All Forums | College Football

I never want to believe this but Its hard not to.

...
Participants:
Search model icon
Views: 3758
Posts: 60
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Apr, 2009
Posts: 882
Posted: #26
Quote Originally Posted by tideman:

No reason at all to kick a field goal... you're up 12, a blocked fieldgoal returned for a TD, and onside kick could costs you the game... plus Dabo showed some class by not trying to run it up

 



Yeah "Classy Dabo".............Clemson has ZERO shot of winning an NC, but might still be in conversation had they buried a horrible NC State team in the 2nd half. Winning by 12 is basically a loss for Clemson. I lost zero on the game, but to think winning 26-12 is a win for Clemson is lunacy. Boyd is garbage and Clemson is a joke. Bama or Oregon would beat them by 4 tds easy. 
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2010
Posts: 14521
Posted: #27

Of course they're fixed. They had all you gamblers glued to the computer or the tv...they have you all 'YO-YO-ed."

Alabama covering Va Tech was a fix. Guy running back a punt for a TD and the kicker horse collars him. A call by the ref puts them in FG position and at least threaten a TD with a 30 yrd connection. NO CALL.

YO-YO-ed

 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 16153
Posted: #28
The reason why the game is shady as hell is no way clemson should have went for two and no way nc st shoulda not went for two. The four 4th down conversions are hard to swallow but sh it happens. But down 13 theres no way u dont go for two. And its not like the conceeded a loss cuz they kicked onside kick. So none of that adds up. I dont care what anyone says about bein a baby or wateva. Im a sharp person and i know what i saw. Absolutely nothing down the stretch of that game made sense and no one can justify it. Yes i made a square play but guess what square plays win too. And not to mention the non fg at end. Ive seen and lost numerous times on teams kicking that fg at end
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Jun, 2012
Posts: 2069
Posted: #29
If you're up 19 in the 4th Q then the only way you can lose is likely by conceding 3 TDs.  No way it will happen via 2 TDs and 2 FGs.

Therefore there is no advantage in kicking the EP to extend your lead from 19 to 20.  You might as well try and get it to 21 so that even concession of 3 late TDs still gives you OT.

So, trying for 2 when up 19 at that stage of the game was completely logical.
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Mar, 2006
Posts: 3886
Posted: #30
The reason why the game is shady as hell is no way clemson should have went for two and no way nc st shoulda not went for two. The four 4th down conversions are hard to swallow but sh it happens. But down 13 theres no way u dont go for two. And its not like the conceeded a loss cuz they kicked onside kick. So none of that adds up. I dont care what anyone says about bein a baby or wateva. Im a sharp person and i know what i saw. Absolutely nothing down the stretch of that game made sense and no one can justify it. Yes i made a square play but guess what square plays win too. And not to mention the non fg at end. Ive seen and lost numerous times on teams kicking that fg at end


...agree 100%
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2011
Posts: 551
Posted: #31
Quote Originally Posted by Julespussy:

If you're up 19 in the 4th Q then the only way you can lose is likely by conceding 3 TDs.  No way it will happen via 2 TDs and 2 FGs.

Therefore there is no advantage in kicking the EP to extend your lead from 19 to 20.  You might as well try and get it to 21 so that even concession of 3 late TDs still gives you OT.

So, trying for 2 when up 19 at that stage of the game was completely logical.

This. And whats the significance of going for 2 down 13? You aren't really helping yourself there, still need 2 TDs no matter what. Both instances were logical.

Every one of you needs to get over the butt hurt.
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2009
Posts: 679
Posted: #32
Quote Originally Posted by SqueaksUofA:


This. And whats the significance of going for 2 down 13? You aren't really helping yourself there, still need 2 TDs no matter what. Both instances were logical.

Every one of you needs to get over the butt hurt.


Uhhhhhh lets see if you are down 13 and you go for two you are down to 11 = 8+3 = (TD+2pt)+FG

Down 12 you need 2 TD or more possessions. 

 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2008
Posts: 4418
Posted: #33
Riiiiight.  Everyone was in on the fix. Dabo for not kicking a FG. The NCSt. guy for not trying for the 2-pt conversion.  The whole Clemson defense for giving up three 4th down conversions (never mind, they didn't just give up an 80 yd bomb and save themselves the trouble).  The refs for bad calls. The waterboy for spiking the Gatorade and making the Clemson defense run slower.   Did I miss anyone on this fix involving over 40 people now?
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2010
Posts: 458
Posted: #34
lastnite was a big set up game Clemson . Believe it or not
 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2001
Posts: 997
Posted: #35

It happens every week.  Uninformed square bettors pound the square side of a game, post "Clemson by 50 etc" type remarks, and then lose because they had the wrong side.  This is followed by cries " game is fixed" etc.

This is then followed by the unwillingness to admit they bet the wrong side.  And the cycle starts over again the following week.

What about the NCS interception for a TD that was called back in the first quarter?

