My "Useless" Vote - The Same As Your "Useless" Vote

My vote doesn't matter. At least that's what I've been told.

My guy Gary Johnson. is likely to get about 1% of the national vote, while the Siamese twin Mittrack Obamney will get the other 98.999999%. Sorry Green/Constitution Party and Independent advocates - you'll likely muster the other .0000001%, give or take ten zeros.

Your vote on either of these two really only matters in 15 states, argues political expert/doofus/moron Brian Bolek

Oh wait, I forgot about a problem with the argument that my vote doesn't matter. Yours likely doesn't either. In fact, I think we're both wasting our time debating whether our vote actually matters (at least when it comes to Illinois).

The 36 Strong

This can be said for about the 35 states (and DC, which gets 2 votes) whose electoral votes are clearly going to one particular candidate, and thus, getting all of the electoral college votes from them. These states are highlighted on this page: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/electoral-map. The definition of "clearly" would be over a 95% chance that the state will be won by that particular candidate (Here's a detailed NY Times blog that is tracking this). If you notice the state of Illinois - it is 100% certain that Obama will win this state. Therefore, I would argue that your vote, which matters none in the national vote of a candidate (since the electoral college neuters this and ties someone's vote directly to their state and their state only), is just as useless as mine if you're voting for anyone other than Obama.

(Note: there are two states that allow for electoral votes to be split between candidates - Maine and Nebraska. Both states give two electoral votes to the winner of the state, and then allow their respective state districts decide the rest. For what it's worth, all of Nebraska's "votes" will go to Romney, while Obama is likely to take Maine and both of its districts - although Mitt has a slight chance in one district. Both of these states are among the 35 mentioned above.)

Even if Romney gets 40% in Illinois (just to throw a number out there), sure, he's a hell of a lot more popular to the voting public than any third party candidate, but he gets the same number of electoral votes from Illinois as my 1% does - zero.

If you ditch the electoral college and go straight to popular vote (it'll never happen), then I argue your vote would carry more weight. But since it only matters in the state which you reside, you aren't going to influence the vote.

The 15 That Matter Most

This leaves a total of 15 states who pollsters still have some question on who will carry the state's electoral votes. Many of these states have particular leans already - some Obama, some Romney - while others are statistically up in the air until Tuesday. These states compromise 173 of the electoral votes out of the 538 total (32%). So assuming that the election plays out as it should in those 35 states where Romney and Obama have a guaranteed hold on the votes, this leaves about one-third of the nation's voters with a meaningful vote.

If you break it down based on this site's "too close to call" states (that can be up for debate, especially with the flaws that polls represent), there's at least seven of those states, whose electoral votes total 89 - 16.5% of the electoral votes. This number might be a little higher or lower depending on what data you use, but this is a good estimate.

These are the states where the candidates have been spending the most time and money on, the ones where each candidate will essentially do whatever they can to get a vote (up to and including fellatio...just guessing). I feel sorry for the ads that those states have to deal with on a daily basis - Illinois' close race ads are brutal enough, couldn't imagine the stuff that Romney and Obama have come up with in the swing states.

Those 35 states (and DC) whose electoral votes we can count already as all but certain - each campaign knows better than to waste their time pandering across those states when their vote is (near) certain.

Of course it matters

What I am arguing here, is that in spite of your non-Illinois Obama vote not really playing a role into the election at all, your vote does matter. Mine does too, even if it's only one of about 1% of the vote for Johnson. It's easy to say "Your vote means shit" when you're in a non-swing state and you're voting for a candidate who is certain to lose that state. But your vote is more than just a statistic - it's a representation of your beliefs in who will be the best person to best represent my country (or state/district/town/etc.).

Well - at least that's what it's supposed to be. I'd love to believe that the general public votes FOR candidates rather than AGAINST them (i.e. voting for Candidate A because you believe in him/her and not just because you hate Candidate B that much), but we all know that these anti-votes occur.

I digress.

When you vote, whether you vote in a swing state or not, whether you're voting on any candidate who has a legit shot or not, you are voting for your ideal representatives (unless you're a dumbass).

If you are an Illinois resident and you believe Romney best represents your views on how the country should be run, then by all means vote for him. Meanwhile, I will vote for Gary Johnson who best represents my views.

