More Betting Odds: Where Do the "Experts" Think the Bengals Will Finish in the AFC North?

by Jason Garrison on Jul 21, 2010 11:14 PM EDT

First of all, I am not a gambling addict. It may seem like I am because I'm always writing about betting odds but I've only been to a casino about three dozen times in the past two months. I don't think that qualifies me at all as being a gambling addict. You do? Wanna bet?

Anyway, Mike Wilkening, of profootballweekly.com, mentions that a few sports betting sites think that Baltimore has the best shot to win the AFC North. Certainly, the Bengals have to have to second best odds to win the division, right? Oh look, there's another page to this post.....

That's a big fat negative. Are you really surprised? I'm not. The Bengals could win the Super Bowl in 2010, go overseas and win the war by themselves, solve the global warming problem, save a bunch of whales, find a way to make bacon good for you, save the rain forests and cook you dinner and the "experts" still wouldn't show the Bengals love. What do have to do here in the Queen City to get some respect?

Mr. Wilkening isn't so sure that the experts are really experts though.

The Bengals swept the AFC North last season, and though that is unlikely to happen again, there is no reason the Bengals can't hold serve at home vs. Baltimore and Pittsburgh and aim to win both games against Cleveland. A 4-2 division mark would be an accomplishment and perhaps the decisive factor in what figures to be a contentious battle for the North title. Note that half of the NFL's eight division winners in 2009 had precisely 4-2 records vs. divisional opponents.

Well 4-2 doesn't sound too tough. I feel like the Bengals could easily take one of the two from the Steelers and one of two from the Ravens too. If they can do that, the only way for them to not make the playoffs as a division winner would be to lose all of their other games or for Baltimore to win every other game than the one they lose against the Bengals and if the second scenario would happen to play out (it won't) then the Bengals would likely grab a wild card spot.

We're getting way ahead of ourselves here. We're not even to training camp yet and I'm already considering play off scenarios. Crazy right? Maybe not.......

Cincinnati has improved its passing game, perhaps significantly if WR Antonio Bryant plays like he did two seasons ago and rookie TE Jermaine Gresham is ready to be a 40- to 50-catch target right off the bat. The defense, the team's strength in 2009, has improved its depth and could be poised for another stellar season under the leadership of coordinator Mike Zimmer.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Wait, yes I could have.

Who Dey.

Tweet Comment 7 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Odds...

Odds are made in part to normalize betting patterns. If the odds-makers create a situation where Pittsburgh is a long-shot to win, then a ton of people will bet on PIT, and that bet will become unbalanced. Sports books generally like it when the betting is balanced, so they are protected against losses, and are guaranteed the Vig. So, ultimately, name recognition, public perception, fan base size, and historical performance are all at play when setting odds, which is why the Bengals will always be under-rated by the odds makers, and PIT will always be over-rated.

by wordtrey on Jul 22, 2010 12:11 AM EDT reply actions

No, not quite

These guys are good. They’re ok making a team a long-shot if it’s a long shot. They LOVE making a team perceived to be great actually an underdog. Everyone bets on them, and the house cleans up when they’re right.

by Pardon_My_French on Jul 22, 2010 12:32 AM EDT up reply actions

No one is that good

There is so much uncertainty involved when it comes to the top teams that it would be a bad idea to make one team a long shot for the sake of people betting heavy on it. If that team pans out they lost on a huge risk. They are trying to balance the odds, and the odds change as a result of bets as well. In the begining of the season, bets are placed on perception. And no matter how you try and justify it, if you are a fan of the team you will pay more attention to your team and give them more credit than they are due. Teams with enormous fan bases will get plenty of bets no matter the odds. Teams with small fan bases and poor perception, due to history and current “expert” prognostications will get less bets. If they know the bets are coming for Pittsburgh, they try they try and swing the odds to their advantage so they don’t go broke should a miracle happen and Pittsburgh wins.

It’s set so they make money no matter what happens, and they keep it that way. They aren’t the ones gambling.

It turns out I overestimated my apathy, but not enough to matter.

by einman77 on Jul 22, 2010 12:49 AM EDT up reply actions

“find a way to make bacon good for you”
hahaha if only

by bcbengalfan on Jul 22, 2010 9:16 AM EDT reply actions

Bacon isn't good for you? Damn! Whats next eggs, cheese and red meat?

"If we always agree, one of us is not necessary"

by JUNGLEJOHN on Jul 22, 2010 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions

Sure gambling odds aren’t exactly the same thing as real odds — betting patterns do play a factor. But the odds as listed are flat wrong.

Baltimore is a good team. But their secondary is a joke without Reed. He’s their Polamalu, the glue that turns a very poor secondary into one that’s at least decent. If he starts out on PUP (or even misses the entire season) they are going to be the Vikings, good offense and front seven but a secondary that anybody with two good receivers and a decent QB can shred like tissue paper. Without Reed the new Browns have a better chance of winning the division than the old Browns.

Pittsburgh without Ben is a huge question mark, because the OL is Swiss cheese. And without Colon it’s even worse. With Leftwich back there, they’ll be 0-4 or 0-6 by the time Ben returns. With Dixon back there they’ll probably be 3-3 or better. With Leftwich back there, the Browns have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl than the Steelers do of winning the division.

And obviously the Browns have no shot of actually winning the division. Well, OK, they have a theoretical chance, but unless Jake the Snake returns like a phoenix from the ashes of his awfulness the last year, and all three other teams lose at least 7 starters to IR by week 6, realistically they have no shot.

by FriarBob on Jul 22, 2010 11:45 AM EDT reply actions

The way I see it...

The odds makers have been wrong before and they’ll be wrong again. No surprise there now it there?
The Bengals, while not loved around the league do happen to have one of, if not the best defenses in the league and the offense is no bunch of slackers either. The only way I see Baltimore of winning it is if Carson goes down again and come to think of it..that’ll be the ONLY way the squeelers will make it, but we don’t have to worry about that. Their fans have already painted Ced as being suspended the entire season while Rottenbooger becomes the savior of the AFC North..
Well, now that makes it perfectly crystal clear doesn’t it? Kind of clear as gypsum wall board, but don’t tell squeeler fans I said that. They would blame Chad for it or something.

If life is short what else have you been doing that has actually taken any longer?

by Yeah-Yeah on Jul 23, 2010 4:54 PM EDT reply actions