“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Costa Rica Weighs in on Colts vs Bears. What say you?
By Chris Goudey
WagerWeb.com Contributing Writer
NFL Football betting odds at WagerWeb Sportsbook
Well, it all comes down to this. We have the matchup of the best offense in the league (Indianapolis) against what I think is the second-best defense in the league (Chicago). If you've been following my picks for the year, you'll know that I have a pretty good regular-season record (over 53% picking every game, about 58% on games I actually bet), but the playoffs have just been bad times for me overall. Nonetheless, if you asked me at the beginning of the year if I'd take these results, then I would absolutely have done it.
The Super Bowl is the culmination of it all, and I have some definite opinions about what I think is going to happen. To me, this game isn't going to be won or lost in the Colts' offense vs Bears' defense matchup. It's going to depend on the opposite, how the Bears offense does against the Colts defense. The Colts are going to score points, there's no doubt about it. They've done it against everyone, even the team I thought had the best defense, Baltimore. Granted, the Colts didn't get in the end zone in that game, but they scored enough to win it. The reason they won that one was because of their defense, though, not their offense, and I think that's the side of the ball that needs to be focused on when you look at this game.
The Colts scored 15 points against the Ravens, and I think they can probably put up a little more than that against the Bears, so I'll give them 21 points. The game is going to hinge on if the Bears can muster enough offense to score 21+ points against a defense that's just been fantastic the last few weeks. My guess is no, but when it comes to picking the point-spread, it doesn't matter if the Bears score over 21 or not. The spread for this game right now is Indy -7 on WagerWeb.com, which means the Colts are favored by a touchdown.
If you look at that Colts-Ravens game, the final score was 15-6, so you can tell the Ravens had a very hard time scoring. I think the Chicago offense is a little bit better than the Baltimore squad, so the Bears should definitely put up more than 6 points. The Bears have a better running game and better receivers than the Ravens, so the big question is if quarterback Rex Grossman can get it done. So far he hasn't hurt them in the playoffs, but he hasn't faced a defense that's playing as well as the Colts have the last three games. True, the Patriots scored 34 points in the AFC title game, but they had two special-teams TDs. The Bears should be able to run the ball fairly well, so if they can get some decent production out of Grossman they have a shot at scoring enough to cover the spread.
If you've read my articles, you know that I'm an advocate of buying points when the spread is at -3 or -7. The final spread of the game usually hits one of these two numbers about 35% of the time, so it's important to use buying points to your advantage. For this game, no matter which side you like, you should buy the points or search around to try to find the number you want. If you like the Colts, you should try to get to -6.5, which means if Indy wins by 7, then you win. If you like the Bears, then you should try to find a +7.5. Right now I'm seeing both -6.5 and -7 for Indy, which means you probably won't be able to find a +7.5 for Chicago. To get to the +7.5 what you would want to do is find a place that has +7, then buy up to the +7.5 to get there. You'll have to pay extra to do it, usually 20 to 25 cents on the dollar (meaning you have to bet $130 or 135 to win $100, instead of the usual $110), but the math says it's the correct move. That way if Indy wins by 7, you win instead of push.
Disclaimer: The Elephant Bar and the contributors have no interest in on-line sports betting, and we do not care what you do with your money. This post is for information on current events.
Posted by Deuce ☂ at 2/04/2007 11:10:00 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I'm betting on Florida!ReplyDelete
Whit, are you looking?
T.W.A.T. "Needs" T.I.T.ReplyDelete
Turn In a Terrorist!
Sharp, at Kudlows, links to an article where the Iraqi Gov. says half of the car bombers come in through Syria.
You "Know" the Border Tribes are making a Fortune (To Them) smuggling bombers across the border.
We're not using our most effective and robust weapon in this fight. MONEY! BIG MONEY!
We're Spending Billions/Day running around in the dark, getting IED'd. If we gave those Sheiks $50,000.00 for every T.I.T that border would be as secure as Rat's Secret Bank Acct.
Come on Boys; Let's have some TITs with that TWAT!
I think we have to upgrade to the new blogger.