The expected three top-vote getters in the 2012 election. The guy in the middle (Gary Johnson) will get about 1/49th the votes of each of the guys (Obama/Romney) who sandwich him.

Another digression alert: (And no, my vote for him is not a vote for Obama or Romney - it is a vote for Johnson. I HATE!!! the notion that bi-partisan politics have brought upon the voting culture where you can't just vote for a third party candidate because, I don't know, You actually want to vote for that candidate! The idea that my vote is stealing a vote away from one of these guys is baffling to me. If I wanted to vote for one of those candidates, I would, you know, vote for them. My vote is not stealing a vote away from either because, simply put, I wouldn't vote for either guy if Johnson wasn't on the ballot).

Anywho, enough of this babbling. Go out and vote November 6th for the candidate(s) who best represent your views. And yes - your vote matters.

And so does mine.

If I Ain't Broke, I'm Not Fixing It (Week 9 NFL)

Looks like this little system for the NFL is having some short term luck for me.

Last week's bets went 7-5, would have been much better if I made bets strictly along the lines of the system.

In short, as I mentioned last week, this system is built where you end up betting against teams who have either (a) won two games in a row against the spread by a significant margin - thus creating an inflated line that you can gain value betting the other team or (b) won 3 straight games against the spread. We'll call these guys Fade Material - since that's exactly what you'll want to do in that next game.

The latter (b) has been a cash cow, with teams going 1-10 in their fourth game if they've covered against the spread three in a row (Houston is the only team to cover 4 games in a row). I guess to figure out (a), you'd have to define what a significant amount is against the spread - I'd say exceeding the spread by an average of 14 points or more. Using this number, teams have gone 2-9 against the spread if they've covered their previous two games by an average of 14+ points. The Bears and Vikings are the only teams to record against the spread wins in these scenarios, with both teams losing their following game.

The other half of the system is the opposite (The Biggest Losers) - betting on teams who have had (a) multiple losses against the spread by a significant margin or (b) lost 3 straight games against the spread. In the case of (b), teams are 5-2-2 in that fourth game (Baltimore is the only team this year w/ a 5-game losing streak ATS). And using the same significant margin idea (2 losses in a row against the spread by an average of 14+), these teams bounce back to the tune of a 7-2 record.

Fade Material for Week 9

(a) Won two games in a row ATS by avg of 14+ - None, although Denver (Average ATS win of 13) is close and I'll be betting against them anyways (see below).

(b) Won three straight ATS - Detroit....Bet Jacksonville +4 (hard to do, I know)

Biggest Loser Material for Week 9

(a) Lost two game in a row by avg of 14+ - Unfortunately, no one fits this bill either. Kansas City did (lost previous two by average of 17 per game), but San Diego's streak (lost three straight) took precedence. Kansas City will be a bet next week.

(b) Lost three straight ATS - Cincy (+3.5), Baltimore (-3.5), SD -7 (won Thursday).

We'll see how this goes, but I'm optimistic that this system at least has some common sense behind it. It goes off the premises that people hate to bet teams that have looked like crap the past couple weeks (likely means they've lost ATS in those games), which gives that team a little bit more value in the next game or two. Likewise, if a team is playing so well that it looks like it can't lose, gamblers fall in love with that team and want to keep betting them (riding out the streak), thus making the point spread on them in the following week or two a little inflated, giving value to their opponent.

For this week's bets:

Fool's Gold (6-5 for the year)

Denver -3.5 at Cincy - Christ, how could anyone bet against Peyton Manning? Dude has been money this year, much better than anyone could have thought coming off of his 97th neck surgery in the past 2-3 years (number may be exaggerated). They're coming off a pair of impressive victories (huge 2nd half comeback against San Diego and a drubbing of New Orleans on Sunday Night Football). Meanwhile, Cincy has lost three straight overall (and against the spread, as you read above). They had a first quarter lead in all of those games, only to fail to win any of them. I expect them to play with a sense of desperation as they look to avoid falling completely out of the AFC North with a beat-up Ravens and potentially over-rated Steelers squad ahead of them (each playing road games). I think the Bengals will surprise the Broncos and take this game, but just to be safe, I'll take Cincy +3.5 (may bet the ML as well).

