Welcome to Cover 5.
Every week, in addition to Upset Watch's primary picks column, Cover 5 looks at five interesting facets of the NFL that aren't necessarily related only to picking games. Whether it be trades, head coaching changes, or just the soap opera that the NFL has become, it's always fun to take a step back and think about the bigger picture.
Thanks for the overwhelming positive feedback on last week's column. I got exactly the reaction I hoped for, and if it suits you, I'll continue writing this every week of the offseason, however there will be one exception: I intend to spend next week taking a well-earned break after not having a break since August to recharge my batteries!
This week's column deliberately pokes around at the bottom of the NFL. All you're going to hear about for the next 6 days is how great the Rams and Bengals are, and while I'm going to do that too, I'm also going to stick the boot in at the bottom end, where every day brings fresh idiocy.
This week's coverage schemes:
- Which is the NFL's most broken franchise?
- Are the Giants worse than the Jets?
- Why you should root for the Bengals in the Super Bowl
- Why you should root for the Rams in the Super Bowl
- The Pro Bowl: The case to stop playing it.
The Cover 5 Mailbag:
no-stugot asks: "Thanks for a great column each week. What would your strategy be for hedging went a few legs of your parlays hit early? More than few times after following your advice might have hit the first two legs on early 1 PM games or the Saturday games during the playoffs but had a few parlays go down on an afternoon game or Sunday game? I was able to hedge in game on the Chiefs during the Bills game but it was more of a last minute scramble rather than having a thought out plan ahead of time. What are your thoughts/strategies for hedging?"
Upset Watch: Thanks for the compliments, and a great question! One of the things I'm looking at for next season is a method of communicating properly how to ensure you're maximizing your chances of success.
For those who don't know, 'hedging' is where you cover off certain parts of your bet because you change your mind or lose your nerve. The idea is that - for example - if you'd picked a team to win, you could theoretically make the opposite play and cover both outcomes (although in the NFL a tie is a bigger consideration than it once was).
Example: You back the Rams at odds of -200 (or 1/2, or 1.50, depending on how you format your odds) and put a stake of $10. That means you'll win $15 if they win.
In theory, if you can't cancel the bet, you can hedge/cover it by making a second bet of $5.56 on the Bengals at odds of +170 (or 17/10 or 2.70) that would return $15.01. No matter which team wins, you're cancelling the other bet out almost entirely.
My theory on hedging is this: It gets a LOT harder at higher levels. Particularly on underdogs. In the reverse of those situations, where you're on a big parlay, you have an issue where the amount you can win is so big, that you almost certainly can't get the amounts on to cover against a favorite victory at low odds. You would often have to stake thousands of dollars to cover those wins.
That's why I use the Round Robin system. In Europe, it's known as a 'multiple', and it effectively means that if you bet on 4 teams to win, you can place it on all 4, or you can place the combinations of 2, 3 and 4 winners that are possible, meaning that when you win 2 games, you've already guaranteed that one of your combinations has won, and then from there, every extra win will generate more winning combinations.
Ultimately, although the initial stake for that type of combination is slightly higher, the rewards are far more consistent, as highlighted in the full Upset Watch column each week.
You can learn more about Round Robins here!
peteyrosey2020 asks: "My question today centers around the fast growth of sports books, NFL’s willingness to have in stadium gambling, NCAA’s “NIL” agreements, and other “outside influences” that I may have missed or have yet to appear. How do you think the NFL will look like in 15 to 25 years or so with all of these “money impacts”? These factors represent the greatest changes and challenges to face the NFL and sports in general in the last multiple decades. I’m curious your take on how the viewing fans, writers like yourself, media coverage, and all other aspects of the industry you think important will be impacted and significantly changed for the NFL many have known for years."
Upset Watch: Thanks for the question and the compliments I ran out of room for!
