Carolina @ #2 most confident bowl winner

[uncboy10]

ESPN analysts have us at #2 most confident pick out of this year's bowl season.

Thoughts?

 

[M1stman]

Considering ESPN's Matt Fortuna picked Rutgers to beat the Heels (whose defense this year spots the other team 20 points just for showing up to the game), my thoughts are that whichever analysts you're referring to are probably idiots.

 

[TarHeelNation11]

 

[M1stman]

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that RU is a sure-fire winner over UNC either. Just that there are many more bowl games this year with outcomes that I would be much more certain of -- e.g., Utah State over UTEP, Marshall over Northern Illinois, Stanford in a home game win over Maryland, etc.

 

[gunslingerdick]

UNC football and "confident winner" are not words I ever use in the same sentence.

 

[Raising Heel]

Originally posted by gunslingerdick:
UNC football and "confident winner" are not words I ever use in the same sentence...

...unless talking about the other team.

 

[mahncpa1]

It depends which UNC team shows up. If the one that pounded dook shows up, I am pretty confident. If the
one that showed up at Home, to play moou, is in Detroit, that UNC team couldn't beat a decent high school
team.

 

[uncboy10]

Originally posted by uncboy10:
ESPN analysts have us at #2 most confident pick out of this year's bowl season.

Thoughts?

I will try to find a link to what I was watching if nobody else saw it.

I came into about 3/4 of the way through but they were picking bowl winners, and ranking them by how confident they were in the pick. Unless the board reflected the inverse of their picks, we were 2nd.

Astounding, to say the least

 

[TarHeelNation11]

Originally posted by uncboy10:

Originally posted by uncboy10:
ESPN analysts have us at #2 most confident pick out of this year's bowl season.

Thoughts?

I will try to find a link to what I was watching if nobody else saw it.

I came into about 3/4 of the way through but they were picking bowl winners, and ranking them by how confident they were in the pick. Unless the board reflected the inverse of their picks, we were 2nd.

Astounding, to say the least

I know what show you're talking about. I watched it last year. I'm thinking they were assigning 2 confident points to UNC, which means they're second to least confident about that game. If they had assigned UNC 34 points, that would mean they're staking the second highest amount of confident points on UNC.

As a general rule, in my bowl pick'ems that involve confidence points, I never assign more than 5 confidence points to UNC haha.

 

[M1stman]

Originally posted by TarHeelNation11:

Originally posted by uncboy10:

Originally posted by uncboy10:
ESPN analysts have us at #2 most confident pick out of this year's bowl season.

Thoughts?

I will try to find a link to what I was watching if nobody else saw it.

I came into about 3/4 of the way through but they were picking bowl winners, and ranking them by how confident they were in the pick. Unless the board reflected the inverse of their picks, we were 2nd.

Astounding, to say the least

I know what show you're talking about. I watched it last year. I'm thinking they were assigning 2 confident points to UNC, which means they're second to least confident about that game. If they had assigned UNC 34 points, that would mean they're staking the second highest amount of confident points on UNC.

As a general rule, in my bowl pick'ems that involve confidence points, I never assign more than 5 confidence points to UNC haha.

That makes a lot more sense.

 

[Raising Heel]

Originally posted by uncboy10:

I will try to find a link to what I was watching if nobody else saw it.

I saw a screencap on Twitter. It really happened LOL. But it was just one analyst's opinion, I believe.

 

[uncboy10]

Originally posted by TarHeelNation11:

Originally posted by uncboy10:

Originally posted by uncboy10:
ESPN analysts have us at #2 most confident pick out of this year's bowl season.

Thoughts?

I will try to find a link to what I was watching if nobody else saw it.

I came into about 3/4 of the way through but they were picking bowl winners, and ranking them by how confident they were in the pick. Unless the board reflected the inverse of their picks, we were 2nd.

Astounding, to say the least

I know what show you're talking about. I watched it last year. I'm thinking they were assigning 2 confident points to UNC, which means they're second to least confident about that game. If they had assigned UNC 34 points, that would mean they're staking the second highest amount of confident points on UNC.

As a general rule, in my bowl pick'ems that involve confidence points, I never assign more than 5 confidence points to UNC haha.

That would make a lot more sense.

 

[grillheel]

The headline on page 1 of the site (I don't have premium so I haven't read the article) does not help my confidence. I'm just hoping the offense shows up and can out-score Rutgers, but, after the moo game, I'm not sure about that either.

 

[uncboy10]

Originally posted by grillheel:
The headline on page 1 of the site (I don't have premium so I haven't read the article) does not help my confidence. I'm just hoping the offense shows up and can out-score Rutgers, but, after the moo game, I'm not sure about that either.

I'm saving all my hope for us landing Chizik or Durkin. I honestly don't think I've ever cared less about a Carolina football game

 

[AreYouNUTS]

Hey guys was just stopping by and saw this thread. If you were watching the ESPN Bowl Special it was a "confidence" choice which, actually, means you're only betting 2 points, out of anywhere from 1-to-38 points (the # of bowl games), that UNC would win the game. Essentially he was saying that UNC/RU is the 2nd most difficult game to pick in this bowl season.

Good luck guys, Go RU!

 

[HeelFan58]

Who ever made that pick obviously lives in a dimension where a mediocre moo team didn't run us off our own field.

 

[Veiox]

Shows you how much these experts know. LOL

This post was edited on 12/26 8:23 PM by Veiox

 

[FastMJ]

The whole point of the OP was completely wrong. #2 meant that it was the 2nd LEAST confident pick (2nd lowest confidence).