To be clear, he's just reporting the odds from the bookmaker, he didn't actually set them. As for Pitt having better odds than us, it's logical really. It's still a huge long shot, but they did beat ACC champ Florida State this year and were one of only three teams to sweep North Carolina. Furthermore, no A-10 team has ever won the national championship even dominant ones like Camby's UMass or Nelson's St. Joe's. A team like Richmond this year goes 14-4 in conference and has to hope to even make the NCAA tournament. On the other hand a team like NC State in 83 can finish barely above .500 in the ACC and go on to win the title. I'm not saying Pitt is a good team by any means. Next season's City Game is one we can finally do more than just hope to win. They probably are closer to a national championship than us though, even if they are still miles away.

Last edited by luckymcd (3/28/2020 9:05 am)

Whoever set the odds line - the object is to handicap the whole field realistically. The odds should reflect the chances the handicapper thinks the "betting public" would think are reasonable. If a gambling establishment offered unusually high odds on a probable top-20 team, bettors would swamp the establishment with wagers. 

As a fan and alumnus, I would put a bet on the Dukes at 750-1. As a horseplayer, I would not be as eager to do so.

Lucky's rationale is good - even if the Dukes are a better team than Pitt, part of the odds-making has to be a team's chances of getting an at-large bid. And the A-10 is not going to get a lot of those.