Other Bets: Baltimore -3.5, Jax +4, Dal +4

Considering: Car +3.5, Oak -1.5, Min +4

NCAA Outlook:

Finally had a decent Saturday. College ain't really my cup of tea this year, so tread lightly on following these.

Bets: California -4 (fading the major results of last week - Cal's big loss and Wash's impressive win against previously unbeaten Oregon St), Ariz State +4 (Oregon St will be proven a phony), OK State +8.5 (K State will be challenged), Iowa State +12.5 (let down for Oklahoma), Pitt +16.5 (let down for ND)

Considering: WV -5 & their Over (68), Florida -17

Check my Twitter for updated bets - these are subject to change.

Have a good weekend everyone, and good luck w/ your fantasy leagues/wagers and all that other crap.

Reheat: NBA Preview 2012

With such a short offseason compared to other major sports, it never feels like NBA is out of season.

The freshest things in mind are the ones I'll touch upon. I have friends who I'd consider bigger basketball junkies than me - I'll give you a simpleton's point of view with this past offseason.

The Dwight Stuff

It only took what seemed liked decades, but Dwight Howard finally got his wishes to leave Orlando when his old team traded him to the Lakers. Howard joins veteran Steve Nash as the big acquisitions to the Lakers, who are gearing up for at least one more Kobe title run before he hangs it up in a few years. Anyone who thought the Lakers were not the favorites to land Howard all along (rumors had him going to the Nets as they kick off their inaugural season in Brooklyn). I believe the Lakers will make it far, but I believe their championship will have to wait a year.

Agony of the Heat

Speaking of champions, America's least favorite team - ok, maybe more so Chicago area's least favorite team - is the reigning NBA champion. They added sharpshooting veteran Ray Allen to the mix - a great move in my opinion. I foresee a lot of Lebron kick-outs to a wide open Allen for three this season. With the championship taste still in their mouths, I expect the champs to repeat en route to what should be a dynasty that features at least 4-5 championships (assuming LeBron stays there and doesn't opt out in a couple years).

Thunder Struck

Just a few days ago, the Oklahoma City Thunder traded away James Harden to the Houston Rockets, with the key player coming to the Thunder being Kevin Martin. A lot of people are wondering why the Thunder would make such a move, but apparently Harden turned down a contract with them (wasn't a max contract). With the trade, he can make about 50% more over the life of the contract (signing a max deal w/ Houston over the deal the Thunder offered) if I've read everything right. So he goes from a championship caliber team to a rebuilding one - the classic "Should I chase money or rings?" argument. He can't convince me or anyone else that he thinks he'll even come close to sniffing a conference finals, yet alone contend for a title, in the next 3-4 years, where with OKC, he's likely guaranteed a few more title appearances if he stays. More power to him for taking the money. We all say we'd go for the ring if we were these guys, but WE aren't talented basketball players capable of being in a position to make these choices. Good luck Harden - you'll need it.

Flop It Like It's Hot

One of the biggest rule changes that took place over the offseason was the NBA instituting a fine system for players who attempt to flop on fouls in their attempt to eliminate it from the game. I forgot what journalist said it (I think it was Bomani Jones) who said this will likely create a class in the NBA of those who can afford to flop and those who can't. Players can be fined up to 30K if they are caught flopping up to five times. A guy making six figures won't chance flopping that many times. Should be interesting to see (a) how often this gets enforced and (b) who are guys who get hit with the most fines.

Predictions By Division (in predicted order) - numbers represent their predicted seed in playoffs

Eastern Conference

Atlantic: 2. Boston, 5. Philly, 7. Brooklyn, New York, Toronto

Central: 3. Indiana, 6. Chicago, 8.  Cleveland, Milwaukee, Detroit

Southeast: 1. Miami, 4. Atlanta, Washington, Orlando, Charlotte

Notes: Yes, probably a little shocked to see Cleveland in the playoffs. I was initially surprised to put them there, but then remembered several playoff teams from last year (New York and Orlando) who I eliminated from consideration. Kyrie should take the next step and show why Cleveland picked him number 1.

Otherwise, my picks are pretty bland. I picked all of the favorites to win their respective divisions here. The most likely division for a long-shot winner would probably be the Atlantic. The Heat should clinch the Southeast title by the end of March, if not sooner. If Rose can return and shake off the rust quick, I could see the Bulls finishing top 2 or 3 in the conference. My projection is that if he does return, the rust will take a while to shake.