I guess this is as good a day as any to do it.ReplyDelete
Gateway Pundit has this up. (He also linked earlier to Harrison’s excellent book review and commentary.)ReplyDelete
“During the fighting, young fighters and partisans, armed with hunting rifles and old armament were able to defeat the heavily armed forces of the regime and forced them to retreat.”
What is wrong with this picture?
Group Takes Credit for Attacks Against Iranian Regime
Been a long time comin'ReplyDelete
be good to see op tempo accelerate some more.
hi folks. I am winning money on this game, but the new blogger is a bit of a mystery to me. Whit can you get on?ReplyDelete
I think we are ok.ReplyDelete
back in business. thanks rufus. I had to make the chnage. they forced me into it.ReplyDelete
find out how we can get out of clicking that thing about nonsecure items every time we want to comment.ReplyDelete
It's actually a pretty watchable game. I think you'll probably win your bet, but I think Indy will win the game.ReplyDelete
Some seven GOP senators are said to be wavering between the Democratic resolution and the McCain Graham-Lieberman alternative supporting Gen. Petraeus and the troops. They are Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, John Sununu of New Hampshire, and George Voinovich of Ohio.ReplyDelete
Alexander, Coleman, and Sununu are up for reelection in 2008. Some or all of the seven may still choose to stand with the president and the troops, and to give Petraeus a chance.
This would leave the Democratic resolution short of the 60 votes needed to end debate. Perhaps the four ignominious ones could even reconsider and sign on with McCain, Graham, and Lieberman (whose resolution of support includes, incidentally, "benchmarks" of performance that the Iraqi government is expected to meet).
Make you wonder what's goin' through the minds of those that oare on the fence. They do not want to follow their Leader and go "All In"?ReplyDelete
What other option is there, for them? That the GOP is stalling, as they turn into the wind, disconcerting.
Life can be so cruel to senators. They either have to drop the President, like a bad habit, or get on board. How can you say the President is incompetent in his war policy and retain him in office? No fair! No fair!ReplyDelete
Rufus, I don't see how it can be done. Maybe whit can see it.ReplyDelete
Ah well, it's no big thing. I'm just incredibly lazy.ReplyDelete
Financial documents show that by the start of this year Giuliani had about $1 million available, having spent money to set up campaign headquarters, buy equipment and hire workers.ReplyDelete
The Republicans' top tier of candidates for 2008 includes Arizona Sen. John McCain, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback.
Giuliani's visit to Columbia wrapped up a busy week in the state for White House hopefuls. Romney was in the capital on Tuesday and Brownback on Friday.
As punishment for violating their embed agreement and causing incomprehensible pain to the family of a mortally wounded soldier, as I predicted, the NYT will get a slap on the wrist, and a bitch-slap from Lt. General Odierno at that. From henceforth forward and forever (or until Lt. General Odierno capitulates further) the NYT embed team will not be embedded with Staff Sgt. Hector Leija's unit. There are so many things that could be said about Lt. General Odierno, but suffice to say, he is the poster-boy for what is wrong in Iraq.ReplyDelete
Lt. Gen. Odierno is a cocksucking, cross dressing, desk hugging, piece of dog shit; shit unworthy to be found on the sole of Staff Sgt. Leija’s boot.
Oh, and this digit goes to the Vienna sausage-dicked President who appointed him.
Bush is undeserving and unworthy of impeachment!
Uh, I take it drinks ARE NOT on the house, huh?ReplyDelete
MVP should go to the Indianapolis Offensive Line. They were "Spectacular."
no drinks on the house. my first quarter picks prevented a debacle.ReplyDelete
...But given the well-documented incompetencies of this particular Executive, with regards to its conduct of the war in Iraq, the majority congressional Democrats, buoyed by some Republicans, appear to have concluded that even a minimal reassertion of their prerogatives might do some good.ReplyDelete
This is not exactly a revelation. Witness this statement by a senator who offered a withdrawal amendment, in response to what he viewed as White House incompetence: "I can tell you what will hurt our viability as the world's superpower, and that is if we enmesh ourselves in a drawn-out situation which entails the loss of American lives... we should get out as rapidly and orderly as possible."
That was John McCain, in October 1993, calling for a Senate-imposed withdrawal from Somalia.