Shouldnt this game go over the total of 134.5? It looks too easy. I make this play a great play. This game will end closer to 150. One play for me today. Good luck if you follow!
Shouldnt this game go over the total of 134.5? It looks too easy. I make this play a great play. This game will end closer to 150. One play for me today. Good luck if you follow!
Shouldnt this game go over the total of 134.5? It looks too easy. I make this play a great play. This game will end closer to 150. One play for me today. Good luck if you follow!
I see a close back and forth game with lots of fouling at the end. They are not great foul shooting teams, both USC and Kansas and that makes for more end game garbage additions. Again whatever you guys like, i hope you all get the GREEN.
I see a close back and forth game with lots of fouling at the end. They are not great foul shooting teams, both USC and Kansas and that makes for more end game garbage additions. Again whatever you guys like, i hope you all get the GREEN.
Totals can only go so low, that's why stats alone are somewhat inefficient at predicting lower totals. The shot clock gets in the way and forces action . A simple hypothetical example is Virginia vs Evansville:
Virginia who averages 62.4 possessions per game, and Evansville who averages 64 possessions per game are both well below the NCAA average of 71.2 possessions per game. If you do the math Virginia averages 8.8 possessions lower than the average team, and Evansville averages 7.2 possessions less than the average team. Combined they should have 16 possessions less than the average game (7.2 + 8.8). So you would incorrectly predict 55.2 (71.2-16) possessions. The reason this is incorrect is because the shot clock will force action and create more possessions than your predicted 55.2.
Your predicted total of about 109 or 110 would be a bad number. Similarly, you can only go so fast. When you get on both ends of the spectrum this is where the math can and will break down. You simply can't shoot when 10 seconds have gone off the clock throughout an entire game. Shot selection will be poor, and you may be shooting from close to half court. I commented about this years ago and called this missing time "dead time". It was my way of saying that the clock will dictate the pace in conjunction with the teams normal way of playing, but don't be fooled when 2 fast paced teams play each other either.
Good Luck with your wagers,
Shirley
Totals can only go so low, that's why stats alone are somewhat inefficient at predicting lower totals. The shot clock gets in the way and forces action . A simple hypothetical example is Virginia vs Evansville:
Virginia who averages 62.4 possessions per game, and Evansville who averages 64 possessions per game are both well below the NCAA average of 71.2 possessions per game. If you do the math Virginia averages 8.8 possessions lower than the average team, and Evansville averages 7.2 possessions less than the average team. Combined they should have 16 possessions less than the average game (7.2 + 8.8). So you would incorrectly predict 55.2 (71.2-16) possessions. The reason this is incorrect is because the shot clock will force action and create more possessions than your predicted 55.2.
Your predicted total of about 109 or 110 would be a bad number. Similarly, you can only go so fast. When you get on both ends of the spectrum this is where the math can and will break down. You simply can't shoot when 10 seconds have gone off the clock throughout an entire game. Shot selection will be poor, and you may be shooting from close to half court. I commented about this years ago and called this missing time "dead time". It was my way of saying that the clock will dictate the pace in conjunction with the teams normal way of playing, but don't be fooled when 2 fast paced teams play each other either.
Good Luck with your wagers,
Shirley
Good shit . I know the over barely hit but who thought Kansas would only contribute 51? If Kansas would have had an average game that would've flew over.
Good shit . I know the over barely hit but who thought Kansas would only contribute 51? If Kansas would have had an average game that would've flew over.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.