SB Betting Lines Early Years

[mwald]

Public perception usually, not always, plays a big part in NFL betting lines. The Dolphins had a a weak schedule and didn't really blow teams off the field. The Redskins looked more impressive in the playoffs than the Dolphins did - on the scoreboard. Whether they were or weren't more impressive doesn't matter. It's how the betting public views things.

[BD Sullivan]

Public perception usually, not always, plays a big part in NFL betting lines. The Dolphins had a a weak schedule and didn't really blow teams off the field. The Redskins looked more impressive in the playoffs than the Dolphins did - on the scoreboard. Whether they were or weren't more impressive doesn't matter. It's how the betting public views things.

The only two teams that the 1972 Dolphins played that had winning records were the Chiefs and Giants--and both of them had 8-6 records. Then, in the playoffs, they were heavy favorites at home against Cleveland and came pretty damn close to losing--the Browns, trailing 20-14, had the ball at the Dolphin 35 with 1:15 to play. One week later, they sputtered early against the Steelers until Seiple's fake punt turned the game around.

Meanwhile, the Redskins allowed three points in each playoff game, and their three losses were a one-point defeat at New England, and losses in the last two meaningless games against the Cowboys and Bills.

Yet, the perpetually aggrieved Dolphins still wonder how they weren't favored.

[MatthewToy]

I saw Larry King on an episode of Lost Treasures saying he asked Jimmy "The Greek" why the Redskins were favored over Miami and Jimmy said something to the effect of "they're still AFL".

[mwald]

I saw Larry King on an episode of Lost Treasures saying he asked Jimmy "The Greek" why the Redskins were favored over Miami and Jimmy said something to the effect of "they're still AFL".

Flippant as the remark seems, The Greek had a point. I have an uncle who to this day hates original AFL teams and hates Howard Cosell for saying (no clue if he actually said this) how superior the AFL was to the NFL.

I believe that was a factor, sure. Different times.

[SixtiesFan]

Since we're on topic, interesting anecdote about Super Bowl XIV:

Bob Martin, the legendary Las Vegas linemaker who was also primarily responsible for setting the 17 point line in SB III, made the Steelers a ten-point favorite over the Rams in Super Bowl XIV. Rams' coach Ray Malavasi was steamed about it, telling the press that the people responsible didn't know what they were talking about.

Martin came back and said, "The public sets it. If I made the line something else, it'd be back to 10 points by tomorrow." Then he added with a wink, "Why don't you ask Malavasi how the Rams are going to score?"

The line closed at 11 points. The Steelers won by 12. Martin, who never heard from Malavasi again, said, "People in gambling know a lot more about football than people in football know about gambling."

Though the Steelers didn't cover until late in the game--for most of the contest, they weren't certain of even winning, much less covering.

Very true. But then again, that's not unusual.

Going into Super Bowl XIV, the smart money thought the Steelers would win by a blowout, maybe by four touchdowns.

[BD Sullivan]

I saw Larry King on an episode of Lost Treasures saying he asked Jimmy "The Greek" why the Redskins were favored over Miami and Jimmy said something to the effect of "they're still AFL".

Flippant as the remark seems, The Greek had a point. I have an uncle who to this day hates original AFL teams and hates Howard Cosell for saying (no clue if he actually said this) how superior the AFL was to the NFL.

I believe that was a factor, sure. Different times.

Steve Sabol eventually admitted that his NFL bias colored the SB III highlight film, making it seem as though Baltimore was much closer to winning than actual reality suggested.

[MatthewToy]

Since we're on topic, interesting anecdote about Super Bowl XIV:

Bob Martin, the legendary Las Vegas linemaker who was also primarily responsible for setting the 17 point line in SB III, made the Steelers a ten-point favorite over the Rams in Super Bowl XIV. Rams' coach Ray Malavasi was steamed about it, telling the press that the people responsible didn't know what they were talking about.

Martin came back and said, "The public sets it. If I made the line something else, it'd be back to 10 points by tomorrow." Then he added with a wink, "Why don't you ask Malavasi how the Rams are going to score?"

The line closed at 11 points. The Steelers won by 12. Martin, who never heard from Malavasi again, said, "People in gambling know a lot more about football than people in football know about gambling."

Though the Steelers didn't cover until late in the game--for most of the contest, they weren't certain of even winning, much less covering.

Very true. But then again, that's not unusual.

Going into Super Bowl XIV, the smart money thought the Steelers would win by a blowout, maybe by four touchdowns.

The Steelers had never beaten the Rams to that point. Including 3 other games in the 70s. In the highlight film you hear Myron Cope saying Art Rooney didn't have a good feeling about that game. Even though the Rams were only 9-7 that season I'm surprised the line was still that high.

[BD Sullivan]

Even though the Rams were only 9-7 that season I'm surprised the line was still that high.

The Rams had been up and down all season (hence the record) and they needed a 50-yard TD pass with two minutes left to beat Dallas by two in the playoff game. Then, they faced a Tampa Bay team that had nearly choked away their big division lead before upsetting the Eagles in the first round. In the LA-TB championship game, the Rams could manage just three field goals, and had the benefit of an already weak Bucs offense being forced to use Mike Rae at QB after Doug Williams was knocked out in the third quarter. Tampa Bay had actually scored a touchdown with 2:37 left, but it got called back on an illegal procedure call. Against the Steelers of that era, who were going for their fourth Super Bowl in six years, the line seems about right.

[ChaseStuart]

The 1969 Vikings were awesome. They led the NFL in points scored and led the NFL in points allowed. They outscored teams by an average of 17.6 points per game in the regular season, which rises to 19.5 once you exclude the meaningless regular season finale that Minnesota didn't try to win. To this day, they are only of just 5 teams to outscored opponents by 250+ points through 13 games: MIN 1969 (+253), BAL 1968 (+254), GB 1962 (+264), NE 2007 (+282), CHI 1942 (+292 in 11 games).

So the line there made a lot of sense. Now KC was a great team, but that wasn't quite understood at the time. They dominated the AFL, but so did the Raiders in '67 and they lost by 19 in the Super Bowl to a worse NFL team.

As for 1972, that one is a little harder to justify, but Miami did get blown out in the prior year's game. Sure, Miami's schedule was easy, but so was Washington's. In week 3, Washington lost to New England, who Miami beat by 68 points in two games. Washington went 4-1 against teams with winning records during the regular season (with one of those wins coming with Jurgensen), Miami went 2-0. Miami outscored teams by 15 points per game, Washington 8. Now, in the playoffs, Washington looked better, but it does seem clear that Miami was the better team.

[MatthewToy]

Even though the Rams were only 9-7 that season I'm surprised the line was still that high.

The Rams had been up and down all season (hence the record) and they needed a 50-yard TD pass with two minutes left to beat Dallas by two in the playoff game. Then, they faced a Tampa Bay team that had nearly choked away their big division lead before upsetting the Eagles in the first round. In the LA-TB championship game, the Rams could manage just three field goals, and had the benefit of an already weak Bucs offense being forced to use Mike Rae at QB after Doug Williams was knocked out in the third quarter. Tampa Bay had actually scored a touchdown with 2:37 left, but it got called back on an illegal procedure call. Against the Steelers of that era, who were going for their fourth Super Bowl in six years, the line seems about right.

My point was that the Rams seemed to have the Steelers number at that time. And that wasn't taken into consideration when the line was made.