NFL 2021

[jfish26]

Looking at the details of Mahomes' contract, I think it's pretty clear the plan is to rework (and likely extend) the deal after the 2026 season.

Will probably look to turn what is essentially a 5 year / $252M deal into an 8-10 year deal to help smooth out some of the yearly numbers. If he stays healthy and continues to perform at or clos to his current level, I think KC feels fine giving him a contract until age 42

I agree with your read. I also think that unless something really seismically changes, Mahomes is a decent bet to be in KC for the duration.

I don't know if playing into his 40s interests him. I think he, justifiably, has very much a Magic/Lebron/Michael mindset.

[jfish26]

So here’s something I’ve never really understood. Say you take a team +3.5. Logically, if regulation ends in a tie, I think you should have won the bet.

[pdub]

Wut?

[jfish26]

Wut?

I would argue that a 3.5 point dog has absolutely covered if regulation ends with them tied; the bet would win if they’d lost in regulation by a field goal!

[pdub]

The game is not over.
Under/over isn't just for regulation either.
Nor are any of the other prop bets.

If you have the -3.5, do you loose?

[jfish26]

The game is not over.
Under/over isn't just for regulation either.
Nor are any of the other prop bets.

But that’s fundamentally different for point line bets. A team that is favored to win has failed to cover if it’s tied at the end of regulation.

[NewtonHawk11]

Like Hackett in Denver. Is this a power move for Rodgers to come along? Should be interesting.

[twocoach]

Like Hackett in Denver. Is this a power move for Rodgers to come along? Should be interesting.

My guess is that this is their desire. Bring in a coach that has experience. Interesting to see if it works. I'd much rather he be anywhere else but Denver.

[UnholyLivingDead]

Like Hackett in Denver. Is this a power move for Rodgers to come along? Should be interesting.

I think that's what they're going to for, but I still think Rodgers avoids the AFC. Especially the AFC West. Playing against Herbert and Mahomes 4 times per year would be an odd choice. Bold prediction: Tom Brady retires and Rodgers goes to Tampa.

[pdub]

The game is not over.
Under/over isn't just for regulation either.
Nor are any of the other prop bets.

But that’s fundamentally different for point line bets. A team that is favored to win has failed to cover if it’s tied at the end of regulation.

Even when you are arguing about amateur sports on the F the NCAA thread, I can see your point.
This one is a line in the sand.
Crazy pills.

[pdub]

Like Hackett in Denver. Is this a power move for Rodgers to come along? Should be interesting.

I think that's what they're going to for, but I still think Rodgers avoids the AFC. Especially the AFC West. Playing against Herbert and Mahomes 4 times per year would be an odd choice. Bold prediction: Tom Brady retires and Rodgers goes to Tampa.

It could also be a really bold choice at this stage of his career.
I'm sure Hackett will try to convince Rodgers and Adams that the storylines of beating those teams will change their career trajectories.
Denver has a lot of good pieces. I would prefer him to stay out of the AFC West. It's already good enough.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

The game is not over.
Under/over isn't just for regulation either.
Nor are any of the other prop bets.

But that’s fundamentally different for point line bets. A team that is favored to win has failed to cover if it’s tied at the end of regulation.

Forgive me for being confused.
If the Bears were favored TO WIN by 3.5 points and the game is tied at the end of regulation and then the Bears win by 6 in overtime, do you feel they didn't cover?
If the Bears were minus -140 TO WIN and the game is tied at the end of regulation and the Bears go on to win in OT, do you feel they didn't cover the money line?
As I am confident you realize, most game bets are based on the final score. Not the end of regulation score. Thus my confusion regarding what you posted.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I think it’s especially shitty in college football where the entire game just completely changes and you end up mandating TD’s and 2 pt conversion tries.

Great if you have the over, though.

[jfish26]

The game is not over.
Under/over isn't just for regulation either.
Nor are any of the other prop bets.

But that’s fundamentally different for point line bets. A team that is favored to win has failed to cover if it’s tied at the end of regulation.

Forgive me for being confused.
If the Bears were favored TO WIN by 3.5 points and the game is tied at the end of regulation and then the Bears win by 6 in overtime, do you feel they didn't cover?
If the Bears were minus -140 TO WIN and the game is tied at the end of regulation and the Bears go on to win in OT, do you feel they didn't cover the money line?
As I am confident you realize, most game bets are based on the final score. Not the end of regulation score. Thus my confusion regarding what you posted.

I get it. I’m just saying that fundamentally, you can determine at the end of regulation who did and did not cover. The game has been played to its regulation time.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

I think it’s especially shitty in college football where the entire game just completely changes and you end up mandating TD’s and 2 pt conversion tries.

Great if you have the over, though.

Not always and not with the "new" rule/s.

Illinois entered the game a massive 24.5-point underdog, and paid out +1150 on the moneyline for winning straight-up. The over/under was 46, AND EVEN AFTER NINE OVERTIMES, the two teams COULDN'T reach it.

https://www.si.com/college/2021/10/23/i ... gton-catch

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

But that’s fundamentally different for point line bets. A team that is favored to win has failed to cover if it’s tied at the end of regulation.

Forgive me for being confused.
If the Bears were favored TO WIN by 3.5 points and the game is tied at the end of regulation and then the Bears win by 6 in overtime, do you feel they didn't cover?
If the Bears were minus -140 TO WIN and the game is tied at the end of regulation and the Bears go on to win in OT, do you feel they didn't cover the money line?
As I am confident you realize, most game bets are based on the final score. Not the end of regulation score. Thus my confusion regarding what you posted.

I get it. I’m just saying that fundamentally, you can determine at the end of regulation who did and did not cover. The game has been played to its regulation time.

Sure, you could but then it's a different wager. It's an end of regulation vs. a final score wager.
Which brings me to.... Anyone know what the odds were that the Chiefs / Bills game would go to Overtime? Which in hindsight would have been a great bet but my guess is they weren't as high as one would think they should/might be.

[CrimsonNBlue]

I think it’s especially shitty in college football where the entire game just completely changes and you end up mandating TD’s and 2 pt conversion tries.

Great if you have the over, though.

Not always and not with the "new" rule/s.

Illinois entered the game a massive 24.5-point underdog, and paid out +1150 on the moneyline for winning straight-up. The over/under was 46, AND EVEN AFTER NINE OVERTIMES, the two teams COULDN'T reach it.

https://www.si.com/college/2021/10/23/i ... gton-catch

Insane. That's like B1G basketball!

[Cascadia]

Head coaching hires looking very familiar so far

Denver - Nathaniel Hackett
Chicago - Matt Eberflus

[pdub]

I don't think they look that alike.

[jfish26]

I can't qwhite put my finger on it.