Bad Beats: Rutgers at Tulane, Sep. 1, 2012

I owe Tulane football an apology. It seems I underestimated this year's team.

When the opening line for the season opener against Rutgers was listed at 17, I immediately jumped on Twitter.

At work today: "Tulane is 17.5-pt underdogs in their home opener vs Rutgers!" "That's it? Take Rutgers."
— Bryan Cole (@Doctor_Bryan) August 9, 2012

Even when confronted with the one other Tulane football fan on Twitter, I refused to back down.

“@jbr1657: Rutgers didn't even score 17 at home against Tulane in 2010” // Forgot about this. Prediction: Rutgers 14, Tulane -6 #rollwave
— Bryan Cole (@Doctor_Bryan) August 9, 2012

And it seemed Vegas agreed with me, kind of: by the week of the game, the line had moved to 20, though the over/under still suggested Tulane's score would be a natural number.

I even had history on my side. TeamRankings.com has a page of ATS trends going back to 2003. Here are the ten worst schools against the spread since that time:

	ATS Record
Team	W	L	T	Cover %
UNLV	38	62	4	0.38
Tulane	40	61	3	0.396
Washington	42	64	3	0.396
Memphis	39	58	8	0.402
Fla Atlantic	37	52	1	0.416
Miss State	42	57	4	0.424
Notre Dame	47	63	2	0.427
Idaho	44	58	1	0.431
Illinois	44	58	2	0.431
Indiana	42	55	3	0.433

That means that, if I had put $100 against my alma mater in every game they played since I set foot on campus in August 2003, I would be up over $1,500. It works out to an average return of 15.3% per game, calculated as follows:
(games Tulane lost ATS)*.909-(games Tulane won ATS)*1since most bets against the spread are -110, i.e., you have to put down $110 to win $100.

All of which is to suggest that a bet against Tulane would be a smart move. So, naturally, when my friend Dave told me last Thursday, "I think Tulane can cover a 20-point spread against Rutgers," I jumped at the chance for some free money.

And naturally Tulane covered.

Next Friday: More on the historical record against the spread. Does this stat have any predictive value?