THE SPORTS ADVISORS
COLLEGE FOOTBALL
LITTLE CAESARS PIZZA BOWL
(at Detroit)
Ohio (9-4 SU and ATS) vs. Marshall (6-6, 6-5 ATS)
Ohio, back in the postseason after a two-year hiatus, makes the short trek to Ford Field to take on the Thundering Herd, who reached a bowl game for the first time since 2004.
The Bobcats went on a 7-1 SU tear (6-2 ATS) to win the Mid-American Conference’s East Division, earning a date with Central Michigan in the Dec. 4 conference title game. In that meeting, also held in Detroit, the Bobcats lost 20-10 to halt a four-game winning streak, but they covered as a hefty 13½-point underdog to finish the regular season on ATS surges of 9-2 and 4-0. Ohio, led by former Nebraska coach Frank Solich is seeking its first 10-win season since 1968
Marshall stumbled to the finish line in Conference USA, losing three of its last four games SU and ATS, including a 52-21 beatdown as a two-point road pup against Texas-El Paso on Nov. 28 to cap the regular season. The Herd failed to cover in their last three games, following a 6-1 ATS stretch (4-3 SU). Marshall defensive coordinator Rick Minter will serve as the head coach in this contest, taking over for Mark Snyder, who was pressured to resign after the season-ending loss at UTEP.
While Marshall hasn’t gone bowling since 2004, the Bobcats were last in the postseason in 2006, when they fell in the GMAC Bowl to Southern Miss (Conference USA) 28-7 as a six-point underdog.
With Marshall being a former MAC member, these teams used to meet annually. The Thundering Herd won four of the last five meetings, most recently winning 16-13 in October 2005, but Ohio went 4-1 ATS, including cashing a 10-point home ‘dog in that 2004 clash. Going back further, Marshall has won eight of the last nine SU against Ohio, but has cashed just four times in that stretch.
The Bobcats averaged 25.4 points and 324.5 yards per game, with 204.8 ypg coming through the air on the arm of QB Theo Scott, who finished with 2,258 passing yards, 19 TDs and 10 INTs. Ohio’s defense gave up just 21.3 ppg and 354.2 ypg, but 150.9 rushing ypg.
The Thundering Herd averaged 21.8 points and 355.3 ypg (216.5 passing, 138.8 rushing), but they gave up more on both counts, allowing 24.9 points and 392.5 yards per outing. QB Brian Anderson paced Marshall’s offense, throwing for 2,561 yards, but his 14 TDs were offset by 13 INTs.
Along with their current 4-0 ATS run, the Bobcats are on pointspread upswings of 8-1-1 following a spread-cover and 7-2 outside the MAC. Marshall is 3-9 ATS in its last dozen non-conference tilts and 1-4 ATS in its last five against the MAC, but the Herd sport positive ATS streaks of 6-1 in December and 5-1 in bowl games.
Ohio is on “under” runs of 5-1 as a favorite and 9-4 in non-conference contests, and the under is on a bundle of tears for Marshall, including 8-2 overall, 6-1 with the Herd as an underdog, 4-1 in bowl games, 4-1 outside Conference USA, 7-2 against winning teams, 4-1 after a SU loss and 10-4 after a non-cover.
ATS ADVANTAGE: UNDER
MEINEKE CAR CARE BOWL
(at Charlotte, N.C.)
North Carolina (8-4, 6-5 ATS) vs. (17) Pittsburgh (9-3, 7-4 ATS)
The Panthers, who narrowly missed out on winning the Big East championship and earning a BCS bowl bid, instead drop down to a second-tier contest when they head to Bank of America Stadium to face North Carolina, which ostensibly will be playing a home game.
Pittsburgh went on a six-game winning streak (4-2 ATS) to surge into BCS contention, then lost its last two games by a total of four points (1-1 ATS). In fact, the Panthers’ three defeats were by a total of 11 points. In the season finale against Cincinnati on Dec. 5, with the Big East title and BCS berth on the line, the Panthers raced out to a 31-10 second-quarter lead, but they couldn’t hold off a furious Bearcats rally, losing 45-44 on a TD pass in the waning seconds. Still, Pitt cashed as a 1½-point home pup, ending a two-game ATS hiccup.
North Carolina finished the regular season on a 4-1 SU and ATS run, including outright wins from the underdog role at Virginia Tech, against Miami at home and at Boston College. However, the Tar Heels fell to in-state rival North Carolina State in the Nov. 28 finale 28-27 as a 5½-point road chalk, but they still reached the postseason for a second straight year, after a three-year bowl hiatus.
The Panthers were dealt a 3-0 loss as a one-point pup in a yawner of a Sun Bowl last year, and they’ve failed to cash in their last four postseason games. Meanwhile, this is the Tar Heels’ second straight trip to the Meineke Car Care Bowl, having lost to West Virginia last year 31-30 as a two-point underdog. UNC is 5-2 SU and 5-1-1 ATS in its last seven postseason appearances.
These teams met twice in three seasons from 1998-2000, but they haven’t gotten together since. North Carolina took both those matchups SU and ATS, including a 20-17 road victory getting seven points in November 2000. In fact, the Tar Heels have cashed in each of five all-time lined clashes between these schools.