Western Conference

Northwest: 2. Denver, 3. Oklahoma City, 7. Utah, Minnesota, Portland

Pacific: 1. LA Lakers, 6. LA Clippers, Golden State, Phoenix, Sacramento

Southwest: 4. Memphis, 5. San Antonio, 8. Dallas, Houston, New Orleans

Notes: I threw a curveball and have Denver and Memphis as division winners. I think I'm buying into Denver based on Hollinger's projection more so than my own analysis. I also think it could take some time for the Thunder to get used to playing without Harden. The Lakers should roll this division but will likely save their energy for the playoffs, so 56/57 wins should be expected as opposed to 60+.

Eastern Playoffs Round 1: Miami over Cleveland, Boston over Brooklyn, Chicago over Indiana, Atlanta over Philly

Western Playoffs Round 1: Lakers over Dallas, Denver over Utah, OKC over Clips, San Antonio over Memphis

EP Round 2: Miami over Atlanta, Boston over Chicago

WP Round 2: Lakers over Spurs, OKC over Denver

Eastern Conference Finals: Miami over Boston

Western Conference Finals: Lakers over OKC

Finals: Miami over LA in 6

NBA MVP: LBJ.......Sleeper: Kyrie Irving 

NBA 6th Man:  Manu Ginobili. San Antonio.....Sleeper: I don't know this category well enough to predict it.

Defensive Player of the Year: Serge Ibaka, OKC.....Sleeper: Andre Iguodala - Denver

Coach of the Year: George Karl, Denver....Sleeper: Larry Drew, Atlanta

Rookie of the Year: Anthony Davis, New Orleans

Most Improved Player: Kyrie Irving, Cleveland

Random prop questions:

1. Will anyone get flop fines up until/past the fifth flop? No
2. Will the Bobcats set an NBA record for losses in a season? No, but barely
3. Return timeline for Derrick Rose - All-Star Break (Before or After): After
4. Biggest Longshot w/ a title hope: Denver at 50/1
5. Biggest Favorite w/ little title hope: Chicago at 16/1 (No Rose, No Shot)

Bets made before season: Denver to win Northwest division +540 (50/270); Denver Over 51.5 wins (130/100)

Spoiler Alert - Why Bad Teams Should Take Pride in their Squads

We're at that point in the year where there's three types of fantasy football owners:

Those preparing for the playoffs: These are the teams that are about 6-2 or 7-1. Barring a catastrophic collapse, these teams should make the playoffs. There's a large margin of error, where these owners can afford to drop a game or two (better now than in the playoffs, right?) Owners of these teams are now worried about making sure they win their division and get a good seed for the playoffs. A top 2/3 seed is very likely.

Those fighting for a playoff spot: These are the teams around the 3, most likely the 4 or 5 win mark. None of these teams can afford a multiple game losing streak for fear of falling to the bottom bracket. These are the owners that are most meticulous and insane about making sure they set the right lineup each week. One wrong move could boot you from a chance at the Geno Bowl. One right move, and your path to nerd glory is a step closer from being achieved.

Those who likely don't give a shit anymore: These are the teams at about 2 wins or below. Checking the lineup isn't as fun anymore, especially when half of your starting team from Week 1 is either hurt or underperforming.

Being a spoiler (especially in fantasy football games) should be fun for bad teams.

I came here to discuss the last group, those who feel like they are out of it.

I say - take some pride when you set your lineups each week. Don't you wanna piss off one of these folks one of these groups above you, just to hear them whine as your Nick Foles pick-up netted you 30 points in a come-from-behind win that devastated someone's playoff hopes like your own? I mean, c'mon, how fun is it to beat someone who was expecting to beat the shit out of you?

If your team starts fading in the next couple weeks, don't give up. Keep in mind that you can ruin someone else's playoff dreams. And as they* always say, ruining someone else's dream is the American dream.

Take pride in your team from beginning to end. I know your team didn't turn out the way you wanted it to, but give yourself the last smile, the last laugh. Take out that sweaty mess of an owner who needs one more win to make the playoffs. Show him or her that you shouldn't fuck with my bad team. You mess with the bull and you get the shit.

