The one college football betting error we should strive NOT to make, however, is over-analyzing a situation or reaching for answers that are unnecessary because the correct answer is already provided.
The 2005 Duke Blue Devils demonstrated to college football betting fans that some times, a bad team is simply a bad team and there is so sense trying to get cute and figure out when they will get good or cover the big numbers. To put it another way, its a wise NCAA football betting policy to avoid wagering on no good rotten stink bomb teams like 2005 Duke.
Although they have been a downright awful college football betting program for as long as most of us can remember, Duke has occasionally been a decent bargain value on the college football betting boards.
In 2004, for example, despite going just 2-9 straight up, the Blue Devils went a most profitable 7-3 against the spread as gamblers were able to use Duke to take advantage of overlays by their better and more respected opponents. Duke had a similar season in 2002 when they went 2-10 straight up but a strong 8-4 against the spread.
Entering the 2005 season with most of their starters returning, many college football betting fans thought that, once again, Duke would be a sound and live bargain dog that would bite overlays consistently.
Unfortunately, as all gamblers must learn, the oddsmakers also knew of Duke's more favorable reputation with the sharper college football gamblers and they would be taking away some points from the Blue Devils, depleting their overall value on the NCAA football betting boards.
Duke's opening game should have been an immediate warning of big time trouble as they were in the unusual role of 3-point road chalks at woeful and rebuilding East Carolina, losing 21-24 to demonstrate that, (1) they had no value and, (2) they had no ability to compete in the ACC.
Sure enough Duke didn't cover a single game against the line until their season finale at rival North Carolina, where as a whopping 22.5-point dog they finally provided value in a 21-24 loss. Duke did provide gamblers a valuable lesson in being careful to know a dog from a “dog.”