A: To refresh everyone's memory, the "C/B Jumping" angle involves looking at how a team has done against the line set on its games. Many people look at a team's "net points" on the year (points for minus points against), but few people actually track how a team has done on average against the spread of its games. For instance a team that wins by ten points when they were favored by seven would have a +10 for "net points" but only a +3 for their performance against the line in that event.

The C/B Jumping angle said to play a team in a matchup whose "net against the line" was more than SIX points WORSE than its opponent. E.G. Team A is +2 against the line on average, Team B is -5, so you would play Team B since it is 7 points worse. (For the full text of the original article read the Contrarian Bridgejumping Article).

We'll take a look at this approach using a database that includes all the games played from week 5 on from 1983-2000:

ANALYSIS: The original theory only involved looking at the big difference (6+) matchups, and in those two columns above (the 6-7.9 range and 8+ range) the total adds up to a 589 - 479 record, which is 55.1% overall...not bad, but not the heights of the 1992-1996 period (there are admittedly some likely discrepancies between the lines we are using now and the lines in the database used for the prior assessment).

What is particularly interesting is that favorites have been astonishly good plays under these circumstances -- 142-94 overall (60%) and a scintillating 50-22 (69%) in cases where the favorite is favored by 5+ points. So it would seem the theory has considerable merit over the lengthy time period of 18 years.

The next concern is "what have you done for me lately?" -- and we regret to say that the results have been disappointing the last few years:

ANALYSIS: Perhaps, the theory became well enough known that the line has been adjusted for these "oddities" to nullify the previous "over-rating" of strong performance against the line. In truth we can fudge the numbers to make them look better in the 1997 to 2000 period if we limit it to weeks 5 thru 12, home favorites (27-21), or other such manipulations, but that would be simply fitting the data to the patterns we wanted to find. Contrarian players have taken a beating the last few years while stats-oriented handicappers have been raking it in. We feel there is value in tracking these "against the line net points" statistics, but would be reluctant to back them blindly.

2001 UPDATE:
The "Contrarian Bridgejumpers" had a great run, going 33-22 (60%) in the week 5 through week 12 optimal period. From week 13 on it slumped though and finished 6-14, thereby validating the original timeframe for usage. The C/B Favorites went 6-11 in a year admittedly dominated by the underdogs generally, while C/B Dogs were 27-11...

2002 UPDATE:
The "Contrarian Bridgejumpers" had another fine year, going 21-14 (60%) in the week 5 through week 12 optimal period. From week 13 on it slumped as usual and finished 7-11.