Shortly after Cal put last Saturday’s football game
against UCLA out of reach, things got really interesting.
As the Bears’ lead teetered between two and three scores,
a vested audience remained glued to its television sets, erupting
at every inconsequential touchdown.
J.J. Arrington’s 9-yard scamper into the end zone with a
minute and a half left ensured a 17-point victory for Cal and a
payoff for the bettors needing the Bears to cover the 14.5 point
spread.
I couldn’t help but think how ironic it was that so much
could ride on a game in which the final result was a forgone
conclusion. But that’s the beauty of point spreads, giving
meaning to the meaningless.
“My Bruins could be losing, but I could be personally
winning,” said Pam Masamitsu, a UCLA alumna who put money on
her Bruins for Saturday’s game. “I was more into the
game at the end than Cal’s student section was.”
From the high-stakes Vegas addicts who don’t care about a
sport unless their money is riding on it to the co-worker who
becomes more interested when there’s an office pool, the
point spread can make a sporting event a little more appealing for
just about everyone.
On Saturday, Tom Schneider’s 28-yard field goal for the
Bears with four minutes remaining merely reinforced an outcome that
seemed fairly obvious, but it did a whole lot to comfort those who
bet on the favorite. Joe Cowan’s 46-yard touchdown reception
90 seconds later didn’t really improve UCLA’s hopes of
winning the game, but it put bettors picking the underdog in a
winning position.
“When (Cowan) scored that touchdown I was back in the
money,” Masamitsu said. “I was hoping my little Bruins
could hold on, but then Cal scored and I was thinking, “˜Oh
no.’ I was back out of the money.”
I have to give credit to the oddsmakers for pegging the spread
so accurately. They could have reasoned that Arrington running into
UCLA’s defensive line would produce a four-touchdown
differential. Or they could have concluded that since both teams
were 4-1 heading into the contest, they were evenly matched.
But the 14.5 point spread was a perfect balance, creating a
nail-biting finish for the bettors.
Unfortunately, it was hard to find current UCLA students who got
swept up in this gambling goldmine of a game ““ maybe they
were a little too embarrassed to admit betting for or against the
Bruins.
However, it’s most likely that I was looking in all the
wrong areas. I tended to ask the people I know, which as a senior,
are predominantly upperclassmen. Yet as I think about it, this
isn’t the crowd that puts money on UCLA.
This is a fairly intelligent group who has learned their lessons
in three years time. After the three recent collapses in football,
they seem to understand that betting on UCLA pays off only slightly
more than a USC education.
At the same time, they have enough school pride and sense of
history not to bet against the Bruins either. I remember picking
the Bruins’ basketball team to advance to the finals of the
Pac-10 tournament as a naïve freshman. After they faltered to
Cal in the first round, I vowed never to make that mistake again
and pegged them to lose in the first round of the NCAA tournament.
Of course, I didn’t take into account the magic/curse of
Steve Lavin. So I went back to the drawing board and decided
it’s best not to bet on the Bruins one way or the other.
It’s the underclassmen who are struggling to grasp this
concept. The one student I found who bet on Saturday’s game
was a sophomore who took UCLA without even taking advantage of the
14.5 point spread. Needless to say, he still has some growing up to
do.
Losing money will probably teach him a much needed lesson.
An understanding of history pays off. Foolish optimism
doesn’t.
E-mail Finley your worst bet at
afinley@media.ucla.edu.