Besides, do you really want to keep losing, you big fat loser that no one likes, not even your mother**?

*Yeah, I've heard a lot of people say this. And by a lot, I mean...shut up and read.

**I'm just assuming this. Why should your mother love you if you suck at fantasy football? Mine wouldn't.

Never Leave the Table When You're On a Heater - Week 8 Picks

It only took me three weeks of NFL to give myself a personal bye from gambling. It was that bad of a run.

After that week break, it only took me a couple weeks for me to finally say that I'm about to hit my in-season run of a lifetime.

With the help of a spreadsheet I've created that shows how much a team wins or loses against the spread on a weekly basis (thanks to Covers.com for the numbers), I've figured out a good way to find great spots to bet teams who are either coming off of two or three straight games where they don't cover or even better, fading teams who are riding 2/3 straight covers.

The bigger the covers, the more likely I fade them.

The bigger the losses, the more likely I bet them.

We'll see if it works, but I'm liking the results so far.

From Week 6 to Week 7 -

Houston goes from getting destroyed by the Packers (losing to the spread by 22) to winning by 23.5 against the spread against Baltimore (look to bet Baltimore in Week 9 - they've lost five straight games against the spread - the only team with more than three straight games without a cover).

Jacksonville lost two straight games against the spread by a total of 48 points. They get a bye week and an inflated line against a subpar Oakland squad who was spotting Jacksonville 6 points against the spread. Jacksonville holds the lead most of the game, blows it, but still covers the spread by a field goal.

Pittsburgh has a prime-time loss against the lowly Titans, giving the Steelers their third straight non-cover. In Week 7, they fell behind 14-3 against the Bengals but took over the game from the second quarter one and ended up winning and covering. Like Baltimore, I plan on betting Cincinnati after their Week 8 bye since they have failed to cover in three straight.

The Bears got a week to rest in Week 6 after three impressive wins (covered by an average of 17 points/game). They were covering most of the Detroit game but lost it on a touchdown with less than a minute left, allowing Detroit backers (like this guy) to cash in. Sure, the Bears could (and should) have covered it, but they didn't. And since they failed to cover by the slightest of margins, perception of them is still positive. I find a second-week fade of the Bears to be in the works.

I don't know if I've stumbled into something good to use for the rest of the year and perhaps in future years or if I'm over-thinking this stuff. It's worth a shot for now since I've taken a look at this year's data and saw that there's great value in fading teams with (1) a mini-streak against the spread or (2) coming off a couple huge wins against the spread. Likewise, while it may feel icky to bet crappy teams like Jacksonville to cover, betting teams who have racked up several bad losses in a row are likely to have a point spread that is more of a reflection of their recent streak than what the team actually is. Even if you gain a couple points based on this perception, you gain an advantage.


Week 9 Picks

Fool's Gold (5-4 record) - Pick 1 Car +7.5 at Chicago...You look at the line and you can't believe it. How is Carolina not a 10+ point dog to the Bears, considered by many to be a top-3 team in the league? After all, Carolina's offense is a mess/the Bear's defense capitalizes on team's mistakes like no other. The Bears have a good rushing attack and a QB who hasn't made as many mistake this year, save the Packer debacle. Some interesting stats between the two teams: Carolina (5.9 yards/play - T6th), Chicago (5.2 y/p - T23rd); Chicago D (4.9 y/p - T-3), Carolina (5.5 - T 17th). Both teams average more per play than they allow on defense. What this means, I don't know. Just really wanted to distract you from the fact that Carolina is my Pick in this Fool's Gold that is begging for Chicago money.

Pick 2 Atl at Phil (-3) - Say what? The league's remaining undefeated team is an underdog to a team who has limped to a 3-3 record, a team who hasn't won a game by more than two points? Both teams are coming off of a bye, but Andy Reid prepares as well on byes as he does on increasing the size of his thighs on a daily basis. Atlanta allows the 8th most yards per play (5.9) while the Eagles are one of the better teams (5.1). I expect Vick to have his best game against the Falcons game (no turnovers). I also expect McCoy to have his best day of the year against the Falcons (only the Bills allow more than the Falcons' 5.2 per carry). Philly wins by two scores.

