by Hollywood Sports
Sunday, Dec 31, 2023If I had a nickel for every time I heard or read something to the effect of “handicapping college football bowl games is all about assessing motivation”, this would already be my most profitable college football bowl season in history. I need to expunge just how monumentally ineffective and ill-advised this approach is.
First, if there is an apparent “motivational mismatch” in a bowl game, the books already take this into account. This is a simple concept yet it is overwhelming and cannot be understated. If and when oddsmakers perceive that coaching changes, opt-outs, or transfer portal entries will impact the way the market will respond to the possible motivational shifts in the game, they move the number.
For a bettor to hope to claim an edge regarding the motivation intangible, their argument would need to be something like “the current line does not adequately assess the motivational differences between these teams, even relative to the talent discrepancies.” We bet numbers, not teams.
In a vast majority of cases, those lacking this awareness will base their warrant for backing a side on a motivational angle that the books already priced into their number. Simply reasserting the rationale without accounting for the line movement is, in practice, counter-productive. This is like betting against a team simply because their starting quarterback is injured. Yep — and the books moved the line!
The second reason why assessing motivations is Fool’s Gold is that it is pure guesswork. What’s the evidence for one team being more motivated than the other? If it starts with “I don’t think …”, then put on your big shoes to go along with your red nose and flower on your lapel that squirts water because you are a clown. One of the reasons that it is clown reasoning is that there is not any evidence to back it up. If you are guessing, then you are losing. A monkey may have correctly guessed a coin flip landing heads five times in a row, but let the noise settle. Betting without evidence is the surest way to lose all your money. Deploying critical thinking in assessing actionable evidence is hard — but doing it correctly leads to profits.
If the guessing aspect was bad enough, the fact that a handicapper/bettor can never understand and appreciate what is in the hearts and minds of the players in question should ward off thoughtful individuals from even attempting to embark on these paths. Bluntly, sometimes players and coaches become motivated simply because they are being told they have nothing in which to be motivated. The “lack of motivation” cries may actually help light the fire of motivation.
Just for fun, I am going to review the previous bowl games this year to identify and expose when the conventional wisdom motivational narrative got upended by actual results.
Arizona Bowl: Wyoming controlled the motivational angle with their long-time head coach Craig Bohl retiring after the game — and they were playing a Toledo team shellshocked after getting upset in the Mid-American Conference Championship Game by Miami (OH). The market pushed the Cowboys to be a 4.5-point favorite — and while Wyoming scored 10 unanswered points in the fourth quarter to pull out a 16-15 victory, it was those holding Rockets tickets that went to the window.
Orange Bowl: It was Florida State that had something to prove after getting snubbed by the College Football Playoff Committee — and why would Georgia care about playing an undermanned Seminoles team after winning two straight National Championships? Of course, Florida State was missing nearly two dozen players from opt-outs to the transfer portal — but that should have been yet another reason to forego advancing a motivation argument. After their 63-3 victory, it looked like the Bulldogs were motivated to send a message that they should have made the playoffs.
Music City Bowl: How motivated was Maryland given all their players in the transfer portal and with quarterback Taulia Tagovailoa opting out of the game? Apparently, the dudes getting playing opportunities now like quarterback Billy Edwards were quite inspired to play well. The Terrapins upset an Auburn team “motivated to rebound their heartbreaking loss to Alabama in the Iron Bowl and attract recruits in Nashville” by a 31-13 score.
The above are just the first three games from yesterday. We can do this for every game. It’s just so dumb. But, guessing about motivation is one way to disguise that one’s betting/handicapping is an evidence-optional endeavor. So, there's that.
Given this, how should bettors handicap bowl games? The same way they handicap every other football and sporting event: with evidence that provides insight relative to the betting line. But isn't this even more difficult given all the opt-outs and players that enter the transfer portal? Yep -- and I find myself passing in more and more bowl games as they become treated as preseason games for the next college football season. I also find myself passing on more and more NFL preseason games when depth rotations become more unpredictable as more and first and second stringers do not play. Uncertainty is a reason to pass. Evidence is the shining light, and preferably lots of it.
