Mizzou football 2010

[Socnorb11]

what's the early line for MU-NU

Nebraska -7

I really wish college FB betting was legal, because Mizzou +7 is a slam dunk.

Are you serious? -7?

I agree with you.... that's insane. I'd jump on that with everything I've got.

Yep, -6.5 is the closest I've seen.

It will be interesting to see where the line is by week's end, because I can't imagine that the betting won't be heavily toward Missouri, moving the line significantly.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I probably should be worried more than I am about Nebraska. Defensively, Nebraska has a very good secondary, but needs to bring 5-6 guys to get consistent pressure on the QB(not like last year where a 1-10 alignment with Suh would've pressured any QB). Mizzou's O-line has been incredible this year, and Gabbert has shown these past weeks that he's very capable of punishing defenses. If Nebraska has to choose between letting Gabbert have all day to throw and only having 5-6 in coverage, they're going to give up 35 points just like Oklahoma did. Offensively, Mizzou has had good success against run-first QBs out of the spread, and their shift in how they play DBs will definitely help them against Martinez's noodle-arm. The big concern is that Martinez is going to get to the second level his share during the game, the safeties and corners need to be sure tacklers(they have been so far) because they aren't a super fast secondary and it only takes one play for Martinez to go 60+ yards and change the game. I'd say that if Mizzou is -1 or even in turnovers, then they probably will have a shot to win/defend the lead at the end of the game. If they're winning the turnover battle, they're probably protecting a 10-14 point lead at the end of the game like they were on Saturday.

[Leroy]

what's the early line for MU-NU

Nebraska -7

I really wish college FB betting was legal, because Mizzou +7 is a slam dunk.

Are you serious? -7?

I agree with you.... that's insane. I'd jump on that with everything I've got.

Yep, -6.5 is the closest I've seen.

What does that mean? That Missouri is favored by a touchdown?

[MrCrowesGarden]

what's the early line for MU-NU

Nebraska -7

I really wish college FB betting was legal, because Mizzou +7 is a slam dunk.

Are you serious? -7?

I agree with you.... that's insane. I'd jump on that with everything I've got.

Yep, -6.5 is the closest I've seen.

What does that mean? That Missouri is favored by a touchdown?

Nebraska is favored by seven points. If NU beats Missouri by exactly seven points, it's a push.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Games like this always bother me. Whenever Vegas supposedly messes up when they set the line and everyone jumps on a team (Mizzou in this case), it usually ends up that they had it right and the sure thing ends up losing. I certinly hope that isn't the case here.

The last time I saw a game swing more than a point or two was Arkansas vs Alabama where Bama was onlya 4.5 point favorite. Everyone jumped on Bama, the line jumped to Bama -7/-7.5 and Bama ended up winning by 4 points meaning everyone that originally jumped on Bama lost.

[Leroy]

I'm not really sure why Nebraska is favored at all.

[TheoSqua]

I'm not really sure why Nebraska is favored at all.

I was thinking maybe because Nebraska is hard to beat at home, but really they're not. Since 2007 these are the teams to beat Nebraska at home: Texas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, Missouri, Virginia Tech, USC, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M.

A few quality teams there (USC was ranked #1 overall at the time), but when you're getting spanked by Texas Tech and Texas A&M at home, you can't really call it a significant advantage in betting.

[Leroy]

Or when you beat South Dakota State there by 17. South Dakota [expletive] State.

[MrCrowesGarden]

It's hard to know much of anything about Nebraska during the Callahan era.

My guess is that Nebraska is still favored because people don't think of Mizzou as a better defensive team.

[Leroy]

I'm waiting for Callahan to come and coach my old high school team because that's the only team I root for that he hasn't [expletived] up yet.