Other Picks: Det -1, Pitt -4.5 (Already bet TB +6.5)
Other Possibles: Dallas (if it gets up to 3+), Denver -6 (NO has had 3 straight covers), Mia +2 (NYJ has had 3 straight covers), KC -2


Limited NCAA leans: Penn St, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Nebraska. With my bad Saturdays lately, I'm looking to cut back. Feeling my NFL roll right now

Chart Attack: Why Teams Should Go For Two-Point Conversions At Any Point (When the Math Dictates It) and Not Always Follow the Chart

One of the most baffling things to me in football is the concept of going "by the chart".

What is this chart you speak of, you're asking of course. Well I'll gladly tell you - it's the rule of thumb that coaches go by when determining the appropriate time to go for a two-point conversion after a touchdown instead of kicking the extra point.

The standard rule in going for two is to only go for it when you're nearing the fourth quarter or actually in the fourth. Otherwise, according to many people who support the chart, you become obsessed with chasing points and missing out on a guaranteed point when going for two is such a risk.

I am here to put my full support behind burning this so-called "chart" and tell you why I don't have a problem with teams breaking the conventional "wisdom" of not going for two until the latter stages of the game.

Origins of "The Chart"

Before I actually started this piece, I decided to Google the words "two point conversion chart" just to see if there was an actual chart or if this was some brilliant scheme hatched by play-by-play and game analysts to convince us that there is a right and a wrong time to go for two-points.

Dick Vermeil's chart

I was surprised to see that there is an actual chart. And it was designed by none other than Dick Vermeil. As an assistant coach with UCLA in the 1970s, Vermeil came up with the idea of a chart that would assist the coach on the appropriate times to go for 2 or just kick the extra point. To the right is what the chart looks like.

I believe the chart is good in theory, but its standard use by coaches, especially in the NFL, is what I find problematic. Most coaches by nature are too conservative and for whatever reason (whether it's a fear of losing out on a sure point or a fear of being critiqued for a failed two-point conversion by the media) just don't want to take a chance to go for two, even if it means that the potential conversion would either tie the game or put you up by a score that could be achieved in one play by the opposing team (i.e. going for two when up by 1 to go up a field goal or when up by 5 to go up by a touchdown).

If you notice, coaches usually only go for two in the late stretches of games in this particular situations, not in the second quarter of games as a team tonight did (read below for that).


The Death of Two-Pointers in NCAA

What surprises me (or perhaps it shouldn't) is that the use of the two-point conversion has actually gone down in the NCAA since then, according to an NCAA article from 2008 about the subject: 50th anniversary of 2-point conversion 

This particular article shows that the use of the two-point conversion has gone down from an all-time high of over 51% of all touchdowns in 1958 (the first instance of the two-point conversion being used as a possibility to follow touchdowns) to an al-time low of only 5% of touchdowns being followed by a two-point attempt in 2007

There could be several reasons for this:

1. NCAA Overtime didn't exist until 1996. Therefore, teams who didn't want to tie a game would be more likely to take a risk on a two-point conversion in order to go for the win as opposed to settling for the tie. Now, since there can't be any ties, there is less incentive now than there was in the period preceding the overtime rules in going for the win.
2. Coaches have become more concerned with how taking such a "risk" might look to media looking for any little thing to blast the coach about should such conversions fail.
3. The success rate for the conversions isn't high enough for coaches to justify going for two unless they have to.

From the article linked above - the use of 2-pt conversions since its advent in 1958

Out of those reasons, the chart, as it's best described during a game by the play-by-play and game analysts, best fits into the third category - minimizing risk of losing points for the sake of chasing for that extra point too early.

After all, why should you go for two-point conversions when you're up by one point in the second quarter when so many more possessions in the game remain for you to score. Why risk the two-point conversion when the chances of making an extra-point via kick are way more safe?

NFL writer Michael Lombardi is a big proponent of the chart, as evidenced by the article he wrote last year on the subject. I will not disagree with him on the math part of going for two versus going for one (since 2006, PAT kicks are made on average between 98.3 and 99.5% of the time, whereas the 300 attempts of going for two during that time succeeded at a 45.7% clip - thus justifying, in Lombardi's eyes, not going for two until you absolutely have to). To be worth the risk in the long-run, you'd need to convert the two-point conversion as least half as much as you would the PAT (since the kick is worth half as much). I can see that to some degree, but....

