Remember the original betting odds on Strong?

[aowells]

It's been my observation that prop odds posted by betting sites for public events (who's going to win Survivor, who will play the lead in an upcoming movie etc.) are usually only made available when the bookie has really solid information on the outcome. They're rarely wrong and it would seem they've talked to someone on the film crew, they have info through backchannels etc. ***The payouts are so bad on these that the bookie could be way off and still make money, but typically they aren't

When the odds hit the media a couple weeks ago indicating that Charlie Strong was the favourite it seemed absurd to most of us. Given what we know now, do you think that:

A) Charlie Strong was always the obvious choice and we've just been deluding ourselves

B) Charlie Strong was always a favourite of Patterson's and the bookie had better information than we did

C) It was a fluke prediction that just might end up happening

Here are the odds printed on Dec. 17th.

Charlie Strong (Louisville): 2/1

Art Briles (Baylor): 9/2,

James Franklin (Vanderbilt): 5/1

Mike Gundy (OK State): 7/1

Bill O’Brien (Penn State): 15/2

Chip Kelly (Philadelphia Eagles): 10/1

Jim Mora (UCLA): 10/1

David Shaw (Stanford): 10/1

Jimbo Fisher (FSU): 15/1

Jim Harbaugh (San Francisco 49ers): 20/1

Mike Tomlin (Pittsburgh Steelers): 20/1

 

[ski2488]

In the first odds that were released, David Shaw actually was #1 on the list (worst odds).

 

[Topstarr]

So Strong is the new coach. Thanks

 

[scooterhorn]

The thing i don't get is why Saban is nowhere listed on those odds and hasn't been for weeks. If those guys truly know something, positive or negative, why wouldn't there be some odds?

 

[texasfright]

Why would we risk losing recruits and sit on Strong for 7 days after his bowl game? Especially considering that he would have likely left even before the bowl game if we had made it a condition of employment. I think the obvious answer is that he's a back up if our top targets say "no."

 

[aowells]

Why would we risk losing recruits and sit on Strong for 7 days after his bowl game? Especially considering that he would have likely left even before the bowl game if we had made it a condition of employment. I think the obvious answer is that he's a back up if our top targets say "no."

I also suspect he's a backup, but I just hope our preferred choices are likelier than 15-1!