Is that because less effort or information goes into setting the spread?
I've thought about it a lot over the years but don't know how logical the first part is: I think some of it has to do with less volume of bets as a result of less interest. The spread is set and then books adjust as needed, mostly, to balance play on both sides. With less volume driving a change in the spread, it won't have as much "public correction" if an opening line is off.
I think some of the really, really bad teams in the bottom conferences are easy to predict and bet against. For instance, Bowling Green . . . just an awful team. They'd have trouble completing 50% of their passes with no defense on the field, and I'm not joking. Unless they were playing UMass or UL-Monroe, they were going to get blasted by any other bad team. They simply can't do the most basic of football functions.
On the other hand, a really bad team from the SEC (Vandy) can do those basic things. They are bad (0-9), but they can still play the game.
Every game has freak things that really aren't based on if a team is good or bad: a wet ball results in a bad snap or dropped punt; a defensive back gets his feet tied up and falls on a pass play; a QB about to throw a pass has the ball fall backwards for a fumble. Those freak things don't happen based on a team being good or bad. But a good team is usually in a position to take advantage of them while a bad team isn't.
If a defensive back falls down against Bowling Green, there is a good chance they still overthrow or under throw the wide open receiver. If a defensive back slips against Vandy, Vandy can complete the pass in stride for a TD. If a punt returner bobbles a wet football, Bowling Green may not have fast enough coverage players to take advantage of the bobble. A bad SEC team has athletes that can at least run down the field and turn that into a turnover.
Alabama is immensely better than Vandy, but Vandy can at least do the basic things to take advantage of two of those freak plays in a game which could be a 14-28 point swing based on those two plays. Bowling Green isn't good enough to take advantage of those freak plays, so even if Akron were to have some of them, there is a good chance BUGS can't capitalize on them.
It's also why I hate betting on NFL. Those teams are so good that they will take advantage of those freak plays that you simply can't predict will happen in a game. So a bad team is able to take advantage of them and beat a good team. I had a big weekend last week, so I threw $1000 down on two Sunday games. I pushed on both of them. My pick had big leads late in the game, but once an NFL team does that, they play so conservatively based on the clock that teams can come back and cover the spread. Everything is so precise in the NFL, that a team with a big league will have not problem giving up a couple of quick TDs late knowing that their precision with the clock and what they can have happen makes it very hard to bet on.
So those freak things that happen in games with bad teams from good conferences can impact the score, but many times those freak things
