD>Miami 14, Washington 7</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>VI</TD><TD>Jan. 16, 1972</TD><TD>Dallas 24, Miami 3</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>V</TD><TD>Jan. 17, 1971</TD><TD>Baltimore 16, Dallas 13</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>IV</TD><TD>Jan. 11, 1970</TD><TD>Kansas City 23, Minnesota 7</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>III</TD><TD>Jan. 12, 1969</TD><TD>N.Y. Jets 16, Baltimore 7</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>II</TD><TD>Jan. 14, 1968</TD><TD>Green Bay 33, Oakland 14</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>I</TD><TD>Jan. 15, 1967</TD><TD>Green Bay 35, Kansas City 10</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Personally, I see the Under as the proper play. Hopefully, between John Q. and the media hype, it can rise to 49 or 49.5 by gametime.
Bookem
<TABLE cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXXVIII</TD><TD>Feb. 1, 2004</TD><TD>New England 32, Carolina 29</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXXVII</TD><TD>Jan. 26, 2003</TD><TD>Tampa Bay 48, Oakland 21</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXXVI</TD><TD>Feb. 3, 2002</TD><TD>New England 20, St. Louis 17</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXXV</TD><TD>Jan. 28, 2001</TD><TD>Baltimore 34, N.Y. Giants 7</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXXIV</TD><TD>Jan. 30, 2000</TD><TD>St. Louis 23, Tennessee 16</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXXIII</TD><TD>Jan. 31, 1999</TD><TD>Denver 34, Atlanta 19</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXXII</TD><TD>Jan. 25, 1998</TD><TD>Denver 31, Green Bay 24</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXXI</TD><TD>Jan. 26, 1997</TD><TD>Green Bay 35, New England 21</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXX</TD><TD>Jan. 28, 1996</TD><TD>Dallas 27, Pittsburgh 17</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXIX</TD><TD>Jan. 29, 1995</TD><TD>San Francisco 49, San Diego 26</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXVIII</TD><TD>Jan. 30, 1994</TD><TD>Dallas 30, Buffalo 13</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXVII</TD><TD>Jan. 31, 1993</TD><TD>Dallas 52, Buffalo 17</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXVI</TD><TD>Jan. 26, 1992</TD><TD>Washington 37, Buffalo 24</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXV</TD><TD>Jan. 27, 1991</TD><TD>N.Y. Giants 20, Buffalo 19</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXIV</TD><TD>Jan. 28, 1990</TD><TD>San Francisco 55, Denver 10</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXIII</TD><TD>Jan. 22, 1989</TD><TD>San Francisco 20, Cincinnati 16</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XXII</TD><TD>Jan. 31, 1988</TD><TD>Washington 42, Denver 10</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XXI</TD><TD>Jan. 25, 1987</TD><TD>N.Y. Giants 39, Denver 20</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XX</TD><TD>Jan. 26, 1986</TD><TD>Chicago 46, New England 10</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XIX</TD><TD>Jan. 20, 1985</TD><TD>San Francisco 38, Miami 16</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XVIII</TD><TD>Jan. 22, 1984</TD><TD>L.A. Raiders 38, Washington 9</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XVII</TD><TD>Jan. 30, 1983</TD><TD>Washington 27, Miami 17</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XVI</TD><TD>Jan. 24, 1982</TD><TD>San Francisco 26, Cincinnati 21</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XV</TD><TD>Jan. 25, 1981</TD><TD>Oakland 27, Philadelphia 10</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XIV</TD><TD>Jan. 20, 1980</TD><TD>Pittsburgh 31, L.A. Rams 19</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XIII</TD><TD>Jan. 21, 1979</TD><TD>Pittsburgh 35, Dallas 31</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>XII</TD><TD>Jan. 15, 1978</TD><TD>Dallas 27, Denver 10</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>XI</TD><TD>Jan. 9, 1977</TD><TD>Oakland 32, Minnesota 14</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>X</TD><TD>Jan. 18, 1976</TD><TD>Pittsburgh 21, Dallas 17</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>IX</TD><TD>Jan. 12, 1975</TD><TD>Pittsburgh 16, Minnesota 6</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>VIII</TD><TD>Jan. 13, 1974</TD><TD>Miami 24, Minnesota 7</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>VII</TD><TD>Jan. 14, 1973</TD><TD>Miami 14, Washington 7</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>VI</TD><TD>Jan. 16, 1972</TD><TD>Dallas 24, Miami 3</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>V</TD><TD>Jan. 17, 1971</TD><TD>Baltimore 16, Dallas 13</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>IV</TD><TD>Jan. 11, 1970</TD><TD>Kansas City 23, Minnesota 7</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>III</TD><TD>Jan. 12, 1969</TD><TD>N.Y. Jets 16, Baltimore 7</TD></TR><TR class=bg3><TD align=middle>II</TD><TD>Jan. 14, 1968</TD><TD>Green Bay 33, Oakland 14</TD></TR><TR class=bg2><TD align=middle>I</TD><TD>Jan. 15, 1967</TD><TD>Green Bay 35, Kansas City 10</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Personally, I see the Under as the proper play. Hopefully, between John Q. and the media hype, it can rise to 49 or 49.5 by gametime.
Bookem
Around 18 of the last 23 superbowls have gone over the total....one has to go back before the early 80's to find a time in superbowl history when the game had about even odds as to over or under.....