Freshman RB Dion Lewis racked up 1,635 rushing yards and 12 TDs, averaging 5.5 ypc for a potent Pitt rushing attack that put up 184.6 ypg among its 399.9 total ypg. Wideout Jonathan Baldwin (54 catches, 1,080 yards, 20 ypc, 8 TDs) also had a big year. The Panthers averaged 33.2 ppg, while the defense gave up 20 points and 323.9 total yards per game and also led the nation in sacks. Pitt’s defense yielded more than 22 points just three times all year..
Carolina had one of the nation’s least productive offenses, averaging just 311.3 ypg (107th out of 120 teams) while putting up 24.3 ppg, scoring more than 21 points just five times against Division I-A competition. However, the Tar Heels countered the sluggish offense by fielding the sixth-best total defense (267.8 ypg), which surrendered just 16.9 ppg.
Pitt is in ATS ruts of 3-8 as a favorite of three points or less and 2-5 against ACC opposition. But they are also on a 4-0 ATS run following a SU loss and are on additional spread-covering streaks of 4-1 in December and 7-3 as a chalk.
The Tar Heels are on pointspread surges of 5-2 overall, 4-0 against winning teams, 4-1 after a non-cover, 12-3 catching three points or less and 5-2 outside the ACC.
The under has hit in six of Pitt’s last eight outings overall (5-1 in its last six as a favorite), but the over is 4-1 in the Panthers’ last five against the ACC and 5-1 in their last six as a chalk of three points or less. North Carolina is on “over” spurts of 5-2 overall, 5-1 in non-conference play, 7-2 with the Heels a ‘dog and 8-3 against Big East foes.
ATS ADVANTAGE: NORTH CAROLINA and OVER
EMERALD BOWL
(at San Francisco)
Boston College (8-4, 6-5 ATS) vs. Southern Cal (8-4, 3-9 ATS)
The Trojans, perennial BCS contenders who completely fell apart this season, try to end things on a high note when they head up the Pacific Coast to AT&T Park to face Boston College.
Southern Cal was dealt an early-season upset loss at Washington, then dropped three of its last five games (1-4 ATS), ending a seven-year run in which it either won or shared the Pac-10 title. Two of those final three losses were stunning blowouts – a 47-20 setback at Oregon as a three-point road chalk, followed two weeks later by a 55-21 home wipeout to Stanford as an 11½-point favorite. The Trojans finished the regular season Dec. 5 with a 21-17 loss to Arizona as a seven-point home choice.
Boston College finished the year on a 4-2 SU surge to get bowl-eligible, capped by a 19-17 win at Maryland on Nov. 28, though it fell short as a 4½-point road favorite. That marked the third straight ATS setback for the Eagles, following a 5-1 ATS run. BC’s offense was less than impressive over the final three games (2-1 SU), getting held to 19 points or less in all three and totaling just 46 points (15.3 ppg).
USC crushed Penn State 38-24 in last year’s Rose Bowl, covering as a 9½-point favorite in improving to 6-1 ATS in their last seven bowl games (3-0 SU and ATS last three). The Eagles are in a bowl game for the 11th consecutive year, going 9-1 SU (6-4 ATS) in the previous 10 postseason appearances. However, B.C. has failed to cash in its last three bowl outings (2-1 SU).
USC scored 26.7 points and averaged 385.1 yards per contest with a fairly balanced attack (211.7 ypg passing, 173.4 ypg rushing). Defensively, the Trojans surrendered 20.4 points and 342.8 yards per outing (211.8 passing, 131 rushing). However, after giving up a total of just 43 points in the first five games, USC got torched for 28.9 ppg over its final seven contests, yielding 27 points or more four times.
BC ranked just 97th in the nation in total offense 324.9 ypg, and that translated into 25.8 ppg. Sophomore RB Montel Harris was the offensive star, rushing for 1,357 yards (4.8 ypc) and 13 TDs. The Eagles’ defense surrendered just 19.4 ppg and 318.4 ypg.
These teams haven’t met in 21 years, after squaring off in a home-and-home series in 1987 and 1988. USC won both contests (1-1 ATS), including a 34-7 road blowout in 1988 as a 5½-point chalk.
The Trojans are on a handful of spread-covering slides, including 1-6 overall (all as a favorite), 0-4 in December, 1-5 against winning teams and 1-4 after a non-cover. However, they are on ATS rolls of 5-1 as a bowl chalk, 15-5 laying 3½ to 10 points in any game, 24-8 outside the Pac-10 and 13-5 following a SU loss.
The Eagles sport positive ATS streaks of 16-7 as a pup, 4-0 as a bowl ‘dog, 6-1 in non-conference action and 7-3 against winning teams. But Boston College is in the midst of ATS skids of 0-5 in December and 1-5 at neutral sites.
Southern Cal is on “under” tears of 24-11-1 overall, 28-13-1 as a favorite, 6-0 after a SU loss and 4-0 in December, and the under for Boston College is on rolls of 4-1 overall, 5-0 outside the ACC and 4-1 on neutral fields. However, the total has gone high in USC’s last five bowl games overall and its last four as a postseason chalk.
ATS ADVANTAGE: SOUTHERN CAL
<!-- / message --> 
