To Help Mickey Grasp the Rule Change Effects

[redietz]

For those who thought, as the NCAA rules committee tried to sell, that the rule changes would result in just six or seven fewer plays per game. Get real, folks.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/oth...b6c26ae2&ei=12

https://awfulannouncing.com/college-...mmercials.html



The effects will be, from a conditioning standpoint, significant. Conditioning becomes less of a factor. Depth of roster becomes less of a factor because conditioning won't come as much into play.

And, of course, the rules committee didn't mention the "unintended consequences." Namely, from a ratio perspective, more commercials per play.

[Rob.Singer]

How do the "rules" handle "the pro" being unable to pick a winner with Deion Sanders now being the head coach at Colorado and his son being a star QB?

[redietz]

How do the "rules" handle "the pro" being unable to pick a winner with Deion Sanders now being the head coach at Colorado and his son being a star QB?

Are you asking how I did Saturday?

You know if I didn't tell you, it must have been pretty damned good. I love tempting you to ask.

I'm actually disappointed that Colorado beat TCU. TCU figured to be the most overrated illusion on the planet, as I believe I mentioned, but it was not my kind of spot.

[Rob.Singer]

How do the "rules" handle "the pro" being unable to pick a winner with Deion Sanders now being the head coach at Colorado and his son being a star QB?

Are you asking how I did Saturday?

You know if I didn't tell you, it must have been pretty damned good. I love tempting you to ask.

I'm actually disappointed that Colorado beat TCU. TCU figured to be the most overrated illusion on the planet, as I believe I mentioned, but it was not my kind of spot.

What I'm pointing out is how a sports-betting poop like myself would have bet (and in your case, sold) the TCU game if I were interested and aware in the sports betting universe. It was a no-brainer. This stuff is basically easy, and college football is simple to beat if I needed the money. Ask me next week who to bet on and you'll end up on the same easy street I'm on.

[redietz]

How do the "rules" handle "the pro" being unable to pick a winner with Deion Sanders now being the head coach at Colorado and his son being a star QB?

Are you asking how I did Saturday?

You know if I didn't tell you, it must have been pretty damned good. I love tempting you to ask.

I'm actually disappointed that Colorado beat TCU. TCU figured to be the most overrated illusion on the planet, as I believe I mentioned, but it was not my kind of spot.

What I'm pointing out is how a sports-betting poop like myself would have bet (and in your case, sold) the TCU game if I were interested and aware in the sports betting universe. It was a no-brainer. This stuff is basically easy, and college football is simple to beat if I needed the money. Ask me next week who to bet on and you'll end up on the same easy street I'm on.

Yessirree, Rob. Easy to beat if you needed the money. Then thank the Lord you're keeping the wisdom under wraps. It keeps bookmakers solvent and grinding handicappers such as myself out of the glare of your limelight.

And by the way, I haven't sold anything in decades, and I've never sold "a game." You must have me confused with another genius handicapper from Who's Who in Sports Gambling (Hall Publishing: 1984).

[MisterV]

Just ask Rob, he'll give you 1.5M sure picks.

[accountinquestion]

The problem is redietz can't see the forest for the trees. He can put the puzzle together but cant afford a frame for it. Just get another puzzle next time.

The fact that he is so obsessed with these smalltime small EV tournaments tells you most of what you need to know.

Rob - If you want some.great angles that make real money without reading through an onslaught of sports gobbley gook that may not even relevant dm me.

[mickeycrimm]

For those who thought, as the NCAA rules committee tried to sell, that the rule changes would result in just six or seven fewer plays per game. Get real, folks.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/oth...b6c26ae2&ei=12

https://awfulannouncing.com/college-...mmercials.html



The effects will be, from a conditioning standpoint, significant. Conditioning becomes less of a factor. Depth of roster becomes less of a factor because conditioning won't come as much into play.

And, of course, the rules committee didn't mention the "unintended consequences." Namely, from a ratio perspective, more commercials per play.

There's no mention here of how many plays have actually been shaved off per game. That's what I'm interested in. Is it 8 plays per game like the committee predicted or 16 or more plays per game like you predicted?

Also, you created a new thread for no good reason. You should have just put it in the sportsbetting thread.

[mickeycrimm]

It's my understanding that the committee made the rule change not to shorten the length of the game but to cut down on injuries.

[redietz]

It's my understanding that the committee made the rule change not to shorten the length of the game but to cut down on injuries.

Mickey, you cannot be this naive. Seriously, man. Do you not claim to be a professional gambler?

As they say on ESPN, "C'mon, man!"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl...03b6919a4&ei=9


Stop and think about "cutting down on injuries." There are half a dozen ways to "cut down on injuries" that would have more effect and have nothing to do with the clock.

For example, why allow scheduling of games where one team is presumed 30 points better than another? That's like putting Mike Tyson in the ring with me (I did box, by the way, a little). If you'll notice, injury rates have correlated with the increased scheduling of these David/Goliath games. Now that's not necessarily cause-and-effect (as fans of actual science will attest), but it suggests a couple of things. Two very different things, actually.

But why share the intellectual wealth? I'll save it for Book Club. Mickey, you are, of course, invited.

[accountinquestion]

It's my understanding that the committee made the rule change not to shorten the length of the game but to cut down on injuries.

Mickey, you cannot be this naive. Seriously, man. Do you not claim to be a professional gambler?

As they say on ESPN, "C'mon, man!"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl...03b6919a4&ei=9


Stop and think about "cutting down on injuries." There are half a dozen ways to "cut down on injuries" that would have more effect and have nothing to do with the clock.

For example, why allow scheduling of games where one team is presumed 30 points better than another? That's like putting Mike Tyson in the ring with me (I did box, by the way, a little). If you'll notice, injury rates have correlated with the increased scheduling of these David/Goliath games. Now that's not necessarily cause-and-effect (as fans of actual science will attest), but it suggests a couple of things. Two very different things, actually.

But why share the intellectual wealth? I'll save it for Book Club. Mickey, you are, of course, invited.

You should tell your intellectual book club about ivertmectin for long covid. Lolololol.

[mickeycrimm]

It's my understanding that the committee made the rule change not to shorten the length of the game but to cut down on injuries.

Mickey, you cannot be this naive. Seriously, man. Do you not claim to be a professional gambler?

As they say on ESPN, "C'mon, man!"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl...03b6919a4&ei=9


Stop and think about "cutting down on injuries." There are half a dozen ways to "cut down on injuries" that would have more effect and have nothing to do with the clock.

For example, why allow scheduling of games where one team is presumed 30 points better than another? That's like putting Mike Tyson in the ring with me (I did box, by the way, a little). If you'll notice, injury rates have correlated with the increased scheduling of these David/Goliath games. Now that's not necessarily cause-and-effect (as fans of actual science will attest), but it suggests a couple of things. Two very different things, actually.

But why share the intellectual wealth? I'll save it for Book Club. Mickey, you are, of course, invited.

Ditz, your reading comprehension cannot be that bad, can it? And you're supposed to be a journalism major too. I've said repeatedly that I'm not a "professional gambler." That term in an oxymoron. I'm an advantage player. Good god almighty! I would've thought a "professional sports bettor" like you claim to be would know that. Seriously!

It appears you've accepted my terms for an appearance in Johnson Shitty. Druff, let me know when you have the 75K from redietz safely in escrow so I can schedule my appearance.