The elements I disagree with him and others about when it comes to the use of two-point conversions and strictly sticking to the chart:

1. Why does it need to be a particular point in the game when you should "follow the chart" when going for two? Just because the percentages of how two-point conversions have historically done shouldn't be the end-all, be-all in deciding that two-pointers aren't worth the risk until the fourth quarter.
   
   I was following a game this afternoon where the Buffalo Bills were trailing 28-20 mid-way through the third quarter. After scoring a touchdown to go down by 2, I figured they might attempt a two-point conversion so they can tie the game - they didn't. They kicked the extra point to cut the lead to 28-27. The Bills went on to score another TD and didn't go for two again, although at that point I expected it even though a two-pointer could give them a full-touchdown lead as opposed to two field goals.
   
   But Brian, if they miss the two-pointer in either of those situations, they are losing out on a point that could help them later in the game. If they miss the conversion when scoring and up by 5, they'll be leaving themselves exposed to losing because the other team could kick two field goals and win.
   
   Well, the Bills took a 34-28 lead into the fourth quarter and never scored another point. However, the Tennessee Titans did - via a touchdown with about a minute left that gave them the 1-point win.
   
   On the other hand, the Pittsburgh Steelers went for two against the Bengals in the second quarter after a touchdown put them down 14-12. They went on to convert it and ended up winning the game 24-17. The conversion didn't end up playing a role in the final score as much as the non-conversion did with Tennessee. But it would have had the Bengals ended up scoring a touchdown in the waning part of the game (as the Titans did). The Bengals would have been forcing overtime if they scored, which is what the Titans didn't need to do because of the Bills not going for two after two touchdowns in the third.
   
2. If you have the chance to tie a game, do it, no matter the time of game. Yes, the math of conversions may not benefit the two-point conversion in general, but I believe they should be attempted more frequently and earlier in games.
   
   The worry that coaches and media personalities stress when going for two early in games is that you are "chasing points", which shouldn't be done if you have many more possessions left in a game to achieve more scores.
   
   However, who's to say that the Steelers, who were down by two in the second quarter after scoring a touchdown, might not score the rest of regulation time? Even though they may have 7-10 more possessions, there's no guarantee that they are able to find the end zone or have another scoring opportunity in the game again.
   
   Hell, it practically happened to the Bengals at that point in the game - they'd only go on to score three more points. Giving yourself the best chance to win might not always be by following the math of PAT vs. two point risk, but rather letting game situations at any point in the game (not just the fourth quarter) dictate your move after a touchdown is scored.
   
   In the situation described in Lombardi's story from last year, he mentioned the Packers going for two (and failing) when a touchdown put them up by 1 with about 18 game minutes left. He believes that the fourth quarter should be the only time a two-point conversion should be attempted, but if that ends up being the last score the Packers have in regulation, a one-point lead is essentially the same as a two-point lead (not taking into account a safety, which should never really be considered a serious scoring option for any team).
   
   After all, if the opposing team kicks a field goal in the Packers situation, they're up by a point in the situations where an XP is kicked prior to that (as the Titans were today) or up by two if the two point conversion fails. If the two-pointer is attempted and then converted, this gives the team added insurance should they be shutout in the final quarter and their opponent scores the necessary score (field goal or touchdown) to tie the game.
   

You best believe that had the Steelers missed the two-pointer, you would have heard critiques of the choice to "chase points" by the guys in the booth. In fact, I heard Cris Collinsworth make a comment about not agreeing with Mike Tomlin's choice to go for two before the attempt. His voice would have taken on a paternal "you should know better" tone if the conversion failed - and especially if the Steelers would have gone on to lose by only a point.

It's the conservative nature of coaches and the media perpetrating this myth to new heights that allows for this "chart" to have its place only in the fourth quarter of games.

If I have the time (or had the time - we'll see if I can really get to doing this), I'll try seeing how often teams are in the Bills position of trailing by eight in the early-to-mid stages in a game and NOT going for two after scoring a touchdown to see how often they end up losing by one.

For now, I will remain a proponent of trying to tie the game or expanding your lead to a standard score (i.e. attempting a two pointer when up by 1 so you can go up by a field goal) whenever you get the opportunity to after a touchdown, and you (nor some stupid chart) can't convince me otherwise.