Best of luck — Frank.
First, if there is an apparent “motivational mismatch” in a bowl game, the books already take this into account. This is a simple concept yet it is overwhelming and cannot be understated. If and when oddsmakers perceive that coaching changes, opt-outs, or transfer portal entries will impact the way the market will respond to the possible motivational shifts in the game, they move the number.
For a bettor to hope to claim an edge regarding the motivation intangible, their argument would need to be something like “the current line does not adequately assess the motivational differences between these teams, even relative to the talent discrepancies.” We bet numbers, not teams.
In a vast majority of cases, those lacking this awareness will base their warrant for backing a side on a motivational angle that the books already priced into their number. Simply reasserting the rationale without accounting for the line movement is, in practice, counter-productive. This is like betting against a team simply because their starting quarterback is injured. Yep — and the books moved the line!
The second reason why assessing motivations is Fool’s Gold is that it is pure guesswork. What’s the evidence for one team being more motivated than the other? If it starts with “I don’t think …”, then put on your big shoes to go along with your red nose and flower on your lapel that squirts water because you are a clown. One of the reasons that it is clown reasoning is that there is not any evidence to back it up. If you are guessing, then you are losing. A monkey may have correctly guessed a coin flip landing heads five times in a row, but let the noise settle. Betting without evidence is the surest way to lose all your money. Deploying critical thinking in assessing actionable evidence is hard — but doing it correctly leads to profits.
If the guessing aspect was bad enough, the fact that a handicapper/bettor can never understand and appreciate what is in the hearts and minds of the players in question should ward off thoughtful individuals from even attempting to embark on these paths. Bluntly, sometimes players and coaches become motivated simply because they are being told they have nothing in which to be motivated. The “lack of motivation” cries may actually help light the fire of motivation.
Just for fun, I am going to review the previous bowl games this year to identify and expose when the conventional wisdom motivational narrative got upended by actual results.
Arizona Bowl: Wyoming controlled the motivational angle with their long-time head coach Craig Bohl retiring after the game — and they were playing a Toledo team shellshocked after getting upset in the Mid-American Conference Championship Game by Miami (OH). The market pushed the Cowboys to be a 4.5-point favorite — and while Wyoming scored 10 unanswered points in the fourth quarter to pull out a 16-15 victory, it was those holding Rockets tickets that went to the window.
Orange Bowl: It was Florida State that had something to prove after getting snubbed by the College Football Playoff Committee — and why would Georgia care about playing an undermanned Seminoles team after winning two straight National Championships? Of course, Florida State was missing nearly two dozen players from opt-outs to the transfer portal — but that should have been yet another reason to forego advancing a motivation argument. After their 63-3 victory, it looked like the Bulldogs were motivated to send a message that they should have made the playoffs.
Music City Bowl: How motivated was Maryland given all their players in the transfer portal and with quarterback Taulia Tagovailoa opting out of the game? Apparently, the dudes getting playing opportunities now like quarterback Billy Edwards were quite inspired to play well. The Terrapins upset an Auburn team “motivated to rebound their heartbreaking loss to Alabama in the Iron Bowl and attract recruits in Nashville” by a 31-13 score.
The above are just the first three games from yesterday. We can do this for every game. It’s just so dumb. But, guessing about motivation is one way to disguise that one’s betting/handicapping is an evidence-optional endeavor. So, there's that.
Given this, how should bettors handicap bowl games? The same way they handicap every other football and sporting event: with evidence that provides insight relative to the betting line. But isn't this even more difficult given all the opt-outs and players that enter the transfer portal? Yep -- and I find myself passing in more and more bowl games as they become treated as preseason games for the next college football season. I also find myself passing on more and more NFL preseason games when depth rotations become more unpredictable as more and first and second stringers do not play. Uncertainty is a reason to pass. Evidence is the shining light, and preferably lots of it.
Best of luck — Frank.