First of all, it's worth considering my background. I grew up in Europe, where sports betting was always legal, and working for the NFL during their initial years understanding that Sports betting would happen in the early 2010's. I've subsequently been working in the US on Pickwatch and attending sportsbook-led industry events, and I have seen first hand the big learning curve for a sport that had largely not seen any legal betting for 30 years.
That learning curve isn't just restricted to fans and the NFL though, it's also the sportsbooks, who in many cases have only just begun to figure out how to do this after 3 years!
Second, I would point out that even in Europe, where the online sports betting market has matured over decades, the changes in technology over the last 10-12 years (the prevalence of smartphones in particular) have changed the way people bet, meaning that even in other places in the world, there has been a big shift in how people interact with it and how prevalent it is.
One other thing I would point out is that the US has an interesting dynamic that we don't see elsewhere, and that is state-by-state regulation. Those differences in how strict each state is on licensing and promotion will mean slower growth of the sector for some states, while others may see the following changes sooner.
Here are 3 things I think you'll see over the next few decades:
- In-play/live betting will become the dominant method of gaming that sportsbooks push.
In Europe, this is how sportsbooks make money. Everyone thinks they know what will happen next, but data that people can rely on to confirm or deny their instincts is scarce. This means that bookmakers generally make a high percentage of their profits on in-play markets.
At the moment, the reverse trend is true in America. Because bookmakers are still figuring things out, they're reluctant to push in-play, because they're scared of getting it wrong, but once they figure out their odds, and become more confident in their data, they'll offer more live odds during games, and begin to pay for these to be pushed during sports events, with the NFL a prime target.
We're already planning for live gaming on Pickwatch, only we're going to be working with you to make sure you can understand the odds and get expert picks whilst games are live, but I think it will be some years before this becomes truly huge for the general public. - The NFL will have full time officials by 2030
If they don't, they're fools. I could name 5 calls just from the playoffs that rightly drive fans crazy, and that is now, when money staked on games is not as high as it will be.
Let me give you an example I mentioned at the time, that ironically favored Las Vegas. Here's the play, with just 1:44 left and no timeouts left, the Raiders are driving to tie the game. Carr is glanced by a defender and the refs add 15 yards onto a 15 yard catch and run. The result? The Raiders go from their own 35 to the Bengals 35.
Now if the Raiders tie the game and win it, what are we talking about? Exactly, a blown call that changes a game. There are dozens of them every season in the NFL, many of them even more contentious than that. Most games have at least 2 or 3 that meaningfully change the game.
The NFL can't put part-time officials in charge of something that is about to become a lot more important. The onus will now be on them to get more right and less wrong, and particularly on crucial calls like that, to not be calling ticky-tacky, subjective fouls that dramatically change the game, as they did in the Raiders' favor back on Thanksgiving, deciding their game against Dallas. - Eventually, the NFL will have to deal with a backlash against over-saturation.
Right now, sports betting is still in it's infancy, yet we're already starting to see it mentioned a lot more during broadcasts, and also on shows about the NFL. This is par for the course, as anyone who remembers the 2014-15 Daily Fantasy push by Draftkings and Fanduel will agree.
But what came next? Calls from senators to stop the constant drip of TV ads. It really did feel like every advert was for betting, and I can confirm that in other parts of the world, it is not uncommon for a half-time of a soccer match to simply be 3-4 betting adverts, with the broadcast itself also sponsored by a bookmaker who gets a 10 second advert at the beginning and end of each commercial break.
This has led to calls for restrictions, particularly as minors watch sporting events, and the influence of constant betting adverts is certainly detrimental to a healthy interest.
My instinct is that if the US does enact (as it should, but probably won't) a federal level blanket law that is followed across the country, we will begin to see restrictions baked into it on how many references can be made during broadcasts, how overtly the league can encourage gambling, and what times of day the league and it's TV partners can run commercials.
Want a question answered by Upset Watch? Simply email upsetwatch@pickwatch.com and I'll pick out the best few each week!