Even Mike Vick Wouldn't Fight These 'Dogs - Week 7 Picks

If you're a gambler and like most people I know who gamble, you usually like to bet favorites at a high rate. If you're doing that this year, you're doing yourself wrong. Way wrong.

According to Covers.com, underdogs are covering at a record pace. If you blindly bet underdogs this year, your record would be 58-32-2 (including last night's amazing ending from a gambling perspective - I'll touch on that in a minute).

That is a percentage of over 64% - well above the necessary 52/53% mark you need to hit in order to profit (assuming you bet the same on every game). Most reasonable people would project that number will go down quite a bit (likely around 54-55%). With how much parity there is in the league, there's no telling that perhaps underdogs will still have some value for another couple weeks.

Yesterday's game featured another underdog (Seattle) covering a spread by the slightest of margins (spread started at 7 but closed anywhere between 7.5 and 9 points, depending on the book). The Niners didn't deserve to cover - but they almost did.

If you didn't see the ending, you missed out. The Seahawks were in desperation mode trailing 13-6, trying to score a miracle touchdown to force OT against the vaunted San Fran defense. On fourth down, backed into their own end zone, Russell Wilson completed a pass that was close to the first down, but an offensive penalty in the end zone caused the refs to throw a flag and rule the play a safety. Except....

Jim Harbaugh asked for a measurement of where the pass ended up. His logic - which is correct - was that if the Seahawks didn't convert the first down, the Niners would get the ball and be able to do one kneel down to end the game. Some might cry that the game was rigged and Harbaugh bet on the Seahawks, with the mindset that the Niners aren't going to lose anyways being up 9 (literally two scores) - and they're probably right.

However, the easiest path to a victory there was taking a knee and ending the game. You don't have to worry about any funny business, no matter how rare it could be. Your players won't have that extra opportunity to get injured. And you get the win, assuming the center-to-QB exchange doesn't get jacked up.


On to Week 7 NFL Picks


Fool's Gold Picks this year: 4-3 (3 straight covers - I think I'm eyeballing these better now)

Fool's Gold Pick 1: GB -5.5 at St Louis - Everyone is crowning Green Bay (once again) after an impressive throttling of previously undefeated Houston Texans. I attribute that to GB playing in desperation mode and Houston's defense coming out flat after a short week and a season-ending injury to stud linebacker Brian Cushing.

Now they go to face an under-rated Rams squad who continues to play teams close, losing by three to the Dolphins, which gave St. Louis its third straight cover. The Rams have played solid ball at home, beating three decent teams (Washington, Seattle, Arizona) straight up and like this game, were underdogs in all of those games.

Green Bay may win this game, but taking the points here is the smart move. This isn't the same GB squad of year's past. This team is a lot more inconsistent, exchanging loss/win pattern throughout the first six games of the year. Don't be a fool - take the points.

Fool's Gold Pick 2: NYG -6 vs. Washington - Wait...how could this be a bad pick? After all, the Giants just beat down on the 49ers, considered by many to be a favorite to make it to the Super Bowl this year. Last week's actual score should be a surprise, but the Giants winning shouldn't be. This is what the Giants under Eli Manning have done - they play up (or down) to their competition.  When it comes to big games and the Giants are underdogs, it's always smart to take the Giants and the points. This isn't the spot to back them though.

Washington will play them tough. Hell, they beat the Giants twice last year - including a week after a similar spot for the Giants, who won an emotional game against the Cowboys in Week 14 only to follow that up with a stinker at home against the Redskins (lost 23-10). I don't necessarily think they'll stink up the joint like last year, but I do expect this to be a tougher game than many might think.

Take the dog. (Seems to be a theme here).

Other Bets I Am Considering: Jax +4 (may be hard to pull trigger), Det +6.5 (too high a number in division game), Ariz +6.5 (so Minnesota goes from +6.5 at home against SF to -6.5 against Arizona? San Fran isn't 13 points better than Arizona. Lots of value on Arizona), Cincy pick'em (Cincy's passing attack should shred depleted Pitt D)

College bets: Oklahoma St -14 over Iowa St, WVU -2.5 over Kansas State, BYU +13 over Notre Dame (might roll the dice on Tennessee +20 against Alabama)

Enjoy your weekend everyone.