 |
 Basketball Betting |
 |
||||
|
 |
||||
|
||||
Edwards, Keselowski feud showing no signs of letting upAutoracing Betting Lines07/19/2010 - Madison, IL (Sportsbook Betting Lines) - "Boom boom boom, now. Boom boom boom, now. Boom boom pow." I generally don't like using song lyrics to describe a frantic episode in a NASCAR race or any other motorsports event, but after last Saturday's night's final-lap clash between on-going rivals Carl Edwards and Brad Keselowski in the 250-mile Nationwide Series race at Gateway International Raceway, I couldn't help but think of the Black Eyed Peas' 2009 hit single, "Boom Boom Pow." While they were beating each other up during the last lap around the 1.25- mile oval, you just had to wonder if the latest battle between Edwards and Keselowski would end up in a "checkers or wreckers." Indeed, it did. Like it has in the past. Keselowski bumped Edwards for the lead in turn one, but Edwards got payback coming out of turn four, where he nudged Keselowski from behind and sent him hard into the wall along the frontstretch, triggering a multi-car crash. "He was holding me tight and getting me a little loose, which was cool," Keselowski said. "I was rubbing on him a little bit...I figured out a way to beat him. He wasn't happy with me, so he wrecked me. Wrecking down the straightaway is never cool, whether it's at 200 m.p.h. or 120. I'm sorry that's the way it had to end." As Edwards took the checkered flag for a record third time in a Nationwide race at Gateway, which is located roughly 125 miles east of his hometown of Columbia, MO, Keselowski's battered car slid across the finish line in 14th- place before Shelby Howard plowed into him, causing him to spin around again. Keselowski climbed out of his car a bit woozy, but was not injured. "Brad and I have a history, but that history had nothing to do with what happened [Saturday]," Edwards said. "I feel like we respect one another a lot. On that last lap, I would have won the race if he hadn't bumped me in turn one. He would have finished second. The way it went, he bumped me, and he finished wherever he finished, and I still won the race. "That was the only way I could see the race turning out fair, and that was my job to win that race and to make sure I don't get walked on or get something taken away from me that's mine." Was Edwards' win legitimate? That likely will be a subject of debate for quite some time. Edwards claimed his incident with Keselowski was not intentional, but let's face it, with the history between these two drivers, it looked like a deliberate move on Edwards' part. "I didn't mean any harm to him at all," Edwards said. "The deal is eventually he'll learn you can't run into my car over and over and put me in bad situations. In every situation, there is an aggressor, and there is someone who reacts. I was not the aggressor in this situation." The drivers have had previous on-track altercations, most notably in March when Edwards intentionally bumped Keselowski from behind and sent him flying upside down into the frontstretch wall during the closing laps of the Sprint Cup Series race at Atlanta. Edwards was more than 150 laps behind at the time of the crash, due to a previous encounter with Keselowski in that race. NASCAR immediately parked Edwards for aggressive driving, and days later, placed him on probation for three races. The feud between the two began in April 2009 when Keselowski hit Edwards from behind on the final lap at Talladega. While Keselowski drove on to his first Sprint Cup victory, Edwards' car spun and then sailed into the safety fence along the frontstretch. The rivalry between Edwards and Keselowski hit a new boiling point at Gateway, but how far will it go before someone gets seriously hurt, or worse, fatally injured? Prior to the start of the season, NASCAR told its drivers, "boys, have at it," but Edwards and Keselowski have been at it too long, and it's beginning to upset some people in the sport, particularly Keselowski's father, Bob, who is a former NASCAR driver and current team owner. "[Edwards] ain't going to kill my boy," Bob Keselowski said during a post-race interview on ESPN. " He just overreacted so bad. If he wanted to bump Brad, that's one thing, but don't drive him through the inside guard rail. Don't put him through the grandstands at Atlanta. That's asinine." During an interview on SPEED's Wind Tunnel television show on Sunday, Sprint Cup points leader and part-time Nationwide competitor Kevin Harvick told host Dave Despain that he would have responded differently than Keselowski if he had he been the one who was involved in the incident with Edwards. "I probably wouldn't have reacted as kindly as Brad did; I probably would have walked down there and punched him in the mouth," Harvick said. Harvick, who won the Camping World Truck Series race at Gateway earlier in the day, finished 16th in the Nationwide event. Harvick blew a right-front tire and made contact with the wall in the late-stages. With Keselowski currently holding a 168-point lead over Edwards in the Nationwide standings, don't be surprised if we see some more "Boom Boom Pow" between these two during the remainder of the season to come.