 

 

 

Quote Originally Posted by slick15:

Bunch of squares claiming the game was fixed

You dudes will always be broke

 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2001
Posts: 997
Posted: #36

Attention  All Square Bettors ( about 85% of the one who post on Covers.

Keep posting your "game is fixed comments" because that tells me you are "staying square".   And as long as most of you stay square, it makes it much easier for me to put money in my pocket

Check out my blog : 15 - 10 for verification

 

 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Nov, 2011
Posts: 98
Posted: #37
I thought the game was great, I just played the under.
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2003
Posts: 18138
Posted: #38
Quote Originally Posted by jtoler:

Games like this happen all the time but it doesnt stop a million people making threads saying how bad one team will beat another, Ill never understand it. 


beyond comical
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2010
Posts: 14521
Posted: #39

Quote Originally Posted by composite:

Riiiiight.  Everyone was in on the fix. Dabo for not kicking a FG. The NCSt. guy for not trying for the 2-pt conversion.  The whole Clemson defense for giving up three 4th down conversions (never mind, they didn't just give up an 80 yd bomb and save themselves the trouble).  The refs for bad calls. The waterboy for spiking the Gatorade and making the Clemson defense run slower.   Did I miss anyone on this fix involving over 40 people now?

You still have to play a game and do something. The fix is in suppressing points ot maximizing them.

 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2010
Posts: 6275
Posted: #40
I see no fix at all, what I saw was an emotional team playing at home not as talented as Clemson but still fought. You never can be sure with a team like Clemson who's defense is suspect, they didnt give up a ton of points but again it was not against a great offense. This is a midweek game, State had a week to prepare and Clemson was "expected" to win anyway in their minds, so who do you think is the most motivated, yes State of course and again they were at home. People thinking two touchdowns on the road is a gift you gotta be kidding, so the game ends up close to the spread and you hear fix, oh please.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Feb, 2010
Posts: 6275
Posted: #41
Quote Originally Posted by las8:



Uhhhhhh lets see if you are down 13 and you go for two you are down to 11 = 8+3 = (TD+2pt)+FG

Down 12 you need 2 TD or more possessions. 

How many times have you seen a team convert two 2 pt conversions back to back opposed to scoring 2 tds. You act as if its a given they convert the 2 pt conversion, uh uh.
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2004
Posts: 8182
Posted: #42
u guys claiming clemson shouldn't have gone for 2 up by 19 are absolutely nuts
 
Veteran
Participation Meter
Joined: May, 2006
Posts: 1675
Posted: #43
didnt bet this game but as a third party observer state covers in this type of situation more times than not.  the box score indicates that clemson would be very hard pressed to cover 2 td spread
 
MVP
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2003
Posts: 18138
Posted: #44
Quote Originally Posted by ceveche88:

didnt bet this game but as a third party observer state covers in this type of situation more times than not.  the box score indicates that clemson would be very hard pressed to cover 2 td spread

 
Rookie
Participation Meter
Joined: Aug, 2013
Posts: 510
Posted: #45

Quote Originally Posted by slick15:

Bunch of squares claiming the game was fixed

You dudes will always be broke

Said by the clown who bet UCONN.........

 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2002
Posts: 12927
Posted: #46
If you do think these games are fixed, then why are you betting Clemson in this spot?  


 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2013
Posts: 18
Posted: #47
Thorpe. Lets get this straight. #1 I did not bet Clemson I took them 2nd half and pushed. #2 I don't want to believe a game is fixed but things seemed strange. I've been betting for years I just am ranting because that last run play which should have been a FG 98% of the time. It was just very odd that 80% was on Clemson line went down and NC covers by .5 so bookies got paid millions. I pay attention to line movement and public bettors. If you truly believe they didn't kick that FG cause of the risk of a block which probably happens 5% of the time or less your NuTs
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2002
Posts: 12927
Posted: #48
Maybe 3 or 4 coaches would kick a FG in that spot.
 
Prospect
Participation Meter
Joined: Sep, 2008
Posts: 47
Posted: #49
This  guy Slick15 is a real moron...huh? Lol....this geek ACTUALLY believes Vegas has nothing to do at all with these outcomes. The jerk off doesn't even remember that college players in hoops have been busted in the past for fixing games.Look up Arizona St scandal. He also probably believes in Santa Claus, how naïve! 
 
 
Captain
Participation Meter
Joined: Oct, 2012
Posts: 8989
Posted: #50
Games' over, Thursdays' gone, Wager gone... get over it. Just clear your mind and get some winners on a new day baby!
It's all probabilities
All Forums | College Football
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Sports Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gaming
Sports Betting
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
618,670
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 25 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
Site Map Help Privacy Terms of Service youtube logo facebook logo twitter logo instagram logo linkedin logo google news logo
Covers is verified safe by: Evalon Logo GPWA Logo GDPR Logo GeoTrust Logo Evalon Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2024 CS Media Limited All Rights Reserved.

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.