What if sports Sugar Bowl Game simulation

by figtide on Dec 31, 2008 9:12 AM CST

http://www.whatifsports.com/fox_cf/Sugar08.asp

What kind of crappy software simulation are these people running? Look at the box score. Does anyone in their right mind expect us to lose if we gain 300+ yards on the ground. Coffee and Ingram both go over 100 yards and we lose on a 51 yard field goal 19-17? Utah runs for well over 200 yards?

While I do think the game will be much closer than Vegas anticipates, I am truly unimpressed with their skills at predictive analysis. I would like for them to explain to me how we run for over 3 bills in their sim and only score 17 points.

FanPosts are just that; posts created by the fans. They are in no way indicative of the opinions of SBN and the authors of Roll Bama Roll.

Tweet Comment 2 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

If this thing is right

I know for a fact that I will be using this service to bet heavily next season. I think it is retarded to think that if Alabama can hang 300+ yards on the ground that Utah would have any time to score a single point. I understand that they Coffee has a long run but come on, 300+ yards takes a good bit of TOP to get. I still think, even with Smith, that Alabama wins by at least 10 if not 17. Utah is just too small, and Bama can match them closely for speed to boot. It would take a Boise State-esque performance of trick plays that all work and the stars to align for them to pull it out.

by Mattco on Dec 31, 2008 10:16 AM CST reply actions

I posted this earlier.

The turnovers seem to make the game there. Just so you know, while they’re 80% correct on the season, they’re under .500 right now on the bowl games. They’ve gotten the following right:

wake/navy
USF/memphis
ND/Hawaii
Cal/Miami
WVU/UNC
Mizzou/Northwestern
LA Tech/NIU

and the following wrong:

TCU/Boise
Troy/SMU
Rutgers/NC State
Fresno/CSU
AZ/BYU
FAU/CMU
Oklahoma State/Oregon
Rice/WMU
Nevada/Maryland

Everyone hates a pink-shirt-wearing communist.

by displacedute on Dec 31, 2008 11:56 AM CST reply actions