One popular form of preseason wagering is the so-called "Games of the Year", where a book posts lines on games ranging from week 2 all the way to Army-Navy at the end of the year. I've taken a look at the current lines as posted by 5Dimes, and am posting picks against those lines. Confidence levels range from 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest), and for many lines the system is simply passing. The full table of lines and picks is below:
Game of the Year Lines and Picks
| Team1 | Team2 | Line | Confidence | Pick |
| Miami (Florida) | Kansas State | 7.5 | 0 | |
| Washington | Louisiana State | 21.5 | 2 | Washington |
| Georgia | Missouri | -4.5 | 1 | Missouri |
| Florida | Texas A&M | -4 | 1 | Florida |
| Iowa State | Iowa | 7.5 | 0 | |
| Southern California | Syracuse | -24 | 1 | Syracuse |
| Nebraska | UCLA | -6.5 | 3 | UCLA |
| Pittsburgh | Cincinnati | 2.5 | 0 | |
| Oklahoma State | Arizona | -9.5 | 1 | Oklahoma State |
| Washington State | Nevada-Las Vegas | -16 | 1 | Nevada-Las Vegas |
| Alabama | Arkansas | -5 | 1 | Alabama |
| Florida | Tennessee | -4 | 1 | Florida |
| Southern California | Stanford | -11.5 | 4 | Stanford |
| Notre Dame | Michigan State | 2.5 | 0 | |
| Louisiana State | Auburn | -9.5 | 4 | Auburn |
| Clemson | Florida State | 10.5 | 0 | |
| Kansas State | Oklahoma | 16.5 | 1 | Oklahoma |
| Missouri | South Carolina | 5 | 0 | |
| California | Southern California | 24 | 1 | California |
| Michigan | Notre Dame | 2.5 | 2 | Michigan |
| Mississippi | Alabama | 30.5 | 0 | |
| Tennessee | Georgia | 11.5 | 0 | |
| Ohio State | Michigan State | 2.5 | 3 | Ohio State |
| Texas | Oklahoma State | 1.5 | 3 | Texas |
| Arkansas | Texas A&M | -3.5 | 1 | Texas A&M |
| Baylor | West Virginia | 12 | 0 | |
| Wisconsin | Nebraska | 3 | 1 | Nebraska |
| Southern California | Utah | -13.5 | 4 | Utah |
| Arkansas | Auburn | -4.5 | 4 | Auburn |
| Louisiana State | Florida | -4.5 | 3 | Florida |
| Kansas | Kansas State | 20 | 1 | Kansas |
| Washington | Oregon | 20 | 0 | |
| Georgia | South Carolina | -2 | 1 | South Carolina |
| West Virginia | Texas | 6.5 | 1 | Texas |
| Miami (Florida) | Notre Dame | 10 | 0 | |
| Nebraska | Ohio State | 4.5 | 0 | |
| Nevada | Nevada-Las Vegas | -16 | 3 | Nevada-Las Vegas |
| Alabama | Missouri | -13.5 | 1 | Missouri |
| Southern California | Washington | -16.5 | 3 | Washington |
| Texas | Oklahoma | 7 | 2 | Texas |
| Stanford | Notre Dame | 5.5 | 3 | Stanford |
| Stanford | California | -4 | 2 | Stanford |
| South Carolina | Florida | 5 | 0 | |
| Florida State | Miami (Florida) | -11 | 1 | Florida State |
| Michigan State | Michigan | 5.5 | 0 | |
| Alabama | Tennessee | -14 | 0 | |
| Baylor | Texas | 14 | 2 | Texas |
| Louisiana State | Texas A&M | -10 | 1 | Texas A&M |
| Colorado | Southern California | 36 | 1 | Southern California |
| Kansas State | West Virginia | 7 | 0 | |
| Nevada-Las Vegas | Boise State | 35.5 | 0 | |
| Brigham Young | Notre Dame | 7.5 | 3 | Brigham Young |
| Cincinnati | Louisville | 5 | 1 | Cincinnati |
| Mississippi State | Alabama | 23.5 | 2 | Mississippi State |
| Southern California | Arizona | -16 | 0 | |
| Texas A&M | Auburn | 4 | 1 | Auburn |
| Notre Dame | Oklahoma | 12 | 1 | Oklahoma |
