|
|
||
|
|
|
("Contrarian Bridgejumping") We reviewed the "Contrarian Bridgejumping" handicapping method during the pre-season, so if you missed that you may want to read it first:
Using "Cumulative Spread Margin" stats involves totaling up how a team has performed in terms of net points against the lines on their games. For instance a team that won by eight while favored by three would accrue +5 points of CSM for the effort. On the other hand a team that lost by eight while favored by three would get a -11 CSM for that game. Similar to the Turnover Difference Theory (another contrarian indicator), the CSM angle suggests playing the team with the BAD Cumulative Spread Margin in match-ups with a significant difference, which is defined as 6+ CSM points per game. Example: if team A is averaging a -2 pt CSM and team B is +5 CSM per game so far, then team A would be the play based on being 7 CSM pts worse per game. Now our follow-up research on the CSM plays revealed that while they were reasonably good overall during the 1983-2000 span we looked at, they had not done as well in the past four years, and as such we do not recommend backing them without other good evidence in 2001. The research was done on later weeks, but here's how the CSM plays have done in Week Two games (and we consider this weekend's action to be "week two" since only one slate of games has been played thus far).
Spread Ranges for the 6+ Difference plays Overall then the CSM factor hasn't been hugely significant in week two games, but underdogs and games involving small lines (no team favored by more than 4 1/2 points) have been reasonably successful. Looking only at the last four years of play, the overall results are 26-21 for the 6+ difference plays, but 19-10 with the 'dogs. Let's take a look then at the 2001 season WEEK TWO matchups:
ANALYSIS: There's no shortage of extremes in this week's schedule -- topped off by the 'Skins-Packers monday night game where Green Bay comes in off a 16 point cover, while Washington is off the 24 1/2 point "failed to cover"... Every one of the picks is either an underdog or a favorite in a "small line" game, and Tennessee and Oakland both have the dual historical edge of being small underdogs. Again, we don't feel the CSM plays are in and of themselves worth backing without some other corroborating data, but they should be useful as points in the debate.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||