SB Betting Lines Early Years

[BD Sullivan]

[As for Don Shula in championship games, here's an interesting note that I believe comes from Allen Barra: Shula's teams lost five title games: 1964 against Cleveland, 1968 against the Jets, 1971 against the Cowboys, 1982 against the Redskins, 1984 against the 49ers. And if I'm remember this right, that meaningless TD they scored at the end of the Super Bowl against the Jets represents the only points his teams scored in the second half of any of those games.

Of course, Shula was still a great coach, but that's an unusually bad record. Just like Bobby Layne was a great quarterback, but his playoff passing stats are really poor. Even the great ones have their difficulties.

The 1964 loss to Cleveland is almost as much of an upset as SB III. Those 1964 Colts were one of the great statistical teams in NFL history. #1 in offense and defense...pass catching group of Berry-Orr-Mackey...Lenny Moore had 19 TDs...Unitas had a 96.4 rating...Marchetti was consensus 1st team All-Pro at age 37. The 1964 Browns had their share of great players, but I think it was surprising how not only did the Colts lose to Cleveland, they were shut out.

Some of the Browns players have said that they got motivation the morning of the game when they left their local hotel and were met by Colts rooters heckling them, with one of them playing "Taps" on a bugle.

The San Diego Union Tribune had 15 of their sportswriters pick the game, with 12 of them picking the Colts--including Jack Murphy, who picked them to win by 7. One of the guys who selected the Browns was Jerry Magee, which may have been his way of annoying other NFL writers who referred to him as an AFL apologist.

According to the Arthur Daley of the New York Times, the Colts had "too many weapons" and that his choice was made without any hesitation.

Of course, some of the surviving Browns' memories get a little bit on the delusional side. One who was interviewed a few years ago in conjunction with the 50th anniversary, claimed that the Browns were 24-point underdogs, which isn't in the same galaxy as the truth.

[mwald]

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

No team has been a four touchdown favorite in the Super Bowl. In 1995, the 49ers were as much as a 19-point favorite over San Diego (and they won by 23), and the remains the biggest spread in the game's history. As for Steelers and the Rams in Super Bowl XIV, the line was 10 1/2 on game day, still relatively high.

Generally speaking there are two kinds of lines: The line that accurately reflects the relative strengths of each team in a contest, and the line that doesn't but is a function of achieving balanced action. Interesting that the two biggest pointspreads in Super Bowl history are an example of each.

SF as a 19 point favorite over SD turned out to be pretty accurate. Baltimore as a 17 favorite (it actually crept up to 18 before settling at 17) over the Jets did not, but the lack of respect for the Jets was so great the linemaker had no choice.

In an oft-repeated story, Bob Martin got a letter from a (I think it was) a journalism student asking him if he was embarrassed for being so wrong about Super Bowl III. "To the contrary," he replied. "I think it was one of the best lines we ever put up. It split the action right down the middle."

[74_75_78_79_]

The odds-makers sure got SBV right, making Colts a 2.5 favorite. Same with SBXIII & SBXIV making Steelers 3.5 and 10.5 respectively.

A few surprises/questions looking at old spreads...

Why were Niners only a one-point favorite over Cincy in Pontiac?? They had a better record, clubbed them at Riverfront during regular season, 21-3, and of course swept Dallas. I do remember others in-general seeming to forget that going into the game as well, many picking Cincy to win. No respect for Niners, it seemed.

How about Dolphins being favored by 3 over Wash in '82? Quite ironic being that the team with the lesser record also was favored 10 years earlier in SBVII? Was it Washington kicking too many field goals during that strike-shortened season? Yes, they had a soft schedule losing (at home, 10-24) to the only quality team they played against...Dallas. However, they did redeem themselves in the NFCC. I guess Shula's playoff/SB-experience played a factor.

Through the years I thought I recalled hearing a few times that Vikings were favored over Pittsburgh going into SBIX.

[BD Sullivan]

The odds-makers sure got SBV right, making Colts a 2.5 favorite. Same with SBXIII & SBXIV making Steelers 3.5 and 10.5 respectively.