| Texas Christian | Oklahoma State | 7.5 | 4 | Texas Christian |
| Tennessee | South Carolina | 6.5 | 0 | |
| Michigan State | Wisconsin | 5 | 2 | Michigan State |
| Florida | Georgia | 3.5 | 2 | Florida |
| Michigan | Nebraska | 2 | 1 | Michigan |
| Virginia Tech | Miami (Florida) | -6.5 | 1 | Miami (Florida) |
| Missouri | Florida | 7.5 | 0 | |
| Oklahoma State | Kansas State | -2 | 0 | |
| Nebraska | Michigan State | 5 | 2 | Nebraska |
| Oregon | Southern California | 3.5 | 4 | Oregon |
| Texas Christian | West Virginia | 6 | 3 | Texas Christian |
| Pittsburgh | Notre Dame | 13 | 1 | Pittsburgh |
| Alabama | Louisiana State | 1.5 | 1 | Alabama |
| Florida State | Virginia Tech | -3 | 1 | Florida State |
| Pittsburgh | Connecticut | -2.5 | 0 | |
| Texas A&M | Alabama | 20 | 0 | |
| Georgia | Auburn | -5.5 | 3 | Auburn |
| Notre Dame | Boston College | -10.5 | 4 | Boston College |
| Mississippi State | Louisiana State | 17 | 3 | Mississippi State |
| Baylor | Oklahoma | 20 | 1 | Oklahoma |
| West Virginia | Oklahoma State | 5 | 1 | West Virginia |
| Arkansas | South Carolina | -2 | 3 | South Carolina |
| Kansas State | Texas Christian | 5 | 1 | Texas Christian |
| Missouri | Tennessee | 2.5 | 2 | Missouri |
| Arizona State | Southern California | 27 | 0 | |
| Mississippi | Louisiana State | 27.5 | 0 | |
| Stanford | Oregon | 13.5 | 0 | |
| Southern California | UCLA | -14 | 3 | UCLA |
| Ohio State | Wisconsin | 4.5 | 4 | Ohio State |
| Oklahoma | West Virginia | -3.5 | 1 | Oklahoma |
| Louisiana State | Arkansas | -3.5 | 0 | |
| Washington | Washington State | -1 | 2 | Washington |
| Arizona State | Arizona | 7 | 1 | Arizona State |
| Auburn | Alabama | 19.5 | 2 | Auburn |
| South Carolina | Clemson | 2.5 | 0 | |
| Florida | Florida State | 6.5 | 1 | Florida |
| Mississippi State | Mississippi | -10 | 0 | |
| Michigan | Ohio State | 4 | 0 | |
| Oklahoma State | Oklahoma | 10 | 0 | |
| Oregon | Oregon State | -16.5 | 0 | |
| Texas Christian | Texas | 8.5 | 1 | Texas Christian |
| Missouri | Texas A&M | 3 | 2 | Missouri |
| Notre Dame | Southern California | 13 | 1 | Notre Dame |
| Texas | Kansas State | -6 | 1 | Texas |
| Oklahoma | Texas Christian | -8 | 2 | Texas Christian |
| Army | Navy | 3.5 | 1 | Army |
There are a few important notes and caveats I need to make about this model:
1) Compu-Picks does not endorse implicitly or explicitly any form of illegal gambling. Compu-Picks is intended to be used for entertainment purposes only.
2) No guarantee or warranty is offered or implied by Compu-Picks for any information provided and/or predictions made.
3) This preseason model is primarily based on the main compu-picks model. Essentially, it attempts to predict how well a team will rate given its rating history, as well as a number of other data points, such as returning starters, draft talent lost, turnovers, recruiting, etc. This means, among other things, that the rankings are power rankings based on how good a team projects to be, as opposed to a more cynical (though accurate) model that attempts to project how the BCS will rank a team by making adjustments to favor those with easy schedules and punish those with tough schedules.
2012 Compu-Picks Blog
Questions, comments or suggestions? Email me at cfn_ms@hotmail.com