I don't know how much the west coast offense has played into that equation....
Certainly the rules have changed, with the new emphasis on calling ticky tacky fouls for holding and pass interference either the corners will get thier hands away or take a big lump of coal in the form of a penalty....
Anymore I either bet the superbowl as an over or pass on it.....same way for the pro bowl....another showcase game....how many years would a bettor have went 2-0 or at least 1-1 by betting both the superbowl and pro bowl to go over?
Pittsburgh had the #1 defense and got burned for 41....McNabb has more experience than Big Ben and is more mobile of a qb.....I certainly expect more out of McNabb than a rookie who guided the team to 27 points....as ripper stated too, if Pats get up 3 scores at the half like they did in Pittsburgh, there should be a nice middle open up taking Philly for the second half, knowing full well the Pats will play prevent defense and give up a garbage score...
You guys that are thinking about betting the under are playing with fire.
I don't know how much the west coast offense has played into that equation....
Certainly the rules have changed, with the new emphasis on calling ticky tacky fouls for holding and pass interference either the corners will get thier hands away or take a big lump of coal in the form of a penalty....
Anymore I either bet the superbowl as an over or pass on it.....same way for the pro bowl....another showcase game....how many years would a bettor have went 2-0 or at least 1-1 by betting both the superbowl and pro bowl to go over?
Pittsburgh had the #1 defense and got burned for 41....McNabb has more experience than Big Ben and is more mobile of a qb.....I certainly expect more out of McNabb than a rookie who guided the team to 27 points....as ripper stated too, if Pats get up 3 scores at the half like they did in Pittsburgh, there should be a nice middle open up taking Philly for the second half, knowing full well the Pats will play prevent defense and give up a garbage score...
You guys that are thinking about betting the under are playing with fire.
This game is going under.
You have 2 conservative coaches who will keep it close to the vest early. They will also try to control the ball and field position as 7-8 minute drives will be the norm.
I will try to post in full later this week. I have some interesting info.
P.S.-IMO, following past history on SB totals could be costly.
You have 2 conservative coaches who will keep it close to the vest early. They will also try to control the ball and field position as 7-8 minute drives will be the norm.
I will try to post in full later this week. I have some interesting info.
P.S.-IMO, following past history on SB totals could be costly.
"following past history on SB totals could be costly."
If you follow ancient SB history.
They don't play many unders anymore, if you've bet unders the last 23 games, you're raking in a measly 25% winners. That is costly.
This game may stay under, but I see too many big plays happening with McNabb scrambling around and on the other side with Brady in the passing game....These defenses aren't the caliber to shut the other offense down.....
The books inflate the number but they don't inflate the number to produce any real "value" because the unders hardly ever win in the Superbowl. "Value" is nothing unless it wins and brings the bettor back the money. That's like people who lost, but say they were on the "correct" side. Well, obviously they were'nt on the "correct" side, because the other side got the money. All the books want is a number that balances the money...The numbers the books have put out since Reagan was president may have balanced the money but they weren't a true handicap to the actual results of the game....If you compare what the NBA does with the allstar game, setting the number at around 250......this in my opinion is in truer form to the actual results of the game.....Until the books put a high enough number out and the games start staying under, I'll continue to collect money betting the overs.....
If you follow ancient SB history.
They don't play many unders anymore, if you've bet unders the last 23 games, you're raking in a measly 25% winners. That is costly.
This game may stay under, but I see too many big plays happening with McNabb scrambling around and on the other side with Brady in the passing game....These defenses aren't the caliber to shut the other offense down.....
The books inflate the number but they don't inflate the number to produce any real "value" because the unders hardly ever win in the Superbowl. "Value" is nothing unless it wins and brings the bettor back the money. That's like people who lost, but say they were on the "correct" side. Well, obviously they were'nt on the "correct" side, because the other side got the money. All the books want is a number that balances the money...The numbers the books have put out since Reagan was president may have balanced the money but they weren't a true handicap to the actual results of the game....If you compare what the NBA does with the allstar game, setting the number at around 250......this in my opinion is in truer form to the actual results of the game.....Until the books put a high enough number out and the games start staying under, I'll continue to collect money betting the overs.....
Marco...
You are correct in that the OVER has cashed the ticket 14 times in the past 20 years, however, I believe this to be an aberation due to the fact that overall there have been 20 OVER's to 17 UNDER's with one tie in Super Bowl history, the oddsmakers have indeed recognized this trend and thus have probably over compensated with the rather high O/U line on this years Super Bowl.
When taking a look at how the total has landed in different ranges we see that there have been 5 OVER's and 4 UNDER's in SB history when the posted O/U line is between 42 and 48, however, when the posted O/U number is 49+ we see there have been 6 OVER's and 3 UNDER's.
Looking a little deeper, we know that this years SB will be played in Jacksonville which has a grass field, in SB history games played on grass fields have yielded 15 OVER's and 7 UNDER's.
Just some interesting fodder to consider, personally I think the O/U number is too high on this contest because each team is led by a veteran QB that rarely makes the costly mistake, each team's HC tends to take a conservative approach in their game planning and each team fields a good defense.
I am going to wait until closer to game time as the long range weather report is for good weather, I think the number will probably rise to 48.5 or maybe even 49...then I'll bang the UNDER hard.
take care and good luck!
Deb