<< Report: Johnson, Titans come to contract agreement
Culver City, CA (Sportsbook Betting Lines) - The NFL Network is reporting that running back Chris Johnson and the Tennessee Titans have agreed to a deal that will pay him slightly more than $2 million during the 2010 season. According to T
<< Pitt suspends DE Sheard indefinitely
<< This Week in Golf - July 19th through July 25th
<< Heat bring back F James Jones
<< Florida, NCAA looking into possible violations
Dushevina moves on in Slovenia >>
Portoroz, Slovenia (Sportsbook Betting Lines) - Sixth-seeded Russian Vera Dushevina was a first-round winner Monday at the Slovenia Open. Dushevina dropped the first set but rallied for a 2-6, 6-3, 6-3 victory over fellow countrywoman Anna Lapushch
Jazz sign Bell >>
Bulls officially sign Brewer >>
Athletics put OF Sweeney on DL >>
UConn AD Hathaway to serve as Division I men's basketball chair >>
How did changes to college football betting rules affect bettors?The 2007 college football rules changes that were implemented to shorten games are now history. The NCAA rules committee did what they set out to do; games were cut by an average of 14 minutes per game last season. There were also, on average, 14 fewer plays per game. We’ll get into how that did (or didn’t) affect games in regards to the pointspread a bit later. While the NCAA rules committee may have had the betterment of the game in mind, they'll now “turn back the clock” for next season. Two key rules have now been overturned by the NCAA committee for the 2007 season, something definitely for the better. For those of you who may not remember what those rules actually were, let us refresh your memory. 1) The first one was actually starting the clock on a kickoff as soon as the kicker touched the ball rather than waiting until the returner touched it. The problem here was near the end of the half (or game), if the team leading was kicking off, they could milk the clock by intentionally running offsides and then re-kicking. They could run 10-15 seconds off the clock each play while taking just five-yard penalties each time. They could run the clock down and simply cause the half (or game) to end on a kickoff, keeping the opposing offense off the field. In 2007, the clock will now start when the returner touches the ball as it had before last season. 2) The second rule dealt with starting the clock after a change of online football betting possession rather than waiting until the ball was snapped. This took a lot of time off the clock throughout the game as teams changed possession, however it caused the most problems late in games (or halves). Rather than huddling up and calling a play, the offensive team would have to rush onto the field as the clock started. This was a definite disadvantage to a team that was trying to come from behind late in the game. This year the clock will start on a change of possession, after the ball is snapped. How did those rules affect the college game last year and will it make a difference this year when it comes to the pointspread? We commonly heard two theories when it came to these changes. First, it would affect scoring negatively. Second, it would hurt favorites as they would have less time and fewer plays to cover the number. Did the rules hurt scoring? Yes. It seemed obvious that shortening the game by what amounted to 14 plays would push scoring downward. That was the case last year. Of the 119 Division 1A teams, 69 squads scored fewer points in 2007 than they did in 2005. Just 48 teams had a higher PPG scoring average and two stayed the same. Almost 59 percent of the teams in college football last year had a lower PPG average than they did in 2005. Expect more scoring in 2007 as we revert back to the old rules. Did the rules hinder favorites from covering the number in 2007? Not really. Last year the favorites posted an overall spread record of 336-350-16 (48.9 percent). The year before, favorites were 316-326-13 (49.2 percent). In 2004, the favorites were 316-339-2 (48.2 percent). In fact, college football favorites have been above 50 percent for the season just once in the last seven years (in 2003). Last year’s numbers fell right in line with where they have been historically. How about big favorites? The rules must have hurt them? Maybe a little bit. Double-digit favorites last year came in at a 47.8 percent clip compare with an average of just over 50 percent over the last seven years. Since 1980, favorites of -10 or more have covered at exactly a 50 percent clip (measured over 6,716 games). Even bigger favorites must have struggled? Not really. In fact, it was just the opposite. Favorites of three TD’s or more were 59-54-2 last year (52.2 percent). Since 2000, those same favorites (-21 or higher) hit at 51.3 percent and since 1990 came in a clip of 50.3 percent. Stepping it up a notch to four TD favorites or higher, we actually see they've covered at a much better rate last season than before. Last year, favorites of -28 or more were 31-21-1, or almost 60 percent. Historically, four-TD-or-higher favorites have come in at a 50.7 percent spot since 2000 and only 48.9 percent since 1990. The “perceived” problem with the favorites covering at a reduced rate really never came to fruition. Bottom line is, there might be some more scoring in 2007, but no real revelations when it comes to finding any pointspread golden nuggets. To visit this online sportsbook got to MySportsbook.com for all your bet on college football needs. Mysportsbook.com online sportsbook accepts Visa and Mastercard credit cards. |
|