A few surprises/questions looking at old spreads...

Why were Niners only a one-point favorite over Cincy in Pontiac?? They had a better record, clubbed them at Riverfront during regular season, 21-3, and of course swept Dallas. I do remember others in-general seeming to forget that going into the game as well, many picking Cincy to win. No respect for Niners, it seemed.

It might have been that the Niners had to win (while almost losing-save for the Pearson horse collar tackle) the NFCCC in dramatic fashion. Meanwhile, the Bengals had dominated their game in absolutely brutal conditions and were now going to play in ideal circumstances. To a lesser extent, the relative proximity of Cincy to Detroit might have have also factored in.

[Evan]

The odds-makers sure got SBV right, making Colts a 2.5 favorite. Same with SBXIII & SBXIV making Steelers 3.5 and 10.5 respectively.

A few surprises/questions looking at old spreads...

Why were Niners only a one-point favorite over Cincy in Pontiac?? They had a better record, clubbed them at Riverfront during regular season, 21-3, and of course swept Dallas. I do remember others in-general seeming to forget that going into the game as well, many picking Cincy to win. No respect for Niners, it seemed.

It might have been that the Niners had to win (while almost losing-save for the Pearson horse collar tackle) the NFCCC in dramatic fashion. Meanwhile, the Bengals had dominated their game in absolutely brutal conditions and were now going to play in ideal circumstances. To a lesser extent, the relative proximity of Cincy to Detroit might have have also factored in.

Before the Cin-SF Super Bowl, the AFC had won 8 of the previous 9 Super Bowls so they had a lot of perceived superiority going for them. Also, Ken Anderson had been a top-level QB for most of the 70s and appeared to be better than ever in 1981, while some thought Montana might have been a Cinderella waiting for the clock to strike midnight.

[74_75_78_79_]

The odds-makers sure got SBV right, making Colts a 2.5 favorite. Same with SBXIII & SBXIV making Steelers 3.5 and 10.5 respectively.

A few surprises/questions looking at old spreads...

Why were Niners only a one-point favorite over Cincy in Pontiac?? They had a better record, clubbed them at Riverfront during regular season, 21-3, and of course swept Dallas. I do remember others in-general seeming to forget that going into the game as well, many picking Cincy to win. No respect for Niners, it seemed.

It might have been that the Niners had to win (while almost losing-save for the Pearson horse collar tackle) the NFCCC in dramatic fashion. Meanwhile, the Bengals had dominated their game in absolutely brutal conditions and were now going to play in ideal circumstances. To a lesser extent, the relative proximity of Cincy to Detroit might have have also factored in.

Before the Cin-SF Super Bowl, the AFC had won 8 of the previous 9 Super Bowls so they had a lot of perceived superiority going for them. Also, Ken Anderson had been a top-level QB for most of the 70s and appeared to be better than ever in 1981, while some thought Montana might have been a Cinderella waiting for the clock to strike midnight.

Pretty good points, guys. All makes sense. Perhaps it was that SF was a new, different-kind-of winning team and that Cincy had that grizzled, obvious hard-nosed aura like previous, traditional champion teams that may have played a factor in making them only a 1-point dog. Tough Forrest Greg, a Lombardi disciple, versus Bill Walsh who, of course, was a tough guy too (boxing background to boot) but didn't have that stereotypical image of one (a 'new' kind of winning coach whom Paul Brown himself said wasn't "tough" if only, in all likelihood, to prevent teams from hiring him away from him). Pretty much the case for the rest of the team despite a Hacksaw Reynolds and Fred Dean joining forces. The entire decade they were labeled a 'finesse' team despite it, of course, being far as possible from the truth. Disrespect was the ongoing theme for SF throughout that entire '81 campaign. As was noted in America's Game, they were all 'waiting in vain' for the MNF halftime highlight show to 'give them props' after demolishing Dallas, 45-14, the day before but to no avail. And then, three years later, Miami getting all the Marino pre-game hype...