Quote:The point of my post was calling you out for always having preemptive excuses. For CMU it was, if we lose, it will be because Frankilin isn't 100%, because it's a rivalry and because it's at CMU
For the CMU game, it's closer to what you describe but still not it. I put the weight on WMU to lose because I believed Franklin wouldn't play much because of his injury AND CMU wins @CMU when playing WMU. 2 wins since the mid-70s. That's it. In 2000, when we were #26 in the nation, flying high, already locked to win the MAC West -- and then we lost to a PITIFUL CMU team @CMU in the final game.
Why I highly disagree with your label is because I wasn't "if we lose, it's because" -- it's we'll probably lose because of X & Y combo. So? Who doesn't say that a team will likely win or lose because of X & Y against a comparable team?
Quote:In other words, you're saying, if NIU wins, it's because Franklin is hurt.
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the spread should Still favor WMU regardless, but be higher if he wasn't, lower since he is. It's at WMU and NIU is re-building/adjusting this year and hasn't shown itself as a powerhouse this year due to that. As an NIU fan pointed out, WMU's an(other) injury away from not being that great and losing to NIU, because WMU's not deep and NIU is pretty deep. I guess he's just as "guilty"? :)
Again, I'm saying WMU should get the point spread in their favor (=expecting WMU to win by chances), regardless. Just a bigger spread IF Franklin were 100%. I think the point spread is too high because they, like others, didn't see/factoring Franklin crawling off the side of the field into the full sidelines in pain and the re-aggravation near the end of it. He's not just a starting RB. He's more than just that to the team's performance. So yes, I would say it's basically Even, hence, WMU with just a home-field advantage and just a bit expected to win. Not a shocker by any means if NIU wins if they bring their A-game.
If Hare muffed up his throwing shoulder some, and NIU was going to play Maddie 90% of the time and Hare 10% of the time instead -- I'd be applying the same kind of logic to adjusting a spread/expectations. Why is that so weird/controversial?