Wednesday, the Colts finally confirmed what we all expected: Peyton Manning will not be under center Sunday when Indianapolis kicks off the 2011 campaign against Houston.

And that might be the least of Indy’s problems. According to an alert my buddy forwarded me from Footballguys.com, the Colts QB might actually miss the entire NFL season as he recovers from neck surgery.

Bad news for me, and I wish I’d gotten it a day earlier. I rolled the dice on Manning in one of the later rounds of my fantasy football draft Wednesday, so I sure hope Philip Rivers stays healthy this year.

Good news, perhaps, for fans of the Texans, Titans and Jaguars, all of whom are hoping to unseat Indy as the AFC South champion. Indianapolis has won the division seven of eight years since realignment in 2001.

Fans of the Patriots, Steelers and Jets might also not mind hearing the news of the potential demise of the perennial AFC threat.

It got me wondering if anyone is actually legitimately happy that No. 18 might not be lining up for the Colts this year. Manning’s pre-snap audibling and antics definitely get a little tiring after a while, but this guy is a special talent. In my mind, the NFL wouldn’t be as special without him around.

Anyone hoping that Manning doesn’t play this year?

2 comments  |  Add a comment

After subscribing to services for a few years, I finally turned to the Covers forums this season for some help. And there are obviously quite a few really sharp people that graciously post their picks in the forums, who have been a big help to me this year. Guys like Bodio, Louis, HappyKane and Target_9 have become daily reading for me in baseball, while 44 Dimes and Crazymilkman have been really strong in WNBA.

Who are the best guys to consult/follow in the Covers forums when it comes to NCAA football? Not really concerned about total units won, since everyone seems to have a different system. I'm a flat bettor and bet the same on all plays, looking for posters that generally hit 54% or higher. Any advice who to follow?

11 comments  |  Add a comment

I just returned from a week in Cuba, and damn am I glad to be back.

And it’s not just because of the food, although anyone who’s been to Castro Country knows how awful the culinary choices are down there. (They’re even worse if you try to brave a 3.5 star hotel to save a few bucks – we lasted a couple days before upgrading hotels.)

I’m especially glad to be back because sports can mean something to me again.

Sure, we got ESPN at our hotel (in both English and Spanish) so I was able to keep up to date on goings-on and watch the occasional baseball game. But as I sat on my bed watching the scores and updates trickle along ESPN’s bottom line, I realized something: betting on sports has robbed me of the pleasure of simply watching a game with nothing on the line.

Watching the Braves rally for three runs in the bottom of the ninth to beat Brian Wilson and the Giants last week was interesting, but it would have been a hell of a lot better if I had a bet on Atlanta. Admittedly, even if I’d had money riding on San Francisco, there would still have been that adrenaline rush and subsequent crash.

The following day,  I managed to get some Internet access and lay a few wagers. All of a sudden, I couldn’t wait for the games to be on that night.

I hear a few days off from betting can be a good thing – clear the mind, relieve some stress, focus on something else. But once the game comes on TV, I want to be part of the action.

Anyone else find that betting on sports has made it difficult for you to simply enjoy a game without having a wager on it?

29 comments  |  Add a comment

The framing is up, the electrical has been wired, the drywall’s been hung and the taping is done.

Now the real fun begins.

I’ve been spending most of my free time over the last couple months building a man cave in my new home. The basement was unfinished when my wife and I bought our house, leaving an empty canvas with plenty of possibilities.

It’s not the biggest basement in the world — about 550 square feet. Some of that got eaten up by the laundry room, while we managed to squeeze in a small bathroom and office area along the back wall.

It’s left a main area of 16 feet by 16 feet, which is still large enough to have some fun.

The home theatre portion of the project has been taken care of. We’ve got a projector that gives us a high-definition picture of up to 100 inches on the one wall, and wires for the surround sound have been run inside the ceiling and walls to each corner of the room.

