Thanks to the recent ruling by the Supreme Court, sports gambling is coming to a city or state near you.
And the odds are, there will be a lot of betting on Penn State football.
Over the past two college seasons, PSU has been a good bet against the point spread, to be sure — beating it almost three out of every four games.
Call them, then, the Nittany Lines.
In 2016-17, only those potato heads from Boise State covered the point spread a higher percentage of time.
Over the past two seasons, Boise State was 18-6-1 against the point spread, covering an impressive 75% of the time. Penn State, at 18-7-2 against the spread in 2016-17, covered the spread 72% of the time — tying for No. 2 with Iowa State and Eastern Michigan. Temple (70.4%) and Wisconsin (66.7%) rounded out the Top 6.
Against the spread in 2017, Penn State was 8-4-1 (66.7%), No. 13 in the nation. In 2016, Penn State was 10-3-1 against the spread (76.9%), the second-best percentage, trailing only Temple (85.7%) and tying Colorado State.
(All statistics are sliced and diced from the website teamrankings.com.)
In 2016-17, on its way to a 22-5 on-the-field record over the past seasons, Penn State covered the point spread by more points than any other major college team. With its explosive offense and a D that gave up a TD or less five times last season, Penn State covered the spread by a nation-leading average of +7.9 points per game in 2016-17. In 2016, Penn State was No. 1 in average margin of points covered per game, at +8.5 per game.
Gives new meaning to the spread offense, huh?
Penn State’s recent two-year performance is a far cry from what James Franklin’s Nittany Lions did vs. the spread in 2014-15, when sanctions and scandal aftermath made noting a sure bet. In 2014, Penn State was 6-6-1 vs. the spread, while in 2015 the unpredictable Lions were 4-9-0 vs. the spread, a 30.9% percentage that ranked them 117th out of 128 teams — testament to everyone’s inability to figure that team out.
BY HEAD COACH
Overall, Franklin’s four teams at Penn State have been 28-22-3 (55.6%) vs. the spread, while in Bill O’Brien’s two years at Penn State in 2012-13, his teams were 14-9-1 (60.4%) against the spread. The 2012 team was a stellar 9-2-1 (81.8%) against the spread.
Under Joe Paterno’s reign in his later years the Nittany Lions were barely a 50/50 proposition on beating the spread. From 2003 — as far back as the stats from teamrankings.com were available — to 2011, Penn State was 51-57-3 (47.3%) against the spread.
The scandal-season of 2011 was tough on everyone, including bettors. Penn State was 3-10 against the spread (23.1%) that year, although 9-4 on the field after an 8-1 start. The 2003 campaign was not good, no matter how you look at it, as Penn State went 3-9 on the field and was also 3-9-0 (25%) vs. the spread.
Overall, dating back to 2003, Penn State has hardly been a sure bet. Over the past 15 seasons, the Nittany Lions have been 93-88-7 against the spread — a percentage of 51.4%, ranking them No. 46 among major college teams. Their per-game average margin of +1.9 points does rank them No. 14 overall in that category.
CJF’S PREVIOUS INSTITUTION
Franklin’s teams at Vanderbilt did well against the spread, especially in his first two seasons, when the Commodores surprised everyone.
In both 2011 and 2012, Franklin’s Vandy teams were 9-4 (69.2%) against the spread, averaging almost +7.0 points over the spread per game. In 2013, Vandy was 7-6 (53.8%) against the spread and had a +.2 point-margin over the spread.
Overall, from 2011-13 at Vanderbilt, Franklin’s teams were 25-14 against the spread, underscoring his success in Nashville.
PENN STATE VS. THE POINT SPREAD: 2003-2017
Here is how Penn State has done vs. the point spread, season by season, over the past 15 years. Records are against the spread (percentages are rounded). Points are the average amount of points Penn State covered the spread by. Field is the teams’ actual playing record.
2017 — 8-4-1 (67%), +7.2 pts. — field: 11-2
2016 — 10-3-1 (77%), +8.5 pts. — field: 11-3
2015 — 4-9-0 (31%), -2.6 pts. — field: 7-6
2014 — 6-6-1 (50%), -1.6 pts. — field: 7-6
2013 — 5-7-0 (42%), -2.2 pts. — field: 7-5
2012 — 9-2-1 (82%), +8.5 pts. — field: 8-4
2011 — 3-10-0 (23%), -2.8 pts. — field: 9-4
2010 — 5-8-0 (39%), -3.3 pts. — field: 7-6
2009 — 7-6-0 (54%), +3.3 pts. — field: 11-2
2008 — 7-4-1 (64%), +6.7 pts. — field: 11-2
2007 — 6-6-1 (50%), +1.3 pts. — field: 9-4
2006 — 6-5-1 (55%), +.8 pts. — field: 9-4
2005 — 8-4-0 (67%), +6.9 pts. — field: 11-2
2004 — 6-5-0 (55%), +1.9 pts. — field: 4-7
2003 — 3-9-0 (25%), – 4.7 pts. — field: 3-9