The PlayStation 3 will be our DVD player, since you can connect it to your wireless network and play movies off your computer. It’s also handy for some pretty sick games of Madden.

For lighting, we’ve got pot lights in the ceiling and one large light in the middle of the room, on different switches and with a dimmer for the pot lights.

The next steps are painting and decorating, so I’m looking for ideas.

I’m shooting for a sports bar look with a few photos and an autographed Gretzky jersey on the walls. A picture of the Las Vegas strip is also in the plans, and maybe we'll work in a couple photos or posters from a few classic movies.

We’re going to squeeze in a small bar along one of the walls in a different area of the basement, but still within view of the projector screen. There will be enough room for a beer fridge, a ledge for drinks and maybe a couple bar stools.

We’ll throw up a dart board on one of the walls as well. I’ve been scouring ebay to try and find a decently-priced darts cabinet with a beer logo on the front of it.

For paint, I’ve talked my wife out of going with a dark colour in the basement, since it will suck all the light out of the room and make it look smaller. I’m leaning towards a tan brown and maybe an accent wall that will frame the projector screen.

What does your man cave look like? What would you suggest for decorating a basement home theatre to look like a sports bar? I’m curious to hear what other ideas are out there.

24 comments  |  Add a comment

If you bet playoff basketball at all, you’ve no doubt heard about the zig-zag theory.

The zig-zag theory, of course, suggests that you should bet teams coming off a loss during a series, since they’ll be the more desperate club and their opponent might be complacent.

Although the theory proved to be effective in the 1980s and 90s, it hasn’t done so well over the past decade or so. Covers Expert Ted Sevransky wrote a pretty interesting piece debunking the theory a few days ago.

But what if the zig-zag theory can be applied to more than just sides?

I know we’re not even a week into the playoffs, but I noticed a pretty interesting pattern regarding totals in the first-round matchups: six of the eight series saw a different result for the over/under in Game 2 than they did in Game 1.

The Miami/Philadelphia and Boston/New York series were the only matchups that saw both the first and second games finish with similar results against the total. The Heat and Sixers went under by four in Game 1, then under by 23 in Game 2. The Celts and Knicks went under by 25 in their opener, then under by 3.5 in the second game.

In the rest of the series, if you bet the opposite of the over/under result in Game 1, you came out a big winner in Game 2.

Chicago and Indiana, who went over by 15 points in Game 1, went under by seven in Game 2. Dallas and Portland were under the total by 16.5 points in Game 1, then went over by six the following game. Orlando and Atlanta were over by 15.5 points, then under by 12.5. The Lakers and Hornets were over by 27, then under by 24. Denver and the Thunder went over by 5.5, then under by 11. And Memphis/San Antonio were over by 2.5, then under by 14.5.

Coincidence? I’m not so sure, especially when these games are going over or under the total by double digits.

The ziz-zag theory exploited the increased focus and adjustments made by teams that lost their previous playoff game. I think it can be extended to totals as well. After all, when a team gets lit up at the defensive end in a playoff game, where do you think the coach’s focus is going to be in preparation for the next contest?

After his team gave up 38- and 30-point quarters in an opening-game loss to the Hawks, Magic coach Stan Van Gundy promised better defensive play from Orlando in Game 2.

“I was disappointed in our inability to guard them,” Van Gundy said after Game 1. “You’re not going to stop everybody every night, but their five key guys, we didn’t do a good job against any of them. We need to make some adjustments there.”

Orlando held Atlanta to 82 points in Game 2, 21 less than the Hawks scored in Game 1.

The Lakers got picked apart for 109 points against by the Hornets in the opening game of their series. Then, needing a win to square up the series, L.A. limited New Orleans to 78 points in Game 2.

It’ll be interesting to see if this very early trend of zig-zagging totals continues in the third games of these series. Or maybe it’s just better to pick your spots when teams have struggled at one end of the floor the previous game.

What do you guys think? Am I onto something here at all, or is it way too early to tell?

3 comments  |  Add a comment